Talk:Śramaṇa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First edit at this page

yes they should be merged, but both spellings should lead to the same article. the s - sh issue is due to varying standards of transcribing the term into western (latin) letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.89.225 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 February 2006‎

definition

The definition in the lede does not accurately reflect the rest of the article. The Buddha renounced asceticism and luxury and followed a "Middle Way" (as described in the body of the article). I've added more rigorous citations on the meaning of the word sramana.

Untitled

In the section "Clement of Alexandria (150-211)", the quote "It was after many successive periods of years that men ..." is from chapter V of the Exhortation to the Heathen, and not, as noted, from The Stromata. -- Fullstop 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is James G. Lochtefeld?

This article relies too heavily on an unreliable and not so significant work by James G. Lochtefeld (2002) who is neither well known nor authoritative. It is preferable to make assertions from original shramanic texts and Hindu texts or from truly reliable commentaries of them. The idea that samsara and Moksha are not Vedic is absurd. A casual examination of the Vedic Updanishads such as the Kathopanishad would easily prove otherwise. An encyclopedic article must cite authoritative sources from philosophers and theologians of the caliber of S. Radhakrishnan, Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara or Vivekananda. A large number of Buddhist philosophers were Brahmins and although the Buddha discourages rituals he was not against them in totality. He was against Vedic rituals carried out out of irrational dogma, not rituals, Vedas or Brahmins per se. He opposed the dogma associated with rituals and Vedic traditions not the Vedic ritual in itself. The schism between Buddhism and the Vedic religion is over-emphasized by Western Indologists in an attempt to elevate Buddhism by a contradiction to the Vedas which are often identified with Caste system and idol worship both of which are grossly exaggerated and misunderstood by the West.

Added link to Samanera. Merge with Shramana?

I added a "See also" link to Samanera. We may want to merge Samanera into Shramana. Discussion? -- 201.19.77.39 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

no merge. different meaning. Samanera is purely Buddhist. Shramana is more hindu/ ajivaka/ buddhist/ jain. small boy, too: not big man. 10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacca (talk • contribs)

that's irrelevant. "merge" doesn't mean "the terms are identical", it means they should be discussed together. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they should not, because they're too different. Same applies too samaneri, which is quite different from samanera, and different rules and conventions apply to them. Do you know anything about Buddhism? Greetings, Sacca 10:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you also reverted my merge of Samaneri to Samanera. Why? this isn't wiktionary, we don't keep a separate article on every term. If "Shramana" is too different, merge them into Sangha#Ordination_process, but don't keep them around as isolated stubs. Why do you want to know if I "know anything about Buddhism"? As far as I can see, there is no factual dispute, merely a question of how to arrange undisputed material. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, They are two different statuses, they are part of different sanghas. Just like boy and girl, monk and nun. Samanera is quite sufficient already, not a stub anymore. Samaneri is a stub, but stubs can exists seperately, and thus they will grow. they don't need to be mixed up. Also: mind the template. they are separate there, too! Greetings, Sacca 11:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

There has been some edit warring lately, of which the latest example is this removal of sourced content. Please will the various parties explain their positions here. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to start discussing on the talk page, Sitush. Appreciate it. But rest assured that I am not in the habit of removing sourced content, and neither is Mayasutra, based on the experience I have had with him/her so far. Anyway, I think Mayasutra and I have more or less settled our differences on the page for the time being. Peace!ForestTeacher (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This means that you are content with the current article content and scope? - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, does it mean that you disagree with SaibAbaVenkatesh, who appears to think that they most likely have your support per this pair of edits ? - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the rest of the article, but the part about "Persecution and mergers" does not belong here. It can go in the Shamanism article, but this is the Shramana article, not the Shaman article. The paragraph has nothing to do with the article at large, and only has a tangential connection to the disputed etymology section. I'm not concerned with that latter part, but the section I removed has no part in this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. We will discuss the issue here, since this thread began prior to your removal. You do not just get your own way. I suggest that you self-revert for now. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To your first question, dear Sitush, I am not entirely happy with how the article is, but I am not planning to make any changes right now, unless someone else makes any radical alterations. I find wikipedia arguments very draining and I avoid taking the plunge unless something really stirs me up.

As for the Saibaba vs Mayasutra debate, I have no idea about Shamanism or Central Asia, so I am not qualified to comment. But if there is strong evidence that Shamans and Shramans are related, well then I see no harm in the article having extra material. Again I don't know much about Central Asian Shamanism, so my opinion should not count for much.ForestTeacher (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Bold, Revert, Discuss." Mayasutra boldly added something completely off topic, I reverted it and gave a reason in the edit summary, and noone has given a reason to include it. WP:BRD is not "boldly add, revert with a given reason, restore with no reason whatsoever, and ignore reasons given for removal." Have you actually read the paragraph, Sitush? Have you actually read WP:BRD. Please explain how it is on-topic to the article at large. I will not self-revert on this. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Or from another perspective: How should the introduction be modified based on the persecution section that Ian removed and you re-added? Should the geographic range be changed to note it's from India through Siberia? Should its absorption into other religions be mentioned as well? Personally, I agree with Ian's removal; if there's a reason to keep the information, I'd like to know what it is. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have reverted anyway, since you had made it clear on my talk page that you would not. Edit summaries are not discussion, as you should well know given the number of edits that you have made. Your removal followed an appeal on your talk page from SaibAbaVenkatesh, their removal of the content (bold), my reinstatement (revert), and my initiation of this discussion (discuss) - which if you had applied your apparent knowledge of policy/guidelines etc is something that you would have done some days ago.

I have no opinion regarding the content but this warring has to stop and you have been a party to it. I am doing my best to resolve the issues for all parties involved in this dispute. Would you prefer that I dragged some administrator along to throw around a whole series of blocks etc?

Now, please, can you explain why the content is inappropriate for this article. It seems that you consider it to be irrelevant except from an etymological point of view. Does this mean that there are no reliable sources connecting the two in practice, as opposed to etymologically? - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

C.Fred - this is exactly what I am trying to work out. It is evident that there has been a considerable amount of warring and that will likely continue unless the issue is talked out. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the matter should be discussed. However, my question is this: since you've restored the content repeatedly, why do you prefer that version of the article? —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) To C.Fred: If we keep the material on the persecution of Shamanism based on a tenative etymological connection, we should incorporate Buddhism_and_Christianity#Buddhist_influence_on_Christianity wholesale, and from there, the article Martin Luther (via monasticism), from there Protestantism, from there Mormonism, from there All About Mormons, and then Mr. Hankey. I mean, it's totally relevant...

