Talk:Kamadeva

Kama and Kamadeva - wrong move

There is a considerable difference as to the two. One is controlled by another, but the deity of Fire should not be merged in Fire and is considerably more then Fire on its own. Wikidās ॐ 10:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NOW you say so! But when I look at the stories and legends I think Kama is simply a personification of Kama, and yes, Agni is personification of fire. These legends were made when all was one reality, now some people would like to draw a line between heaven and earth, but that is just one POV. If you like, insert a comment, that dvaita thinkers see a difference. Redheylin (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But all the information here is also on kama - this page is redundant. Redheylin (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Afraid that you assumption that Agni is personification of fire is incorrect and is WP:OR. This page is not redundant, please read WP:SS as to the relationship between the two articles. Wikidās ॐ 10:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, just a matter of how things are read by people of different vision. In fact there is only the one article for Agni - and Agni is really ancient. This is because the word Agni does not exist in the English language except as a god - but the disambiguation says agni=fire. Now, there are two pages for Eros because the word is in English, there are not two for Cupid. To me, you might as well say that there should be a separate page for Krsna according to all the sects - but it is the same Krsna and separate POVs. Redheylin (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And the entire article at kama - which has a picture of kamadeva - is not so long that WP:SS is meaningful. So maybe we will have to let someone else decide if you were right to revert the page. Redheylin (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1OkrH1ZYPOwC&pg=PT57&lpg=PT57&dq=agni+burns&source=web&ots=HYuM-RNFSN&sig=Y3uVx6FfXMexxVHjefoyIl84y4A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

is an Ayurveda book that tells that "there is indigestion when Agni is not burning well". And at

http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/weeks/week11/readingb.htm

you will find

"Each time Agni tries to burn Khandava forest, Indra protects it with rain."

So please find me the source that tells that this is two different fires burning in two different ways. Redheylin (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is from the article kamashastra

Kama (काम kāma) is a Sanskrit word that has the general meanings of "wish", "desire", and "intention" in addition to the specific meanings of "pleasure" and "(sexual) love".[1] Used as a proper name it refers to Kamadeva, the Hindu god of Love.

the same! Text should not be duplicated, POVS should not be forked. Add some text to kama instead! I am sure AC has said something ideal. Redheylin (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas you are edit warring Redheylin (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand, what is the purpose of one article and what is the purpose of second article. You have not written down a single word, that made sense on why you want to move this article, nor have you gone throught a proper procedure on that, did you put a notice on the board? Did you explain your reasons? Did you wait for five days? Its is not about linguistics, its about article being about about Hindu deity and yet another article about kama that is a therm used across many religions and NRMs, a word. Please assume good faith. You still call for doubtful sources without any explanation as to the move. There is difference between Indra and rain, and just because some consider Indra to be 'god of rain' we do not merge the two articles, you can however have a section in a wider subject article to refer to the specific term used in one particular tradition. Wikidās ॐ 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You have asked if I went through the proper procedure - yes, I tagged the page for a few days and asked the advice of an experienced editor. This is because I find five or six different pages dealing with the word "Kama" - that is apart from Kamasutra and Kamashastra. I also uploaded a picture, which you removed to this page after reverting without notice, editing without notice and then resuming without responding. This is not bad faith but it is certainly an identifiable religious POV being pushed too aggressively.

The difference with Indra is that Indra does not mean rain - he is an identifiable ancient god. But without kamadeva, the article "kama" has no place - anymore than there should be a page called "vayu" that explains "wind", because kama deva simply means kama-the-god - he has been invented later, which is why he has many accounts of his origin and no place in Vedic ritual. He is a personification. So yes, I think you need to produce a positive reason why this material "kama" should exist separately from Kama-deva yet separately from a page like Love which gives account of love in all cultures. And I have just found yet another = kam = which appears to be "desire-according-to-Sikhs". You can see, this is absurd, to have different POVs on different pages. Then it becomes little POV fortresses, "nature of desire according to this or that philosophy" - it should be clear; according to Hindus, kama is a divine being. I see no reason not to put on a page "rain" that "according to Hindus rain is a god", but not a special page "rain according to Hindus".

So we can;

1) Have the Hindu god page and merge all other material to other pages - no need to mention what the name means.

2) Include all in one.

