Wikipedia:Peer review/Vishnu sahasranama/archive1

Vishnu sahasranama

This article is good. More changes could be made.

Raj2004 23:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the topic to give specific advice on the content, but the section titled "Benefits of chanting Vishnu Sahasranama" appears to be bordering on non-neutral. That portion could do with a lot less simple recitation and a lot more critical analysis. The quotes section looks to be poorly formatted and the bullets should be replaced by in-line text. Otherwise overall it looks pretty decent. Thanks. — RJH 14:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits come at the end of Vishnu sahasranama and are part of the prayer. so it's not a point of view.

Raj2004 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry, but a simple recitation of a prayer is not neutral. It is entirely from the point of view of the religion and involves no analysis or critique. It is purely a form of religious advocacy. WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. — RJH 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the quoted text from the prayer. I am not advocating a point of view.

Quotes are not expected to be neutral. Now, if someone can find some criticism of the prayer, it should be included. Are you aware of any such criticism of this specific prayer, Raj? I tried to address the format concerns in the quotes section, btw. Sam Spade 21:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using a religious prayer as the only source of the text for an entire section without an explanation or analysis just is not neutral. Especially when it fills up an entire page. If that section was a page by itself, it would be put up for deletion. "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion. Thank you. :) — RJH 17:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, no specific criticism of the prayer. But two commentators, Sankara and Parsara Bhattar give different interprations to different names in the prayer. Sankara and Parsara Bhattar have written commentaries on the meaning of the 1000 names and come to different interpretations.

Please see for example, the name #3:

"Nama 3: vashatkAra:

One who controls and directs (not merely pervades).

Sri Bhattar interprets the names VishNu, vashatkAra, and bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-prabhu, as additional elaborations of the name visvam. The root of the word is vas - to control as He wills. It should be noted that Sri Bhattar has pointed out in his commentary for visvam that BhagavAn is everywhere with His shAdguNya paripUrNatva WHICH IS NATURAL TO HIM, in the commentary for vishNu that He permeates everything that HE CREATES AND POSSESSES, and in the current one for vashatkAra that He controls AS HE WILLS. Thus, all these guNas are not something that have been acquired or imparted by something external, but this is His will and schema.

The following passages from the sruti are given in support of the interpretation of this nAma:

sarvasya vaso sarvasya IsAna: - He is the Controller of all and the Ruler of all.
jagadvase vartatedam - The Universe is under His control.

The summarization from Nirukti is svecchayA yo sarvam vase karoti sa: vashatkAra: - One Who controls and directs everything and everyone as He wills.

Sri Sankara provides a very different interpretation for this nAma. He points out that BhagavAn is Himself the vashatkAra mantra, where vashat is a sacred sound (similar to Om, svAhA, etc). used on sacrificial offerings. It is also used in the anganyAsa and karanYasa practice before chanting the sacred slokas (e.g., sahasrArchis saptajihva iti saktyai sikhAyai vashat). Note the similarity of vashatkAra to Om kAra, a word with which we are familiar. VashatkAra is thus a mantra, and BhagavAn is the mantra svarUpi.

The explanation in terms of BhagavAn having control over all His creations is appealing because of the continuity it provides to the interpretations of the previous nAmas.

from http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/sloka01.html

Raj2004 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what we need, discussion of differences in interpretation, held by expert personages. Such citations are what make this a wonderful article! Sam Spade 00:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]