I restored the unexplained removal of sourced info by SaibAbaVenkatesh. I immediately opened up a discussion because it is clear from the history that this has been a problematic article for some days. My second restore was because, as Ian.thomson has acknowledged, his removal came after this discussion had started (and after he was aware of it). That is wrong, unless this were - say- a BLP. I am off out for an hour now but will look in on my return. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To Sitush: Mayasutra boldly added. I reverted. I discussed. The only other discussion that has occured is you telling me to discuss it (done), and other editors not arguing with my edit, and both C.Fred and I asking you why it should stay in the article. WP:BRD has been fulfilled on my end. No discussion has occured for re-adding the section. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully support Ian.thomson. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SaibAbaVenkatesh, but I'm afraid I am unconcerned either way regarding the rest of the article. The rest of the additions by Mayasutra may need work, but there's material which could stand to be incorporated. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Folks, i agree with Ian.Thamson that "Persecution and mergers" should go to the Shamanism article. However, i do not understand why the debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman, should not remain on this page. I put in additional content under a new section to cover the controversy. References are provided. I leave it to the admin to decide where to move the content to. Until then, i do not see a plausible reason to delete it. Yet, Saibaba Venkatesh goes and deletes it without a reason. Forest Teacher is into obfuscations / misquoting. I suppose this duo SaibabaVenkatesh and ForestTeacher will sooner or later get content deleted...well, sigh...i suppose folks get insecure with certain content , lol.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Shamanism

I have not seen Shamanism mentioned in connection to Shramana in "Introduction to Hinduism" by Gavin Flood, "Blackwell Companion to Hinduism", "India : The Ancient Past" by Avari or in any other book. This is NOT an article on Shamanism. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So what if Flood, Blackwell and Avari did not mention Shramana-Shaman connection in some certain books. It just means you need to refer to more books!!!--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayaustra

Like your ancient Max Muller crap from a hundred years ago?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

lol, so you bring in Max Muller, like a typical hindutva nationalist !!! Unfortunately for you, Max Muller actually claimed 'Shaman' is derived from the Pali-Sanskrit term 'Shraman'. If you say muller was wrong about this, am sure many dalits will agree with you. Jokes apart, i sincerely suggest you look at the actual merits and demerits of the shramana-samana argument. No need to cloud it with your hindutva sentiments. Let the admin take note of this. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I am not even Hindu or Indian LOL. If I was a Hindu nationalist, why did I cite two history books by Western authors? Idiot. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

lol, master obfuscators have a 'way' with identities (ofcourse, the idiocy shows). But hey, i understand your intensions well -- by calling me an 'idiot', you want to start a slugfest of name-calling. And then somehow get me blocked and the content removed. Nice try saibaba venkatesh. I hope admin is taking note of this. How come suddenly C.Fred is not around? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Trust me, I couldn't care less about Shiva, Vishnu or the other Hindu gods. They can lick my balls, if they exist. I am in no way a Hindu fundamentalist. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with Shamanism. This is about the Shramanas from whom Jainism and Buddhism are derived.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Indian Chronicles

And from where did Shramanas get derived? Is wiki about your personal POVs? Why not represent the views of various researchers? Are you the admin to delete as you wish? I am not reinstating the portion. But i would like to know who is the admin here and who gets to decide?

Here is the deleted section. Am pasting it here for easy referencing. Let admin decide what should remain from this portion, and what goes.

Shramana and Shamanism

There has been considerable scholarly debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman. The controversy regarding their etymology comes from differences between a Saman and a Shraman as well as the difference between Shamanism and Buddhism.

Historically and anthropologically, the terms Shraman and Shaman are neither linguistically related nor do they have etymological correspondence between them. The term Shaman belongs to the Siberian group of languages, while the term Shramana belongs to the Pali-Sanskrit group of languages. However, the Chinese usage of Shramana as Sha-men puts it close to the Siberian usage. Though seemingly unrelated, both the terms, 'Shraman' and 'Shaman', have played an almost identical function in India and elsewhere. According to a contemporary scholar on neo-shamanism

"..Nevertheless, all tribal societies as well as our ancestors — and cultures of both the Old World and our present world - did at one time subscribe to the idea of such a universe...[The Shaman] speaks of the vitality of all that exists and of a global relatedness to all beings and phenomena at every level.."

The controversy between 'Shraman' and 'Shaman' started with Max Muller's linguistic method of comparison, which indicated that the etymology of 'Shaman' is an Indian Buddhist derivation from the Sanskrit Sramana and the Pali Samana. However, in 1831 W.Schatt objected to this and speculated on evidence within the Tungusic language for an indigenous development of the word 'Shaman'.

Schatt's studies were continued by Dorji Banzarov in 1846, J.Nemeth in 1914, and Berthold Laufer in 1917, to establish the indigenous origin of Shamanism by deriving the descriptive term 'Shaman' solely from tribal elements. They compared the term 'Shaman' with analogous terms from several Siberian tribes and conjectured that linguistic changes had altered the original root of the word. They traced back the root 'Sam' to the Turko-Tartar word Kam and concluded that Shamanism had a Central-Asian origin, rather than an Indic-Buddhist derivation.

Though Schatt's view of connecting Sam to the Turk Kam and Saman with Sambi (Manchu Writ) meaning "to know", has been maintained by another scholar PP Schmidt, this was opposed by Langles and Banzarov and has been proved etymologically wrong. Harlez accepted criticism of Schatt on the supposed grounds that there are no connections between India, China and the Tungus; and went on to propose his own phantastic etymology of Saman meaning 'drum' whence Samdambi. Nemeth, on the other hand, accepted Schott's view and formulated a new phoenetic law for S~K (in Sam = Kam). Millet pointed out similarity with the Tocharian sāmane while Rosenberg brought out the possible parallelism of the Sogdian and Tungus saman. Znamenski work pointed out how the term Śramaṇa penetrated into Central Asia.

Batalden believes the Tungusic word Saman meaning 'one who is excited' is derived from the Sanskrit Sramana meaning an 'ascetic'. Shamanism, as an ancient form of belief, is common among the indigenous peoples of Siberia and perhaps dates to the Stone Age. Though Shamanistic traditions varied from tribe to tribe, the general role of a Shaman was to mediate between the visible and spiritual worlds, enter into a trance-like state and heal the sick, guide the dead souls to the 'other world', perform sacrifical rites to appease angry spirits, and carry out traditional ceremonies.

Currently, linguistic, etymological and anthropological connections between the words Shraman and Shaman remain controversial. While Shramana traditions of Buddhism are a later development, Shamanism is ancient. Sections of researchers agree with Sergei Shirokogoroff's work on possible Buddhist influences but also emphasize pre-Buddhist indigenous characteristics of Shamanism. Early studies of Shamanism identify it as an ancient or primordial religious experience. Weston La Barre observes

"Essential Shamanism is thus at once the oldest and newest of religions, because it is the de facto source of all religions."

---

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

Any decision to be made by an administrator would be interpreting whether the discussion has generated or demonstrated that there is consensus on the issue. Quoting from the policy, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." What I see is arguments to remove the text based on undue bias and overloading the article with information on one tangent, and arguments to keep the text seem to be based around it being sourced and not hurting anything to keep in the article.

Were I to opine as an administrator on this issue, I would say that the text should remain out of the article right now, but that discussion could continue.

That said, I think maybe there's a middle ground where the information can be presented in a way that doesn't overwhelm the article. Would it be acceptable to all parties insert a condensed version of the text—perhaps just a paragraph or two hitting the highlights that there is a tenuous etymological connection between the words, with some scholars feeling there's a connection? I would suggest that a couple of editors take a try writing a draft paragraph and place it here on the talk page for discussion and to see if there's acceptance; it's probably for the best of all parties that no edit be made to the article concerning this topic until consensus is reach. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing is certain. The link between Sramana and Samanism is a fringe theory. And per WP:FRINGE we are not required to mention the same in this article. Having a section will on this linkage will be giving undue weightage as per WP:UNDUE. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that the etymological link is a fringe theory. A GBooks search on the terms "Shramana Shaman" gives an awful lot of results from seemingly reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I also did a google book search. I just came up with crap. Why can't anyone point to a recent history book that mentions the connection? You can't, because this is just a frige theory. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to C.Fred

C,Fred, Am sorry but the way you dealt with Saibaba Venkatesh (despite his repeated deletions, breaking the three-revert rule and calling names), appears biased to me. You allowed him to go scot free with a mere friendly suggestion. On the contrary, you chose to paste an edit warning on my user talk page at a time when i had added additional content and created a seperate section for "Shramana and Shamanism" just once. So, i do not know what to expect from administrators here.