And I decided to keep all in one, because it makes it easier to understand eastern religions. So I think you need a good authority that the two are unrelated, otherwise it does just look like the assertion of a religious theory of your own. Redheylin (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked for third opinions.Redheylin (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Kamadeva is not 'identifiable' does not stand up. He is not as prominent, but clearly very identifiable and have dedicated academic sources. Its not about 'meaning' of the word. "I also uploaded a picture, which you removed to this page after reverting without notice, editing without notice and then resuming without responding" I have communicated with you on the talk page, have not reverted many of your edits (except for the merge so I am hardly edit warring). I am alway describing all my edits in edit summary. And I have no objection to the suggestion no 1 above with a summary style element in the kama page. Its absolutely clear that you just can not assume that 3 different religions can be under one Hindu Deity box caption? You can not be serious as to assume that all religions are prepared to be amalgamated under the flag of a Hindu deity? Merging is not always a solution, creating summary style WP:SS article is one possible solution. I do not want to tag this page, {{disputed}}, its rather a minor page under our project banner, but still an important one. Did you notice that you actually moved our banner without even being on the project? Wikidās ॐ 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot assume that three religions can be under Hindu deity - yes I can. If you look at the "kama according to Sikhs" page you will find they say "kama is a god in hinduism" - they accept the identification, that Hindus have "canonised" desire. Buddhists have no problem; theravada buddhists use the ramayana. Only wikidas' personal ideology is at stake, and you still have not managed to quote a source that supports you. As I say, the alternative is that "desire is desire" - the "kama" page should disappear entirely. Only notable thing, really, is that it has been personified, which only you contest. Otherwise, as I say, the idea that "Buddhist view and Hindu view cannot be discussed together" is just absurd sectarianism. Yes I moved your banner, you would have space to complain if I had NOT done so. Redheylin (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And I think you had better rewrite your "worship" addition, since it is grammatically incoherent and appears to push a POV. Better quote the source more exactly. Please do provide sources and further editorial consensus for the difference you are pushing; otherwise this page says nothing but "wikidas is a fundamentalist Vaishnava dualist": it will have to change. Redheylin (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Note also the existence of the page Hindu Love Gods, dedicated exclusively to Kama and his consort. Redheylin (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)‎

Redheylin, You are not making sense here. Please use reliable sources to support your claim that all religious deities and concepts should be merged into one article on kama and have a heading with Hindu Deity box format. So far its just your original synthesis. Yes we may mention on Indra article that he is also worshiped in some Tibetan traditions as Sakra, even both names are related and have similar traditions, they are not the same. You should stop personal attacks and name calling, maybe a time reading up why on WIKIPEDIA's we do not use the term fundamentalist the way you do in a personal attack. So far you have not shown a single academic reference that supports your idea of merging all the related deities into one page and the only argument I see from above is that you consider it is sectarian to separate it:-) Please read on what is wikipedia and what its is not. BTW I agree that worship section should be expanded, can you help with it or you are only the merging with Blavtatskaya kind of guy? But before coming up with more exciting 'merging ideas' you should really maybe spend some time on reading the wiki, and possibly get onboard of WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Otherwise you will keep making such absurd statements as you did above. There are separate pages for Abraham and for Islamic view of Abraham, there is article on Ganesha and Ganesha outside Indian Hinduism - good examples, in fact excellent WP:FA. Certainly, if anything, disambiguation is the correct procedure. I am hardly a dualist... :-) I just do not like unreasonable and non encyclopedic mixups that you suggest based on your homegrown linguistics. Again to repeat myself, please read WP:SS for some more help. You are trying for original synthesis and I have to put a notice on the appropriate board. Have you ever read the section of policy called good faith, maybe do it and come back here for a compromise. Wikidās ॐ 12:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have asked about merging policy - I discovered that Theosophy pages were often in a world of their own, without reference to Hindu or Buddhist sources, depending only on primary sources. But when linking to suitable pages I discovered that they are also in little sectarian worlds of their own, none having much link to mainstream pages on the given subject - in this case enjoyment and sex. So, though there is a place to put Indian ideas about sex in general, Indian sex has its own pages - not just one; there is kama (deva) and also Hindu love gods which cites only kama and his consort, then kama (according to Hindus and Buddhists) kama (according to theosophists), with kamaloka and kamarupa according to Theosophists, not Buddhists or Hindus, then kam {according to Sikhs), kamasutra, kamashastra and various redirects and disambiguations, and this is without bringing in Tantrics - it is far too difficult to get a coherent idea of Indian attitudes to sex.

