Talk:Bhakti

A few points

I note that the article has lost its shape rather and now contains quite a few grammatical errors. Priyanath, the section you removed as "OR" was included in the lede as a resume of the various analyses contained in the article: it is regrettable that it was removed IMO. Wikidas is right to point out that Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakta are not unique to bhakti, nor are they the most significant division, I think, nor, in any real sense, do they form separate schools or traditions in respect to bhakti itself. The three grades of bhakta were included, though uncited, because I preferred not to destroy altogether a merged page. There is now a "suddha-bhakti" redirect that leads nowhere, which is again unfortunate. If the reference is to be removed then the redirect page ought to be deleted. However, it is possible to reference the idea of different classes or grades of bhakti (eg Gita 7.16 though this does not use the expression "suddha"). I'd prefer not to make these changes myself right away as I do not want to waste any more time on making a good, readable article only to have it screwed around by folk who care more for their pet ideologies than good English, nor to undo others' work in the same way I myself find tiresome. If we could all kindly refer to this talk page, then, and ensure that we end up with something readable? Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Please note also that, since this is an English language wiki, if the subject is to exceed its remit as a Hindu religious term then it is going to end up merged with a page such as Worship - even now, such pages should be linked here. Redheylin (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to discuss changes. I was equally surprised, considering all the improvements that I had made from this abysmal version of the article[1], to see you make such major changes with only short (or no) edit summaries and no discussion. I won't respond to your snarky comments about my ideology and writing, but would rather discuss, with good faith, every change that I made after your work. I'm quite happy to discuss, and see other editors involved. Here is the series of edits I made after your first set of changes:

• [2] Removed the three stages of bhakti section, in response to another editor's comment on the talk page that it was OR. I pointed out on the talk page that I had removed it, and am open to discussing it even further than I did.
• [3] Removed the suddha-bhakti section as unreferenced, and after searching for reliable sources without finding anything, I removed it. It can be put back, but will need reliable sources to stay.
• [4] Condensed what was clearly OR/Essay, and also referenced Gita quotes to a more neutral source.
• [5] Formatting, and removed one saint who I admire greatly but who generally isn't notable for his bhakti - that would be Ramana Maharshi.

Following your second set of edits I made these changes:

• [6] Added back the fuller etymology that you had removed. Most full articles based on Sanskrit words have a dedicated etymology section. The section "Types and classifications" could have a better title.
• [7] Minor copy edit that added major clarity to the idea, imo.
• [8] Changed the term 'bhakti movement' to 'practice of bhakti', since 'bhakti movement' usually is used by reliable sources to mean the Bhakti movement. Do a Google Books search and you'll see.
• [9] I willingly conceded to Wikidas, who changed the part of this edit regarding 'three main schools of bhakti'. Those three are the most written about, by far, and should probably be featured in a separate section on "Bhakti schools", along with other bhakti approaches. I reinserted the very well-referenced and due statement "These schools are not always exclusive of each other—a bhakti's devotion towards one form of god does not preclude worship of another form."
• [10] The well-referenced statement already in the body of the article, along with other references that could be found, make it clear that bhakti is not segregated from jnana and karma yogas. Your change made it actually contradict what was later in the article. The 'locus of the human heart' phrase I deleted - is it in the reference that follows? I didn't find it.
• [11] The bhakti movement should of course be in the lead, imo.
• [12] The scholarly discussion of whether Panini meant Vasudeva as Krishna is arguably weighted more in the direction of 'no'. This was earlier removed from the article entirely by the editor User:Dbachmann as being undue to even mention the speculation. I'm for leaving it in, with explanation.
• [13] These references to the Panini discussion were removed entirely (by you? I don't know), I simply reinserted very good and reliably sourced references.
• [14] Minor copy-editing.
• [15] More copy-editing, condensing of quotes.

Those are the main edits that I did after yours. I gave fairly explicit edit summaries for each. I notice that you are not so much into edit summaries, for example this edit[16] removed 3,000kb of content with the summary "reorder (#2)". We can both improve in the area.

I'm fine if those completely unreferenced sections go back into the article, with tags to highlight that they are unreferenced. If I have a pet ideology, it's third-party neutral high quality reliable sources. If you compare the article before[17] I began working on it to the current version, you would see what I mean. Ten references/footnotes, some unreliable, before - fifty-two good references/footnotes after. Nvineeth added many of them, so I'm not taking all the credit, but I am confessing that lack of reliable sources are a pet peeve. But it's really an extraordinary improvement from where it began.

If you can be more specific about "grammatical errors", please do so. Same with any errors that you see in weight or POV. I'm happy to discuss, as you can see from my active participation in previous discussions on this page. I'm also happy to discuss each change that I made and commented on above. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Sections

I think, the order of sections is not logical. I feel "History" should come after "Etymology", then followed by "Bhakti Yoga". I propose the following order : Etymology — History — Bhakti Yoga — Types and classifications. Any thoughts on this? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I see etymology sections typically at the beginning. Then the more specific "types" and a possible Bhakti schools, or Bhakti in different religions, section should be at the end. General--->specific being the pattern. Priyanath ^talk 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me even if history bit seems more relevant to a reader. Wikid^as© 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bhakti in the age of technology Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya

I would like to propose an additional section to this page to do with how technology can be relevant to bhakti and trends in that direction. While bhakti is personal technology can be used to facilitate it just like anything else. What is a good course of action on this?

Bhakti technique

I'd recommend adding a section directly linking one to specific bhakti techniques. One would be www.howtoloveGod.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingwithGod (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

"The Bhaktilive channel" link is just adverts. Would someone who knows how to do so please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.103 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote to Bhakt (slang)

@Asteramellus: You recently reverted me for adding a hatnote to Bhakt (slang). But, WP:HRULES#4 and WP:ONEOTHER specifically require that a hatnote be added from the primary topic of a title to the alternative articles on the same title. Here, the title Bhakt is a primary topic that redirects to this article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@CX Zoom Thanks for highlighting the two policies - however, adding such pejorative political term would add unnecessary confusion on this page. Bhakti is a spiritual concept - a totally different domain - someone looking for such political pejorative term would not come to this page by mistake. e.g. the policy says "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." I do see that "Bhakta" redirects to this page, and again, it is a spiritual concept. Hope this helps.

Also just a suggestion to consider (don't want to discuss that page here though) - I had a quick look at that page, and I see that possibly, may want to look into moving content to related political page(s) instead of having a separate page (e.g. see Cult of personality#India) - that would be more encyclopedic. I see that the page was nominated for AfD and someone had raised concern for Wikipedia:OR. Asteramellus (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Bhakt redirects here, because it is the WP:PTOPIC and it is a long-standing standard to link disambiguated articles in hatnotes from PTOPIC, even when it is a completely different concept. It should not cause any confusion, it actually resolves it. That is the whole point of hatnotes. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The sanskrit term "Bhakta" (not Bhakt) redirects here because it is tied to this primary topic - someone who engages in devotion (bhakti). Using any term in derogatory/pejorative way in political sense to mock or criticize or label doesn't make the term reasonable possibility for a reader to land on primary topic page by mistake that it needs such hatnotes. I am open to seeing what others think about this. Also, for example, see this Woke (pejorative) - might be helpful to add a section on some other related (political) page to add such details and redirect that page. Asteramellus (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Bhakt also redirects here. And Woke (pejorative) would have been hatnoted from Woke if it were a different subject. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)