I do not how many admins are involved in this issue. So far i see Sitush, yourself and Qwyrxian. If a consensus is taken, would it involve just these 3 people as admins ? I do not know what happens if the admins themselves are biased. However, am proposing something. Hope the suggestion is viewed solely for its merit alone.

I suggest inserting a paragraph on the Shramana-Shaman controvery in the Shramana and Shaman articles; and creating a hyperlink in these articles leading to a larger article on another (new) page.

I disagree with IndianChronicles that the Shramana-Shaman theory is a fringe one. This topic has been debated by researchers, linguists, and has been written about in various books/papers. IndianChronicles either lacks sufficient information or is perhaps biased towards Jainism.

Undoubtedly, Mahavira and Buddha were original thinkers who introduced new concepts in philosophy / religious thought. However, shramana 'practices' were not invented by Mahavira and Buddha.

Asceticsm, and the concept of priests / priestesses have existed in the old world shaman practices since a long time. Stuff dating from stone age and earlier, such as rock art / rock paintings is attributed to shaman practices. Obviously 'buddhist' and 'Jain' rock art / caves (as a practice) were not invented by these religions.

The 'idea' of meditating upon life and death, guiding souls in death and after-death rituals, mediating between the physical world and spiritual world, etc, were not invented by Mahavira and Buddha either. Both Buddhism and Jainism, absorbed shaman practices. Shaman practices became part of dominant culture everywhere. Till date in China, Shaman origin practices like Lion Dance, exist with mainstream buddhism and taoism side-by-side. Theyyam is part of 'hinduism'. The idea of 'meditation' itself is a shaman practice (it was not invented by Mahavira or Buddha).

Mergers into dominant cultures happened in other ways too. While persecution and conversion into christianity and islam happened in some regions, wholesale 'copying' happened in other places (example - good many Shramana concepts from jaina and buddhist schools were copied into 'hinduism' by vedic people. So it became shaman -> shraman -> vedic OR followed the model shaman -> vedic). The vedic people were not even idol-worshipping originally.

This topic (of Shramana-Shaman connection) is bound to hurt pet theories of religionists. Surely ForestTeacher, Venkatesh and IndianChronicles are going to have a problem with this. However, the topic deserves to be elaborated and dealt with in a seperate article.

There are a good many books and references available on this topic. Therefore i suggest inserting a paragraph on the Shramana-Shaman controversy in the main article and creating a larger article on this topic in a new page. I hope this is acceptable to the administrators. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Draft Paragraph

This is the (draft) paragraph, which i suggest to be inserted into the Shramana and Shaman articles. All other content goes into a new page titled Shramana and Shamanism. In the new page, content will be elaborated further with appropriate headings. Admins, please let me know if this draft paragraph is okay. Please indicate changes to be made.

Shramana and Shamanism

There has been considerable scholarly debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman. The controversy between 'Shraman' and 'Shaman' started with Max Muller's linguistic method of comparison, which indicated that the etymology of 'Shaman' is an Indian Buddhist derivation from the Sanskrit Sramana and the Pali Samana. However, in 1831 W.Schatt objected to this and speculated on evidence within the Tungusic language for an indigenous development of the word 'Shaman'. Researchers such as Banzarov, Nemeth, Laufer and Schmidt support Schatt ‘s view of an indigenous origin of Shamanism by deriving the descriptive term 'Shaman' solely from tribal elements. Znamenski and Soeng note a connection between the two phenomenon of shramana traditions and shamanism. Though seemingly unrelated, they noted both the terms, 'Shraman' and 'Shaman', played an almost identical function.. However, Langles and Harlez criticize Schatt’s view. Rosenberg brought out the possible parallelism of the Sogdian and Tungus saman. Znamenski's work pointed out how the term Śramaṇa penetrated into Central Asia.. Currently, linguistic, etymological and anthropological connections between the words Shraman and Shaman remain controversial. For more on this, see Shramana and Shamanism.

---

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I am neutral to the above paragraph, but I still feel it gives some undue weight to Shamanism in Shramana article. The above paragraph may be 100% correct and may have reliable sources, but does not belong here. I have read hundreds of books on Jainism/ Buddhism and their history. Not one has touched on Shamanism. It seems Max Muller was the only guy who speculated on this link which seems to have further fed the polemic debates. I think this topic need not be added just to satisfy some group. As Jimbo has noted clearly: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". In trying to reach on consensus we are not giving weight to the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, but to its prevalence among the current lot of Wikipedia editors who are discussing this. Having said that, like I said before, I will neither oppose nor approve of inclusion of the above paragraph in the article as its inclusion will not substantially compromise the relevance of the article. My only concern will be that it will open doors to addition of more nonsense to this topic.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I support Indian Chronicles 100%. This is a fringe theory. Like I said before, there are no history book talks about shamanism in connection to Sramana. None. A google book search turns up just crap. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory, not worthy to be included in this article. Articles on Shramana or Shaman generally (99.9%) do not include the other word. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That just depends on what you are reading. Religious books do not mention the connection, nor are religionists willing to read historical reasearch/anaysis about such things. If you, Venkatesh and indianChronicles claim claim its a fringe theory, please prove so.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I agree with Redtigerxyz and Indian Chronicles 100%. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to IndianChronicles

I have read hundreds of books too. Every religious book portrays the greatness of its gurus/gods and the stream of philosophical thought they represent. Religious books have no business to talk about origins of practices. That domain belongs to historians. So you should be reading up journals/books on social anthropology, history, etc, for stuff on linguistics, etymology, ancient origins, social scenario represented in archeological finds, etc. The Shraman-Shaman has been written about extensively. Its not a minority view. Your contention that Max Muller was the only guy shows lack of knowledge. It is very ill founded. So is your speculation that this is going to open doors to addition of more 'nonsense'. We have heard the religionists. Wud like to know the views of the admins? I do not know wiki policies. I do not know if wiki is the domain play of majoritism of religionists. Wud greatly appreciate clarifications on it from admins. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