And why? You are saying that Buddhists and Sikhs will not like it, but pages like kam are already talking about Hindu god kama. Real problem is; wikidas does not want Kama mixed up with Kamasutra. Kama (deva) has nothing to do with Kama! And from this you have now written this mixed-up piece "Worship". But there is no problem; you simply say that Kama-deva blesses married love. Sikhs will agree perfectly, Buddhists too.

You point out that Muslims have their own page for Abraham - that is absurd, there is no need to emulate it. You ask me to provide references, but it is your change and your assertion of distinction that is contested. Vayu page has no problem that vayu is a god and also an element, air. Nobody is saying "Vayu-deva - divine air - is different from ordinary air" because nobody has an emotional issue about air. But sex is something else, it seems. And yet there is no difference; Indra and Indradeva, Kama and Kamadeva. I do not think I need references to say this is the same word - that this is original synthesis! What homegrown lingustics? Would you say it is also my invention that Abraham is Abraham? "Kama" is only included as a technical term in Indian religions, and Kamadeva is absolutely related. So you yourself have left information about kama-the-god on the kama page. You have already conceded that Kama is kama just as Eros is eros.

Redheylin (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry do you not make sense. I have not said a word about Eros. You are confused about what other person saying and keep pushing for original synthesis. There is a brake up in communication between us as you just do not want to understand basics of WP:SYN. Since you fail to communicate with me and keep resorting to some allegations, I am not listening anymore to your false notions. Wikidās ॐ 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as your main source Benton makes it clear that Kama is a story-character to explain the nature of desire, that the god begins as an impersonal force in RgVeda and is then "given a face" (Benton's phrase) - so does the following link, adding that the god Kama also exists in Buddhism;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GLPGFoLED7sC&pg=PT76&lpg=PT76&dq=kamadeva+kama&source=web&ots=5PqjPIhd09&sig=9Cm7kAXykFYgrShhvSGP-Dm6g2I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=16&ct=result

I understand the basics - but I do not accept your argument - it stems from a personal POV. I am alleging nothing else. It is not possible to make a personal fight about it. If you walk away from the argument you concede the point. Redheylin (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is place for POV in WIKIPEDIA see WP:YESPOV. You can accommodate conflicting views here, provided they are sourced. I present a clear mainstream view on Hindu god being different to Blavatskaya notions. You want to merge the two. I have not said a word about Eros and eros, imagination? You are clearly confused about the basics, and you represent a WP: FRINGE ideas as if it was the mainstream. Clearly all sources talk about Hindu god, Kamadeva. You have did not presented a single source for your fringe theory of merging. There is no point in any further discussion on it as present state is correct. Wikidās ॐ 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that sourced conflicting views can be accommodated together. I'd like it to be so, so that Wiki serves a comparative understanding of religions. I am interested in a couple of things; the article as it stands does not reflect the account of the main source, Benson, who gives a clear historical timeline beginning with an impersonal Rgvedic kama, then the hymns and myths of the personalised god with a discussion of how that god reflects human sexual mores. And also there is the account of the Buddhist deity Kama, which is nowhere here to be found. It is this kind of fair reflection of sources that interests me, and such a presentation can very easily accommodate all kinds of kama. Particularly, Blavatskaya notions more closely resemble Buddhist treatment of kama than any Hinduism - do you know of any kamarupa or kamaloka in Hinduism, say as an aspect of Tripirasundari or similar?

It will be good if you can find another editor from Hinduism project to help discuss all this. And it will be good also if I try to find some Sikh, Buddhist and Theosophist editors' opinion on how everything can best be presented. It is not uncommon in religious articles that the same material is presented in different articles, with different quality and POV issues, and that similar articles even fail to link to one another. It is a great opportunity for wiki editors to serve mutual understanding based on impartial data. But one cannot use Benson to present a timeless view of this god as if he was never the same as the impersonal divine kama of the earlier veda - that is not at all a fair representation of the source. Of course, one should also be able to get a clear vision of Hindu mythology and scripture. Redheylin (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am coming round to the idea that there is enough material for two pages; main thing is that the material is presented historically and well linked together. However there's a general lack of dating of the sources - vedas, puranas and so on - even on their own pages. So when it comes to figuring out where we branch off into the Mara and Kamaloka of Buddhism, which also needs to be included, we are at a loss, there is no treatment, though the data is present in the quoted sources. If two kama pages are well linked together and across religions, Hindu Love Gods page can be lost, improved links also to general concepts like desire, love gods of the world.... but at present the articles do not reflect the sources. Dates need to be inserted, basically. Redheylin (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources

