Talk:Ashvamedha/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request to change certain lines from deformed to closer to actual meaning (Second Attempt)

Recently I tried to cite some dissimilar and twisted meaning of some lines shown in Wikipedia on 'Asvamedha' viz. line number 22 23 and 24 which states "The chief queen ritually calls on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walk around the dead horse reciting mantras. The chief queen then has to mimic copulation with the dead horse, while the other queens ritually utter obscenities." These correspond in the original Valmiki Ramayana in Chapter 1(Baala Kanda)-Sarga 14(The end of the Ceremony)-Sloka 31-33. For the Correct and logical explanation I tried to cite a website created by IIT Kanpur ( "http://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/) but this was rejected denying this as a reliable source of information. Now I further want to attract your attention to a source which is translated by a well published author Shri Hari Prasad Sastri in his book "The Ramayana of Valmiki" published by 'Santi Sadan:29 Chepston Villas ,London 1952'. Here is the Link: "https://archive.org/details/The.Ramayana.of.Valmiki.by.Hari.Prasad.Shastri". In that book we can see a different meaning of the Slokas other than the one given in Wikipedia. The three lines are "Queen Kausalya (The Chief queen) joyfully paid reverence to the horse before making the sacrifice with three strokes of the sword. Prompted by riteous desire, Queen Kausalya passed the night watching over the dead body of the horse, then the priests caused the king's serving women and courtesans to approach it." (Refer to: https://archive.org/stream/The.Ramayana.of.Valmiki.by.Hari.Prasad.Shastri#page/n48/mode/1up). These are clearly written in "Ramayana of Valmiki by Hari Prasad Sastri 'Bala Kanda' Chapter 14 page 34 line no. 13 & 14". Will it still not be a reliable source of information which can be used to update the controversial lines in Wikipedia? I think the opinion Mr. Arthur Berridale gave in his book "The Veda of the Black Yajus School Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita" as mentioned in the footnotes of Ashvamedha page in Wikipedia is completely racial ,backed up by Church Authorities and payed by British government to break the backbones of Indian's native religion by misinterpreting Hindu's sacred texts and provoking religious and communal disharmony. I don't know why such debatable things are still existent in a global information tank like Wikipedia and why this is not properly investigated. If Wikipedia wants to be neutral, it should remove this kind of biased information sources. Thank You.

Sonai52 (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonai52, these are not "updated" versions. They are just bowdlerised ones. The fact that some Hindu translators want to tone down the language in translations for reasons of politeness and because they find it unacceptable for ideological reasons is acknowledged in the article. There are several up to date scholarly sources that describe the actual language, for example here: [1] Paul B (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

These are 100 % updated as well as authentic versions. Bowdlerised ? Can't find the word in the dictionary anywhere ! So your hatred towards Hindu translators is just because they differ from your false opinion ? Do you have a mental problem of always trying to put the ideological or 'political' stamp on anyone who positively justifies and explains the scriptures ? Arya Samaj interpretation is 100 % authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.166.131 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can't do something as simple as find the word "bowdlerised" I have no confidence in your other research skills. It's not a question of the religion of the translators, but of their scholarly value and their ideological agenda. Paul B (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Current literary retelling of Ashvamedha

Roberto Calasso devotes a long detailed chapter to a retelling of the Ashvamedha in his book Ka: Stories of the Mind and Gods of India." His version (Chapter 7 of Ka pp. 126-153) describes the entire ritual including the preparation, the free wandering of horse for the year, the coitus with the first wife, and the cutting up of the horse. Calasso includes copious citations of the relevant Hindu texts for those wishing to pursue the subject further.

Divagation (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Divagation

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashvamedha. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070929082350/http://www.ashwamedhayaagam.org/whyamy.html to http://www.ashwamedhayaagam.org/whyamy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 22:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

I only have a comment that this page does not correctly define the Ashvamedh Yag. Its incorrect, and hurts the religious sentiments of hindus. Please writers and editors, do your homework correctly. 103.1.183.188 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. We cannot read minds. If you want to change something you are going to have to actually tell us what you want to change it to. Preferably backed up with reliable sources. --Majora (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversial claims require a better source

The article as it is states that "The chief queen lies down and the adhvaryu guides the horses penis against the queen's vagina, signifying the birth of a new king." I request this sentence to be taken down, or at least substituted by "the chief queen lies down with the horse to symbolize the conception and birth of a new kind." Alternatively, I request a better reference, as the reference used (Knipe, 2005) is just a garbage reference for the act.

The reference, the book written by Knipe contain this description, but the context of the book is peculiar. The description is part of an imagined version by a contemporary hindu priest who admittedly never saw this ritual and admittedly is not familiar with the literature on it's description (save for one text). Also, the book isn't clear about what was described by the hindu priest and what was imagination of the author. If you want me I can copy+paste the whole chapter on the asvamedha from the book, but it would obviously infringe copyrights. You can also buy the book, since it's on sale, or go to your closest academic library and get it.