If it has been written about extensively—and the writing needs to appear in reliable sources to be useful for the purposes of the article—then please provide links or other bibliographical references so that other editors can verify the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure i cud quote references primarily from Royal Asiatic Society, Artibus Asiae, and Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, on Monglian Studies. Apart from other authors / researchers already mentioned in the draft para, i cud add Schlegel, Mironov, Shirokogorov, to the list. The latter two published a book from the Royal Asiatic Society titled "Śramana-Shaman: etymology of the word "Shaman"". And ofcourse you can find many more publications on amazon...but wait, do i sense your partiality to Saibaba Venkatesh and hostility to me, yet again, here? Is it a wiki policy to ask for all the bibliographical references on a talk page, even before a new article is created? There are so many articles on wiki -- i do not see admins like you enforcing such a system in other wiki talk pages......should i take it that its tuf to find unbiased admins here. Anyways, i have no probs, if you do not want the content on wiki. Sooner or later such content (very 'troublesome' to religionists) will find its way on a very visible webspace. Not as visible as wiki, but visible enuf to create awareness and debate amongst indians. Thanks and bye.... --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Yes, it is policy to ask for references in advance—or rather, when adding content to articles, the items must be referenced. Since the argument is made that the text should not be included because it is a fringe theory, the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you prove its a fringe theory? The burden of proof is on you to prove it is. Are you saying all the authors i have stated, as well as researchers like Brian_Morris_(anthropologist) [who wrote about Buddhism as it adapted to local shaman cultures while spreading across Asia], Gerald Berreman (anthropology professor at the University of California, Berkeley), who researched pahari religion in depth and wrote about brahmins and shamans, Marie_Antoinette_Czaplicka who wrote about aboriginal Siberia, Hyun-key Kim Hogarth who produced a detailed tabulation of buddhism and shamanism, all fringe theorists? Are these people crazy to be talking about the absorption of shaman practices into dominant cultures/religions? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

As usual Mayasutra is getting personal and quick to put lables. When I meant hundreds of book, I am talking about books written by scholars. Anyone who questions him is biased. WOW very nice criteria to judge people.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

IndianChronicles, please mention which scholars you have read (name the ones who researched and wrote about shramana having nothing to do with shamanism). Their views shall also be mentioned in the article. Btw, when i find a biased individual, i react the same way. Otherwise those with big fists and name calling tactics like saibaba venkatesh wud simply get away with their contrived labels of 'fringe theories' and such like. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

It seems that you react the same who do not agree with you. I need not list everyone here. You can check my articles and edits where I have put references. I quote all top notch scholars. None of them have mentioned anything of Shamanism when discussing history of Sramanas.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First, ForestTeacher kept misquoting, obfuscating. Then SaibabaVenkatesh kept deleting properly referenced material, despite ongoing discussions. I have had run ins with disguised identities elsewhere. Experience is a bad teacher in creating a reactionary stance. I especially do not take kindly to name calling. I lost my cool. It spilled on to people it should not have. Am sorry. I left a message on C.Fred's page. Let's leave it there. Btw, lack of a shramana-shaman connection in your references would not mean proof in any manner. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Etymology of "shaman"

There is some evidence, though not watertight, that "shaman" evolved from "shramana." Here is what some contemporary English language references say. Since the word "shaman" is much better known, I believe this plausible connection is worth mentioning somewhere in the Shramana article.

1. Webster's unabridged (2012) (The major contemporary resource for American English, and default register of Wikipedia.) : Main Entry: Shaman Etymology: Russian or Tungus; Russian, from Tungus aman shaman, Buddhist monk, from Pali samana Buddhist monk, from Sanskrit sramana Buddhist monk, ascetic, from srama fatigue, exertion, religious exercise.

2. Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition, 1989; online version December 2011) (The major contemporary resource for British English) Entry: Shaman. Etymology: < German schamane , Russian šaman , < Tungusian samân (Castren Tung. Sprachl.). Compare French chaman .... Evidence seems to be wanting for the plausible suggestion that the Mongolian word is an adoption of Chinese sha mên , an ordained member of a Buddhist fraternity, < Sanskrit çramaṇa , Pali samana Buddhist monk or mendicant.

3. On-line Etymological Dictionary: Shaman. 1690s, "priest of the Ural-Altaic peoples," probably via Ger. Schamane, from Rus. shaman, from Tungus shaman, which is perhaps from Chinese sha men "Buddhist monk," from Prakrit samaya-, from Skt. sramana-s "Buddhist ascetic."

Again, none of this is watertight, but when three major resources, which include two of the leading dictionaries in English, mention the connection, it is worth mentioning it in this Wikipedia article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, thanks for taking out time and doing soem research. In fact now it is more clear that the two words are not connected. These are just two different entries for the same word that have different etymological roots. In sanskrit the word is Shramana. But in Prakrit and Pali, the same word is pronounced as Shamana or Samana. It has nothing to do with Shamanism. This is what teh dictionary is pointing out that other than Shamanism, this word also denotes Samana or Shramana in Pali.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears you are right Indian Chronicles. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

=Re to Indian Chronicles

Its not right for you to keep claiming this. I suggest at the very least please refer to "Religion and Anthropology", by Brian Morris (anthropologist). Morris suggested the indo-european root word is "sa". Many anthropologists accept an independent evenki origin for the word 'shaman'. Pl remember the linguistic classification of tungusic languages as an altaic group is controversial. It is left to linguistics to find if there were loan words or shared loan sounds between altaic and indo-european, or if these language groups shared common ancestry. Note that we are talking of a term 'shaman' that played a role way back in paleolithic hunter-gatherer times. Links (if any) between indo-european and altaic could be impossible to trace. Also note the role of a shaman is ancient, but as Morris put it "..the word saman itself may be of foreign origin as Shirokogoroff suggested" (page 16). Please read Shirokogoroff's research pointing out the term Shramana penetrated into Central Asia and became Shaman there. You also have the greek "samanaioi" and other allied words in various languages. What i had represented in the "Shramana and Shamanism" section is exactly that -- ie., varying views of different researchers. This is an emerging area of research. So its not correct to ignore any one section. Though 'Samana' (Pali) was used for Buddhist monks, the term got applied to all sorts of old world practices (diviners, faith healers, etc) in various regions. What matters is research by anthropologists whose work show how shaman practices and beliefs emerged as mainstream cultures (or merged into mainstream cultures). Then you have phenomenologists whose work points out how Shramana and Shaman play an identical role.

So (if they were different in the first place) the blurring between Sramana and shaman took place along more than one line. IndianChronicles, am aware after all this if i create an article, it will get vandalized to the extent it may not be worth my effort. What i oppose is your repeated claim its a 'fringe theory'. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

This is pure speculation, even on your own admission. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which part about the Shaman-Shramana link is speculation? The only prob is with linguistics and hence etymology which pends further archeological proof. Otherwise, all other research (by anthropologists /phenomenologists, etc) favors the Shraman-Shaman connection. Do you have research content against them? Do note, even in linguistic research, one section favors the connection (Shirokogoroff, Schlegel, Morris, etc). On what basis can you say they are wrong? And please - keep away your prejudices against max muller / westerners. As in other fields, not everyone got everything right. But westerners contributed much to the understanding in these fields. So do not post blank negative comments against any individual. Instead, if you have content to counter the research works of anthropologists, please post your references. Thanks--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