There is an accepted view that primary sources are to be avoided as much as possible, especially in the areas where secondary sources are present. I have noticed that in some cases its not possible, however even then primary sources should be in the accepted translation of a religious leader or prominent representative of the tradition, rather then just a translation from primary source, as to avoid interpretation of the source while translating. Wikidās ॐ 11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by user:Wikidas

• The link was Suka was removed, as it is not the article about same Suka, but who cares? one just reverts.
• the beauty of Radha etc. exceeding that of Kamadeva is a poetic device to praise their device, as Kama is believed to most beautiful.
• "The word smara in the tenth book of Bhagavata Purana refers to Krishna, who through the medium of his flute ever increases his influence on the devoted gopis. This, according to Vaishnavas, is the meaning of the word smarodayam in Bhagavata Purana (SB 10. 21. 3) The different symptoms of smarodayam as experienced by the gopis has been described by the commentator Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakur in the following way:[23] "First comes attraction expressed through the eyes, then intense attachment in the mind, then determination, loss of sleep, becoming emaciated, disinterested in external things, shamelessness, madness, becoming stunned and death. These are the ten stages of Cupid’s effects."[" Please prove me how on earth is this NOT an UNDUE, the entire para does not even mention Kamadeva.
• And what English is "The deity of Kamadeva" ???

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of wrong wikilinks should be marked as a minor edit to make sure other editors see it. I never revert minor edits if they are properly described in the edit summary. In fact I only reverted removal of large sections of text with references, which is a bad style. One may expand on the poetic device to 'praise their device'. No deletion, but expansion. There is mention of Kamadeva in the tenth canto of Bhagavatam, this is notable. Gaudiya interpretation is notable as it identifies him with Krishna. The Visvanatha has illustrated the ten stages of the effect of Kamadeva and how same effects can be applicable to both material kama and to bhakti. This section needs expansion, or probably a sub section on Gaudiya views on Kamadeva in Bhagavat Purana to be exact. Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature by Amaresh Datta, Mohan Lal uses expression "deity of Kamadeva" - clearly an acceptable British English - unless you consider that 'deva' means deity, which is kind of limiting and is a POV. Deva is deva and also more then that.Wikidās ॐ 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kamadeva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114043227/http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu:80/dissertations/AAI9127814/ to http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI9127814/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead clutter

Am I the only one is bothered by the lead clutter? These alternative names are useless for the vast majority of the readers, and should probably be moved to "Etymology and names" section. utcursch | talk 16:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Gaudiya-dominated presentation: Page needs restructuring

While I appreciate that students of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition have invested a good deal of time in adding the tradition's perspective to the article, as it stands, that particular perspective is all over the place and, in many cases, doesn't really contribute towards the coherence of this page. I'd rather read the whole Gaudiya exegesis in its own section, not interjected every in-between. As it stands, it clouds over and blurs focus on older sources and versions.

I've tagged the page with Undue Weight. Most of the Gaudiya-related material can stay, as long as it's referenced, but it should not be ubiquitously blended in. Additionally, other major perspectives and sources should be presented with more-or-less matching volume and focus. I may get around to this in due course, meanwhile please begin doing the needful. General clean-up also required; as with most Hinduism-related articles... Cheers! ~ Baba Bom (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've done some considerable reorganization and removed the UNDUE tag. Gaudiya interpretations are now bundled into a subsection under Beliefs and Worship. In the clean-up, I've removed a few unreferenced trivialities and bits of first-hand research in poor form, but kept most of the extant material, whilst removing repetition and editing for clarity. Enthusiasts may refer e.g. to this entry for Kama for more sources on myths and textual references; some of which should be eventually integrated into the article. Puranic Encyclopaedia should be an OK source to reference. ~ Baba Bom (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

References