I did quite a bit of research on the topic to see if I could find other source on this rubbing the penis thing and all I could find was a mistranslation by an anti-hindu muslim. The closest to something like this was a passage in a story where a queen lays down next to the dead horse and Indra incarnates in the horse out of desire. In the story, everybody is surprised by the event, which clearly establishes that the queen was not supposed to have intercourse with the horse. All other mentions (in sanskrit or in translations) only mentions the laying down as a symbolic event, not an actual intercourse.

If you want to give me editing rights on the page or instruct me on how to submit an appropriate edit based on my research of the asvamedha, I'll be happy to do so. Otherwise, the minimum here is to remove the offending sentence that is obviously offensive to a giant community. Sjayanthi (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that contain similar descriptions. For example, see this ("The rite includes such repulsive incidents as...") or this ("A necessary part of the Ashvamedha was the introduction..."). If you have reliable source that believes these to be mistranslations, feel free to add it to the article. The symbolic interpretation by Arya Samaj and others is already mentioned in the article. utcursch | talk 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional references. I was not aware of them and did not find them. I have to say, for you to just state "plenty of other sources" is quite condescending. I searched hard and didn't find anything scholarly describing the act itself or with a reference just a "as is known" handwaving. And you produced a total of one text that is reliable (the ambedkar.org text is propaganda, I mean, just read the text). The book reference you provided should be on the article itself, not here in the talk page. It is a scholarly reference that describes how the author believes the ritual took place and states that a dead horse penis is rubbed in a vagina. It also cites where the description comes from. Hence, it is a better reference than the reimagination mentioned in Knipe. I don't know how to add something to the article since it is protected. If you would be kind enough to tell me how, I'd be happy to do so myself.

Just add the extra references you mentioned and that would be that. At least people will know where the information is coming from and, if they want to do their homework, judge the validity of the claim themselves.

On a personal note, I wasn't familiar with the book you mentioned, thanks for that. Of course, there is the problem that I read pretty much all the alleged Yajur Veda sources, at least in their translation (and I don't read censored translations, don't worry), and never came across a literal rubbing of a horse penis in a vagina. Sure I found references for the semen of the horse and and conception of the next king and even the dispute on who gets to sleep with the horse. And the literal sleeping next to a horse is also described over and over. What I'm arguing here is that there was not literal rubbing or penetration of a horse penis (dead or alive) in a vagina. I don't know why you think I was talking about the Arya Samaj interpretation, which based on what I read in the article is also stupid. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where people just can't get rid of their stupidity based on their ideologies. Any person with a vague familiarity of symbolism in religious rituals and that isn't a pervert would probably think like me, but I can't find a citation for that, so it's no part of the Gospel according to Wikipedia. The reading you are making would be similar to saying that, based on the ritual of the Eucharistia, Jesus served his own blood and flesh in his last supper.

I mean, the way the article reads, it induces the reader to believe that sometime in the 17th century, Jai Singh II had his wife penetrated by a dead horse. Something that scandalous would be surely well documented, and yet, here we are, with a reference that only mentions he performed the ritual and that he documented the entire thing and doesn't mention something as exotic and bizarre as a dead horse penetrating a king's wife assisted by a priest. Of course, readers that are dumb enough to believe in this deserve to believe in this article. The people with brains will probably do what I did and read the effing source. Sjayanthi (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say penetration? It says against vagina. Please see this NEW BOOK.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The penetration is in one of the references that utcursch mentioned, which is why I commented. I also used it as a rhetoric device in the last paragraph, fwiw. VictoriaGrayson, it would be nice if you read my commentary on Knipe above before bringing Knipe up again. I know of and read the relevant section in the "NEW BOOK." (What's up with the condescending tone here, by the way?) I'm done arguing Knipe, if you guys want to keep it as a reference for the asvamedha, know that you are keeping a primary source which is an imaginary retelling. This shouldn't be on Wikipedia when there are better sources, like the book utcursch mentioned.