None of this shamanism crap is mentioned, for example, in Patrick Olivelle's dedicated chapter on Sramana in the "Blackwell Companion to Hinduism" from 2003. You think you are smarter than Patrick Olivelle? SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is doltish. Just because Olivelle does not mention Shramana-shaman connection in this particular book does not mean proof. Btw, Olivelle deals with religious studies, not with such anthropology topics. Understandably, this is an unresolved issue in linguistics. A section of linguists disfavor the connection bcoz they ASSUME there were no pre-buddhist connections between indians and the nomadic tribes of mongols, evenkis, chinese, etc. Plus, altaic is supposedly older than indo-european. Linguists depend a lot on genetic links, archeological finds, etc. Cannot expect them to resolve this issue anytime soon. So, lets leave the linguists aside. How about anthropologists and those dealing with phenomenology of religion ? They favor the connection. Do you have proof against them ? Do you think you are smarter than Shirokogoroff, Schlegel, Morris, Czaplicka, Hogarth, Znamenski, Soeng, etc ??? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I admit that my expertise is more on religion and philosophy and not anthropology. This article is about religion and philosophy and not about linguistics or anthropology. You are right about Oleville, he deals with religious studies, not with such anthropology topics. That is the same with this article which deals with religion and philosophy of Shramana. Hence maybe one sentence about this tenuous link may suffice in this article. Actually, Shamanism may be the right article to mention this link. As for new article on "Shamanism and Shramanas", I will not comment as this is not my forte.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian Chronicle, Am aware to jains the term Shramana referes mainly or exclusively to Jain tirthankaras / gurus. So i understand your disfavorism towards including the Shramana-shaman links/connection in this article. However, the title of this article is "Shramana". That's a very general title. So it should include something on the term's etymology (representing various views of linguists), links and syncretism with shamanism from the anthropological view. Something like the short draft para above (please feel free to make changes to the draft para). Its a good idea for you to make a seperate article titled "Shramanas in Jainism" so that it contains the view/approach of Jainism alone to the term "shramana". I very much accept in the indian context, jains were the earliest 'shramans', while Buddha and Buddhists as "shramans" happened later. There is no research as yet on Jainism - shaman links. However, there is plenty of research on the links/mergers of buddhism with shamanism and tribal totemism traditions. So it wud be very appropriate for you to create a new article/title about Shramanas in the context of Jainism. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Decision

Please let me know what's the final decision of the admin? Venkatesh, IndianChronicles and Redtigerxyz alleged the shramana-shaman connection is a 'fringe theory'. They have not yet come up with proof.

Jainism was not researched for shaman links, because as a minority religion, it has not (yet) received that kinda attention from anthropologists. However, there is sufficient research available on shramana-shaman links from the point of view of buddhism and hinduism. I have provided sufficient references, for the shramana-shaman links from the linguistic as well as anthropology pov.

I support inserting a paragraph on the Shramana-Shaman connection in this article. However, i feel those given to obscurantism like Venkatesh will continue to vandalise articles with repeated deletions, owing to their own religious ideology. Therefore i request for semi-protection, to block deletions of referenced material in this article. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't see anything above that suggests the editors have reached a consensus yet on including any new text. Therefore, I'd suggest that at this time, discussion should continue, and new reliable sources should continue to be located and discussed here, but no change should be made to the article text (no new paragraph on connection). —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fred, may i know which editors need to reach consensus? IndianChronicles admits he is not into anthropology sources. Venkatesh is a mere vandal unable to provide a single source to prove his claim. So may i know who else needs to reach consensus? I have already provided you enough references/sources. So, how many more references do you need? Please clarify. Thanks. Mayasutra

IndianChronicles is the party raising the strongest and soundest objections. I'm not convinced that Venkatesh is a vandal, so I'm neither discounting his opinions nor counting them overly strongly, since I haven't seen much discussion from him based on policy and sources.

I'd like for IndianChronicles to weigh in here. Do you think the article should still be without any mention of the Shamanism link? If that's the case, we may need to bring in fresh eyes. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not fully convinced for mentioning the link. Sources are reliable no doubt but relevancy is fuzzy here. The scholars are unanimous that Shramana is derived from sanskrit sram i.e. efforts/ striving. As a compromise consensus, I suggest that we mention the following: "There has been some scholarly debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman. The controversy between 'Shraman' and 'Shaman' started with Max Muller's linguistic method of comparison, which indicated that the etymology of 'Shaman' is an Indian Buddhist derivation from the Sanskrit Sramana and the Pali Samana.[3] However, in 1831 W.Schatt objected to this and speculated on evidence within the Tungusic language for an indigenous development of the word 'Shaman'.[3] Researchers such as Banzarov, Nemeth, Laufer and Schmidt support Schatt‘s view of an indigenous origin of Shamanism by deriving the descriptive term 'Shaman' solely from tribal elements. The link between Sramanas and Samanism is still speculative and more research needs to be done on it." I do not think we should add anything more, else Shamanism will hijack the article with the irrelevant discussion. This should be added only if there is no objection from other editors.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Which source(s) are you suggesting to use for the "[3]" notes within the text? —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Re to Fred

Fred, the shraman-shaman connection is partly fuzzy from the linguistic pov, not from anthropology pov. I'd request IndianChronicles to make a convincing case for fuzzy links. Had already mentioned all content goes into a new page, so am not convinced this opens doors for shamanism in this article either. Unless it is directly related to Shramana, stuff cannot be mentioned in this article. The sources for (3) are Znamenski and Grim. Also, indianChronicles is incorrect in claiming scholars are unanimous in deriving shramana from the sanskrit 'shram'. When the matter remains unresolved in linguistics, its not right to claim/conclude this as yet. In jainism, the term 'shramana' exclusively refers to 'Mahavira' or a 'tirthankara'. However, indianChronicles must understand that this article is about a very general term 'shramana', which does not belong to jainism alone. Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Final decision

It makes no sense to keep continuing the discussion like this. I have presented my case for Shramana-Shaman links. But indianChronicles, Venkatesh and Redtigerxyz have not presented their case yet. Since the latter two are no longer in this discussion loop, the onus falls on indianChronicles (who has also been raising the strongest objection).

To come to a final decision, i request indianChronicles to present his case for fuzzy relevancy of the shramana-shaman-link to this article. If not, allow the link to be mentioned as a seperate section, or as a paragraph (with required changes in the draft para), in this article. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Since there is no reply from IndianChronicles, i suppose i can go ahead and mention the link in this article. Do other editors have suggestions to make on the deleted section or on the draft paragraph? Fred, please can you choose which sentences from the deleted-section/draft-para go into this article (will put the rest into a new article) ? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

No you cannot change the article. Amandamese (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not, Amandamese? It would help the discussion if you explained why, per Wikipedia's policies, the text shouldn't be added. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned, it seems that there is overwhelming consensus against Mayasutra's additions. Amandamese (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if are a sock puppet or what.... Anyways, the only ones who made up the "overwhelming consensus" were IndianChronicles, Venkatesh and Redtigerxyz. None of them have a rationale. Hence their opposition stands invalid. I give you 24 hours to respond with your rationale for disallowing, or else am going ahead with reinstating the deleted para/section. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, clearcut rationale and reasons were given to you by all why the link is not required. I had not replied to you as I have already put forth my arguments and cannot keep on repeating the same thing. You cannot suo moto decide that the opposition is invalid. Your decision to reinstate will go against the Wikipolicies and consensus--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

re to chronicles

You have not yet explained your rationale for fuzzy relevance of the shramana-shaman link to this article. You admit you are not into anthropology, yet you oppose. You have not yet stated your case for opposing the inclusion. You cannot disallow merely based on your whim, with a select few (ie., only you and venkatesh to be precise) trying to hide behind the consensus policy. This is not a forum where a protectionism policy for majoritism applies. Neither are editors here some sorta moderators who disallow stuff based on personal POVs. Unless you make your case for fuzzy relevance, your grounds for opposing remain invalid. I would like to see you providing references of social anthropologists and phenomenologists who researched and found no anthropological links between shramana and shaman. Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I think Fred needs to take a decision here. Instead of allowing the ramble to continue, wud like to see a decision made by the admin, based on content provided. I beleive it now depends on whether or not Chronicles is able to (1) provide references as stated above, and (2) makes his case for fuzzy relevance of the shramana-shaman link to this article. Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I think you have a problem here. This article is about philosophy, Sramana were philosophers and religious teachers. Not about anthropology. It seems you are hell bent on putting original research in this article. The onus is on you to provide the link between Shramana and Shamanism which you have not been able to provide. I need not provide any references that Shramana and Shamanism is not linked.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re to Chronicles

You overlook in the pre-Buddist era there were too many groups/tribes with shamans/religious teachers each with their own philosophies and set of beliefs. Obviously they were not Jains alone. You are behaving as though Jainism has a patent on the term 'Shramana'.

Already expained, this article is NOT about Shramana Philosophy alone. It is about a very general title Shramana. Therefore it must include something from the linguistic research field, on the term's etymology, as well as links and syncretism with shamanism from the anthropological view.

I have provided enough references for the Shramana-Shaman links. The onus is on you to provide (1) and (2) as stated above. If you cannot provide, your opposition stands invalid.

You simply cannot claim "I need not provide any references" and still keep opposing. Unless you expain your rationale with (1) and (2), your opposition wud be considered a mere whim based on your personal religious beliefs. So either please explain your grounds for (1) and (2), or stop opposing.

Amandamese's stand on consensus is also doltish. I cud ask friends to create wiki usernames and support the inclusion. Am sure that's not how wiki works. So let Fred take a decision based on content provided.

Fred, its pointless to simply allow the ramble to continue. Hope you are aware of religionist/racist/casteist attitudes of indians (who are purists with religious notions about descent as well as the origin of their religions ; and averse to tribal or mixed origins of themselves or their religions -- in short, basically averse to anything that does not conform to their pet religious beleifs).

So Fred, unless you take a firm decision this issue is not going to resolve by itself. Am hoping to see you taking a decision as soon as you can and not stretch this any further. Hope we get to hear from you asap. If i don't get to hear from you, i take that you support the inclusion. If you say yes, i will put the draft para in this article, and create a new article on Shramana-Shaman links. You can trim/edit the content as is suitable around wiki policies. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Since a decision has been requested, I will opine. I do not see enough sourcing to support inclusion of the text, and I see strong rebuttals against including it. The text should stay out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred, i have provided references/sources from atleast 6 well known anthropologists who have done extensive research. Please explain if there is a wiki policy on the number of sources and how much is considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Also please explain how you made your decision based on strong rebuttals by Chronicles when he has not yet explained his grounds for (1) and (2). Chronicles mentioned his draft para as a compromise consensus here Talk:Shramana#Decision. Obviously he came around to the inclusion but with his own claim that "The link between Sramanas and Samanism is still speculative and more research needs to be done on it." But now your decision is curious. Kindly explain. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Six? There were three in the draft paragraph, of which at least one ran counter to the claim of the terms being related. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred, that is just a "draft" para. i did not know how many sources to add in such a short para. I wanted to represent views of linguists and anthropologists who support the links, as well as early linguists who did not support the link (based on their assumption that there were no pre-buddhist links between indians and central asians). Am not sure if you went thru the sources before opposing. Hope you did look at the sources in User_talk:C.Fred#Apology_about_Shramana_article (all of those 6 sources support the links). Ofcourse there are more mentioned in this section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism. Kindly explain how many sources are required to be considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Fred, i thot i was representing a balanced view by mentioning both, ie., those who support and those who oppose the links. Obviously the section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism needs to be redone -- basically in that section i just wanted to mention some important sources which support the Shramana-shaman links. Being aware of religious sensibilities, wanted to convey just a hint of the links without elaborating on it. My mistake. I should have detailed the shramana-shaman links properly and written just a short note on linguistic research opposing the links. I will redo the stuff and create a new Shramana and Shamanism section on monday, 27th feb (since its friday today, and am busy this weekend). There are a number of sources, but i cannot work around all of those anthropology publications. It wud be very helpful if you cud guide how many minimum sources are considered enough sourcing for wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

New admins

Is Fred the only admin dealing with this issue? Can we have someone knowledgable about social sciences and anthropology assigned to handle this? Fred, am not aware of wiki policies on minimum number of sources. Please do inform me how many minimum sources are required to be considered "enough sourcing" for wiki? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Shramana as 'Vratya'

The following is proposed as a new section by an IP (Get a Wikipedia life.)

Preliminary questionable context needing resolved first:

1. There reference is this web site. Is it notable?
2. There needs to be some notability attached to the ultimate authors of the ultimate sources, no matter how many inferences the author made from the ancient (most notable indeed) sources.
3. The web site itself sources a single book? Is it notable?
4. The list of links after the book might be sources too? but are they notable?
5. The web site mentions the word 'sramana' once. That's as relevant as it gets.

Reply by added user: I am a student of Philosophy. As part of my university course, I had to read 'Philosophies of India' Heinrich Zimmer. http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-India-Heinrich-Robert-Zimmer/dp/0691017581 It is a very well-regarded, well researched book. I also contains the same assertion that Vyratyas were probably the same as Shramanas - but the word was a Vedic Aryan one (not one that Shramans may have chosen to use for themselves.) If anyone knows how to fish out the relevant portions (search on the word 'vratya' inside the book) using Google Books, I request them to assist me in fishing that out. There must be other references I am sure. For now, however, I believe Zimmer's book and the above weblink should be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejiraj (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposed content is for anyone to edit. But mostly, it's just yours. I enjoyed working up a minimal rough draft (the wording and presentation), and will now look forward to a rewarding conclusion. But it shouldn't get published until it's articulation and WP:SOURCES are up to par, which is not asking very much more than citing the main assertions. So please add the references from the google books. You can probably figure it out, but I can help you with that when you give me the URL, but because in my experience it is highly unlikely anyone will team up and participate with you on this. It's sad, but true, you are the one. Maybe we can have two people on this one. Remember, when it gets published, then it gets lots of attention from many editors. But until it's articulation and references are improved, it waits here.

I've added (an over-abundance of) "citations needed" tags and a few requests for clarifications for ya in the top three paragraphs. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 19:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed content: (for all to edit)

---

One group of people described in the Rig Veda is the 'Vratyas' meaning 'those who have taken vows'. The Vratyas roamed about mostly in the countries of Magadha and Anga and spoke the dialect of Prachya, the source of the languages of Eastern India. They lived alone or in groups, away from populated areas. They followed their own cult-rules and practices. They drifted far and wide, roaming from the Indus valley to banks of the Ganga. <Are the two roaming grounds the same? This needs clarification by combining into one sentence.>

The wordVratyas occurs in the Rig Veda about eight times (e.g. 3:26:6; 5:53:11; 5:75:9; 9:14:2), where the Vratyas are described as a non-Aryan group of ascetics or mendicants who are spoken of with "fear and intrigue" , and as "enemies of the Aryans" .

While the Rig Veda speaks of Vratyas with fear as "the other" , the Atharva Veda speaks of them with more empathy. There they are depicted as a community of ascetics living under a set of "unusual" religious vows. In Rig Veda, they are shown as a a collection of men of indefinite number living in temporary settlements as a "breakaway group" or an "inimical horde". But the Atharva Veda (15.2.a) makes a statement

<how about quoting that here>

that is taken to mean that the Magadha tribes were friends, advisers and "thunder" (strong supporters) of the Vratyas. It may be noted that the eastern Ganas were the place where Buddhism and Jainism took root first. <How is that relevent here?> The Atharva-Veda too, uses the word in the sense of a stranger or a guest or one who follows rules.