From the reference provided above by utcursch, I tracked down a better (secondary, authoritative, unbiased) source for the act. It's Jamison, 1996, "Sacrificed Wife/Sacrificer's Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India." Page 68 has the money quote, but it's part of a full section on this aspect of the ritual. She provides a discussion on the debate and translations of parts of the literature that illustrate the act. I don't agree with her reading, but she clearly shifted the burden in this debate and should be the source to begin with (if that had been the source, I wouldn't have raised this issue). Go ahead and read it if you think I'm Trojan horsing something. I'm finding out that I accidentally commented on a politicized matter and, in a war, truth is the first casualty. I'm guessing this is where the condescension and biting is coming from is coming from. Sjayanthi (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Srauta Sutras are extremely detailed ritual manuals. They are not symbolic. There is no misinterpretation.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As it says in the header of the page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If you know that the Srauta Sutras are relevant reference, than put it in the article. From the outset, all I wanted can be summarized as remove Knipe as reference, because it's just not good, and (a) put better references, (b) more references or (c) remove the sentence. Utcursch provided a reference, I found a more detailed one. Can we just remove Knipe and add Jamison, since it's better, it's secondary and it's in English? Is there any reason to keep Knipe? Sjayanthi (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus. Let me try this again, this time in simple sentences and using your criterion. The information in that sentence (penis pressed against vagina) cannot be verified by Knipe, for the reasons stated above. It can, however, be verified by Jamison. So the information stays but the reference changes. Is that ok? Sjayanthi (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote relevant passage from Jamison on this talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't quote, but here's a link. Sjayanthi (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Knipe's description, whether true to the Vedas or not, is from a book titled Vedic Voices and is phrased as the imagination (In his mind's eyes and ears, Rama Sastra [sic] sees and hears the scenes develop from the selection of an outstanding stallion …) of a Brahmana of Andhra Pradesh rather than an analysis of the Upanishads. If an alternative reliable source can be found, then that should IMO, be preferred. I find it more curious that this article does not note the different sources (Taittiriya Up., Brihadaranyaka Up., Shatapatha Brahmana, etc.) for this rite and presents just the version from the Taittiriya Upanishad. What about the rest? There's also an entire chapter in the Mahabharata titled the Ashvamedhika Parva …--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Its a 2015 Oxford University Press book. He is not basing it on imagination. Thats just poetic license.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, I'm sorry for the agressive language that will follow, but you're being so dense about this that it seems you're either dumb or a liar. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE BOOK SAYS EXPLICITLY. Your retort to that is that the book was published by 2015 Oxford University Press book and that the author used poetic language. I'm out. Sjayanthi (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at footnotes 62 and 63, he is citing academic sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: If you notice, Knipe actually cites Jamison in this section (although we don't get to know which bits the citation covers).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I added Jamison's 1996 book for the tiny portion of the ritual it covers.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

Valmiki Ramayana mention sleeping of queen Kausalya with dead horse during Ashvamedha Yajna.

पतत्रिणा तदा सार्धम् सुस्थितेन च चेतसा | अवसत् रजनीम् एकाम् कौसल्या धर्म कांयया || 1.14.34

Translation - Queen Kausalya desiring the results of ritual disconcertedly resided one night with that horse that flew away like a bird.

Muktipada.behera (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashvamedha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929080441/http://www.akhandjyoti.org/marapr05/article12.html?Akhand-Jyoti/2005/Jul-Aug/Ashvamedha/ to http://www.akhandjyoti.org/marapr05/article12.html?Akhand-Jyoti/2005/Jul-Aug/Ashvamedha/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213233624/http://www.hinduismtoday.com:80/archives/1994/6/1994-6-04.shtml to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/6/1994-6-04.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ramayan by Din(Muslim) is the only reference? the vedavyasa (Hindu) written Ramayana is the original one. It never said to slay a horse. Aswamedha yagya / yaaga is doing rituals around fire and adding a note on the horse and giving a soldier to follow the horse where ever it goes. all that area covered by the horse is owned by the the king who perfmormed the yagya. the other kings must either surrender or fight the army of the yagya originating King. in Ramayana, king Rama performed this yagya and he won the whole earth. SriRama ruled the entire earth for many years. There is no slaying of horse anywhere. all this information provided above by Din is not correct and does not correlate to the Hindu values. Looks like Din had no idea of Hindu values and it seems that he wrote a script to project misunderstandings to confuse the culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariechin (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Ravarunreddy (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) The chief queen lies down and the adhvaryu guides the horse's penis against the queen's vagina, signifying the birth of a new king.[4][5] The animals are dismembered. The king ascends the throne while the Purusha Sukta is recited.[5

this lines of text found is innappropriate and voilates the hindu culture, it also influences communal voilence against the hindu culture so i please request you to remove these lines. the person who has edited this ashwamedha is not a genuine and he has written to misguide the people belonging to the hindu culture. Ravarunreddy (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and due to the fact this excerpt is not a recent addition, you will need to provide reliable sources that dictate that it is not correct. — IVORK _Discuss 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

aśvamedhá -> aśvamedha (this word only has one accent on the first syllable) Linguarum discipulus antiquarum (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you - FlightTime (open channel) 19:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

akash deep maurya 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING LIKE ANIMAL SACRIFICE.MOST OF THE HISTORY IS DISTORTED. THE SACRIFICIAL MENAING INDICATES THAT SAME HORSE WILL NEVER BE USED AGAIN FOR ASWAMEDHA YAGNA. akash deep maurya 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

THIS IS MAJOR CHANGE FOR THIS ARTICLE.