Other mentions of Vratyas in Indian Religions are as follows:

• The Vajasaneyi-samhita refers to them as physicians and as guardians of truth.
• The Kesi-suktha of Rig Veda (10:13:6) and vratya- suktha Atharva Veda (15th kanda), describe the Vratyas in detail. They often had black turbans (krishnam ushnisham dharayanti), a set of round ornaments for the ears (pravartau),a jewel (mani) hanging by the neck, rows of long necklaces of strange beads swinging across the chest , two(dvi) deer-skins tied together for lower garment, and sandals for the feet (upanahau), so on. They wore long and often matted hair (kesi).They used a peculiar type of reclining seats (asandi
• According to one description, they did not care either for (vedic) rituals or for initiations (adhikshitah); or celibacy (Na hi brahmacharyam charanthi). They did not engage themselves in agriculture (Na krshim) or in trade (Na vanijyam). They behaved as if they were possessed (gandharva grithaha), according to the Aryans.

Here are some clues as well that seem to indicate that Vratyas were probably what the Vedic Aryans called the Shramanas or ascetics.

• Shiva–Rudra is described as Eka–Vratya (AV 10.8.1.9.1).
• The Vratyas were in existence as early as a thousand years before Buddha and Mahavira.
• The term Vratya, in Jainism, also means the observer of vratas or vows…
• The Jain tradition refers to Rishabhadeva, the first Tirthankara of the present age(avasarpini), as Maha-Vratya, to suggest he was the great leader of the Vratyas.
• Further, the Mallas and the Licchhavis were mentioned as Vratya - Kshatriyas. Mahavira was the son of a Licchhavi princess; and he had a considerable following among the Licchhavi tribe.
• The Buddha too visited Licchhavi on many occasions; and had great many followers there.

— CpiralCpiral 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Shramana and Veda

The article on Shramana contains questionable claims. The author attempts to identify the term "Vedic" with only one aspects of the Vedas, the Karma-Kāṇḍa. While that aspect of the Vedas is indeed focused on worldly action (such as ritual), the Vedas also include the experientially oriented Jnana-Kāṇḍa. The Upaniṣads consider the Karma-Kāṇḍa secondary, and in many ways dependent on, the level of experiential attainment one has reached. Yogic practice (in its broad sense, including transcendence oriented meditation, etc.) is seen as necessary for the requisite experiences. Thus, the claims below that the Yoga tradition is Śramaņa and not part of the overall Vedic tradition is questionable at best. Considerably more nuance might make it clear which traditions falling under the umbrella term "yogic" might be seen as divergent from the Vedic and which are not. For instance, the Nath Yoga tradition may be divergent, while Patanjali's Yoga Sūtras, as an āstika tradition, is less likely to be.NeilSadhan (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim

The article claimed that Though ideas of Karma, Liberation and Samsara are present in the early vedic texts, concise arguments and definitions arose from the Shramana tradition.. This is dubious at best. I have removed the claim due to lack of reliable reference. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Proof that "Shramana" tradition influenced Vedic tradition

I read through the article and found many of the claims unsubstantiated. I don't call quoting a book as proof when that author just gives an unsubstantiated opinion. What is the actual proof beyond someone's opinion that the Shramana's influenced that Brahmanas? Or that there weren't Brahmana Shramanas.

First of all it is not clear who the Shramana's were. Where they inside or outside the Vedic fold? Or were they originally Vedic and then some heterodox people imitated them? For we see in Mahabharata and Ramayana that many Vedic sages were living in the forest and wandering around like sannyasis? (To understand teh Vedas one must approach through the Itithasa and Puranas not directly.)

I also found it ridiculous to say that Brahmanas adopted the theory of karma and reincarnation from Buddhists and Jains when these two are derivative of the former. Very bad scholarship you are quoting from.van Lustig (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much promting buddhism, historical roots of Sramana come from hindu sadhus long before jains and buddhist

Did Buddha get enlighten by reading his own scriptures? Im curious to know why this page is Lavishing buddha with every inch of effort while denying the current fold of hinduism its handed down culture of yoga, mediation and sramana

Part of the Śramaṇa tradition remained outside the Hindu fold by rejecting the authority of the Vedas; with the Jains, Buddhists, Ajivikas, and other religious groups developing as a result of this rejection.[4] Part of the Śramaṇa tradition was absorbed into Hindu dharma literature with a place for a renunciate sanyasi in it, in the four stages (ashramas) of life.[4] One of the earliest uses of the word is in the Hindu text Taittiriya Aranyaka (2-7-1) with the meaning of 'performer of austerities'.[citation needed] Buddhist commentaries associate the word's etymology with the quieting (samita) of evil (pāpa) as in the following phrase from the Dhammapada, verse 265: samitattā pāpānaŋ ʻsamaṇoʼ ti pavuccati ("someone who has pacified evil is called samaṇa")

The way you have written this page is almost as if you think the whole of Hinduism scriptures come from the vedas? Hinduism is from ("the Bhartiya scripture") it has Many different paths, the vedas is just ONE of them, its like thousands of rivers but they all meet into the ocean as one, that is the the Bhartiya scripture.

You need to give this Sramana tradition which is out side of the the Bhartiya scripture of hinduism, Sadhus who are HINDUS are practice the Sramana traditions and they themselves say they are the PROTECTORS of hinduism and indians cultures82.38.160.13 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)veda

That's not what academia has found. Later attempts by more modern forms of Hinduism to be more inclusive do not change evidence of historical beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I've understood from Geoffrey Samuel (2008/2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism originated in the same late Vedic cultural complex. And Gavin Flood (1996), Hinduism, notes that a combination of Vedic/Brahmanic and non-Vedic/Brahmanic influences may have led to the emergence of the shramanic movement. It's probably more complex than we all have learned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pande source

I have removed the Pande source, as it had only name and year, and no other source details. I also cleaned out a paragraph that was pushing a POV, without reliable sources. Witzel, Flood, Olivelle and other scholars have written quite the opposite, and differently, that what was in that paragraph. If someone has concerns, please feel free to add it back along with reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 04 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to śramaṇa. Number 57 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Sramana → Shramana – it was unilaterally moved with no discussion and contests COMMON NAME, INDIC NAMING. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Ogress _smash! 22:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This page was last moved in January, 2014. The reason given in the log was WP:COMMONNAME. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This move, despite happening a year ago, contests both COMMON NAME and INDIC NAMING; the latter specifies the transliteration of ś as sh, not as s, and that the former is actually sramana and not shramana I'd like to see some evidence of given that google NGRAMS demonstrably reads ś as "s". Check for yourself in the NGRAM by choosing a book and then examining. Every time, it reads it as "sramana" but the book has śrāmaṇa. Ogress _smash! 22:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Where does policy exactly say you must transliterate as "sh"? If you transliterate it as "sh", you are going to have people try to insert stuff on shamanism again. The correct and common term is śramaṇa. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

INDIC NAMING recommends sh, not s, as the simple romanisation of ś. If the consensus is to use the IAST, I'm whole-heartedly supportive. Ogress _smash! 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move to śramaṇa as per the observations of VG above. The NGRAMS show śramaṇa is overwhelmingly the form in common use. (Click on the sources in the NGRAMS, as Google misreads ś as s.) Ogress _smash! 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see where it says that in INDIC NAMING.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That page links to a chart-page: Wikipedia:Indic transliteration. It seems I am remembering the specific emphasis given to ś from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)#Simplified transliteration, however (I've been on Wikipedia a while :-( ), and WP:INDIC and WP:Indic transliteration merely instruct us to use sh for simplified transliterations. (The adjustment was probably made due to the emergence of the Kolkota standard, because in languages like Nepali, there is no ʃ and romanising Nepali (or, I believe, Marathi) that way would actually be misleading, but I didn't look into it.) Ogress _smash! 01:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. "Sramana" and "sramana" are by far more common than "Shramana" in English per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Khestwol: Did you read the request? I specifically noted that the NGRAM is not what it appears if you actually examine the texts in question. The NGRAMS show śramaṇa is actually the form in common use. Click on the sources in the NGRAMS, as Google misreads the IPA letters as "sramana", but the texts all have śramaṇa.

@Ogress: my oppose was regarding move to the first proposal, i.e. "Shramana". I do not oppose the other proposal śramaṇa. I am neutral about "śramaṇa". Khestwol (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: note Khestwol is "neutral" toward śramaṇa, VictoriaGrayson and I have voted for śramaṇa per Wiki standard and there are no other votes. Ogress _smash! 22:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes moving to śramaṇa is fine with me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jainism section

@Kautilya3: This is the citation provided for the last para of Jainism section: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=ZlyDot9RyGcC&lpg=PA49&dq=shramana%20brahman%20mongoose%20and%20cobra&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=shramana%20brahman%20mongoose%20and%20cobra&f=false

And this is the text of the paragraph: "In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in South India could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century CE, Jinasena produced Jain law books in the guise of Puranas glorifying the Tirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa. Rishabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain brahmins."

Is there any correspondence between the source and the text? No. Yet you just reverted my edit with the edit summary "if a link is wrong, surely you know how to fix it?" Is this how you generally fix the links? Pls cite the correct source or remove the paragraph. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. That bad link has probably been there for ages. But there is a full citation, which you can always find. In any case, why are you pinging me for it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While we are it, let me refer you to WP:ROWN, which seems to be essential reading for you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who pinged you? You wrote on my talk page. I removed the bad link and related content. Why did you reinstate it? And where is this full (and correct) citation, and if you have it why have you not added it to support the above content? -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote on your talk page because you reverted my edit and reinstated the edit of a vandal, which makes you a vandal yourself as per WP:BURDEN. Apparently, you have never involved yourself on this page and there is no indication that you know what is going on either. You seem to be here just to pick a fight. Why don't you go back to your usual pursuits and leave us alone? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because your citation was spurious, which has been explained in the edit summary. This was explained to you again but don't seem to understand simple English sentences. Instead of acknowledging your mistake you reverted my edit, and added another spurious citation, which has nothing to do with the content. I have asked for an explanation for your erratic edit, and instead of answering my specific content-related question you are bullshitting and name-calling. Pls observe WP:Civil, assume WP:GF and answer the content-related question instead of assuming disreputable motives. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Walk your talk, I'd say. The citation refers to p.92, quite obviously. I checked the page, and yes, it matches. No mistake by Kautilya3 to admit, except for confusing "removal" with "addition." But that's not a big deal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. This diff [2] shows plenty of sourced red stuff on the left that has been deleted, and smaller amount of unsourced red stuff on the right that has been added. Both are problematic of course. My diff [3] shows that all I did was to replace an uncouth footnote by an rp (page reference), because both the footnotes were referring to the same book.

Obviously, this is a storm in a tea cup. But why is this storm happening? Possibly in response to my last "interaction" with Mohanbhan, which was here [4]. This is the standard pattern of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Not exactly a "tea cup."- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The views of six samaṇa in the Pāli Canon

This template is included, but that misleads. It implies Sassatavada etc was accepted by Sramana-Buddhism, but it wasn't. Sāmaññaphala Sutta is claiming that those were the views of Sramanas, and later explains that Buddhism is not one of those Sramanas. The relevance or content in this template needs to be discussed in this article. For rejection of Sassatavada in Buddhism, see for example, Florin Sutton (1991), Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara-Sutra, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0791401729, page 277. It is puzzling that the template is included twice in this article, but never discussed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The philosophy section has little philosophy, too much polemics. The views and contrast with the orthodox Indic schools should be included, but this should be a summary of recent reliable sources on the views found in early Buddhist and Jaina texts, such as the Nikayas, and texts composed through the 1st millennium CE. A summary from the records of 1st millennium CE Chinese travellers to India, a better discussion of Sunyata/Atman/Soul, etc would improve this article. The section should also summarize the difference between early Jaina and early Buddhist, as well as competing Sramana philosophies.

Some text needs a rethink. Consider the Dharmakirti quote. It is sourced to Jaini's book, who sources it to Rahul Sankrityayan. The quote is actually not from Dharmakirti's Sanskrit text, which is lost. It is a quote from an unidentified Tibetan text, which Sankrityayan claimed to have re-translated back to Sanskrit, between 1930s through 1950s. Sankrityayana added it as his personal commentary, to Pramanavarttika, and to Darshana Digdarshana on page 806, and to Buddha Darshana to page 184, and to few other unrelated texts claiming it to be from the same unidentified Tibetan text. In one version, he wrote the last part of the verse differently.

Sankrityayan verse and its translation

Sankrityayana verse, added to this article, is:

vedapramanyam kasyacit kartrvadah/ snane dharmeccha jativadavalepah// santaparambhah papahanaya ceti/ dhvastaprajnanam pancalirigani jadye

Provided translation: The unquestioned authority of the vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathings; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin; - these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men.

The translation is puzzling, as there is no Sanskrit word in there for "arrogant" or "unquestioned". I have seen three translations, all different from the above, one included in a paper by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya, of Charvaka literature fame. Here are two translations:

T1: Belief in the authority of the Vedas, and in a creator, desiring merit from bathing, pride in caste, and practicising self denial for the eradication of sins - these five are the marks of stupidity of one whose intelligence is damaged.

T2: Veda as epistemic authority, taking bath to gain merit, starting asceticism to destroy sin, know these as foolishness of five senses.

Jaini's book on page 48 is stating that the last part of the quote "viz. the path of asceticism, stands out as the chief characteristic of all the heterodox schools collectively called the sramanas", and that the orthodox and heterodox (sramana) traditions mutually influenced each other. The philosophy section does not mention this, it only mentions conflict.

Jaini's book on page 72 is also stating that Jaina denied the supremacy of Brahmins, not the social structure, and in practice even claimed to be the originators of the system of hereditary ranks, in the medieval times. Gotra and social structure existed among Jains, according to Jaini's book. Similarly, on pages 142-147, he mentions "rituals and magical practices" among Buddhists and Jains. A neutral and balanced summary would mention this, wherever polemics against the ancient and medieval orthodox school beliefs are included. Past the trees, from a forest level perspective, the section should be 80%+ philosophy of Sramanas, and each Sramana school - by this I mean, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, axiology, etc.

@Joshua Jonathan:, @Abecedare: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very little thoughts on this. I tried to read the philosophy-section; it's quite muddled. The introductory-section consists of too many loose ends. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)