THERE IS NOTHING ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN VEDIC CULTURE. HISTORICAL SACRIFICE INDICATE THAT SAME HORSE CANN'T BE USED AGAIN FOR ASHVAMEDHA YAGNA. VEDIC HISTORY IS BEING OVERWRIITEN BY LEREBALS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashmaurya24 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a horse sacrificing ritual stop spreading lies as you are the most reliable source Abhay02official (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of information is wrong with no reference on ancient text As ashwamegh yagnya doesn't kill horse after ashwamegh yagna Swapnil234 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Aswamegha yagn

It is not sacrifice of horsh Pratik Buha (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Misleading article, about a practice with no mention of violence/sacrifical death anywhere in the actual practice manuals

Hello.

Writing because the article is full of non-indigenous references. The Ashvamegh (it's actually ashvamedh!) was indeed a sacrificial form of establishing territorial superiority, however, the disputing parties were supposed to capture the horses, not kill them.

"In the territory traversed by the horse, any rival could dispute the king's authority by challenging the warriors accompanying it. After one year, if no enemy had managed to kill or capture the horse, the animal would be guided back to the king's capital. It would be then sacrificed, and the king would be declared as an undisputed sovereign." The first line is correct. The second line, again, with references from Ramayan, Luv and Kush capture their father Ram's horse, not kill them. The last line is a plain lie with no references from anywhere. How is this allowed?

Medh can mean three different things and somehow writers of this article could arrive at a conclusion that this has violent connotation.

Ref - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZMQXBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE+%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%83+%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B+%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87+%E0%A4%9A&source=bl&ots=O4YKo8NS6A&sig=ACfU3U1m0BJRY-_rwHEp1Sn9wFZTUwtKLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisxfne57DlAhUBuRoKHa0oCvgQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%83%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%9A&f=false

This paints an extremely grotesque picture which isn't true at all. Nowhere did the kings sacrificed or killed their horses when they returned home. We have similar procedure called 'Pitrmedh' where 'pitr' is father and the process is observed for the father in the family who has passed away to meet his spirits. Another is called 'sarvmedh' where people from different social and educational qualifications were posted/established to perform their jobs in different areas of the cities. 'Sarv' means all, which should by this context mean sacrifice of all?

Please, let me edit with proper sources as this is against Wikipedia's own rules to have false information, that too without citing any source. Ashkumar2665 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the Manual of Style for the lead sections. The statements in the lead do not appear to violate Wikipedia's rules, as citations for those sections are not required. The statements in the lead do need to conform to the sites policies on verifiability, but they are generally considered to summarize the statements in the body of the article that have inline citations. In the case of these statements, the objected-to sentence is a summary of three paragraphs in the body that are cited to four separate reliable sources. This complies with Wikipedia's core content policies. If you still feel the need to change this, you are welcome to open a discussion on this talk page and seek a consensus among your fellow editors to change the text. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Misleading article at a major level

There has been so many wrong misleading information about Ashvamedha being sacrifice. It is not said that horse is sacrificed in veda, upanishad and purana.

Therefore, Please change

"The Ashvamedha (Sanskrit: अश्वमेध aśvamedha) is a horse sacrifice ritual followed by the Śrauta tradition of Vedic religion. It was used by ancient Indian kings to prove their imperial sovereignty: a horse accompanied by the king's warriors would be released to wander for a period of one year. In the territory traversed by the horse, any rival could dispute the king's authority by challenging the warriors accompanying it. After one year, if no enemy had managed to kill or capture the horse, the animal would be guided back to the king's capital. It would be then sacrificed, and the king would be declared as an undisputed sovereign.

The best-known text describing the sacrifice is the Ashvamedhika Parva (Sanskrit: अश्वमेध पर्व), or the "Book of Horse Sacrifice," the fourteenth of eighteen books of the Indian epic poem Mahabharata. Krishna and Vyasa advise King Yudhishthira to perform the sacrifice, which is described at great length. The book traditionally comprises 2 sections and 96 chapters.[1][2] The critical edition has one sub-book and 92 chapters.[3][4]

The ritual is recorded as being held by many ancient rulers, but apparently only by two in the last thousand years. The most recent ritual was in 1741, the second one held by Maharajah Jai Singh II of Jaipur. The original Vedic religion had evidently included many animal sacrifices, as had the various folk religions of India. Brahminical Hinduism had evolved opposing animal sacrifices, which have not been the norm in most forms of Hinduism for many centuries. The great prestige and political role of the Ashvamedha perhaps kept it alive for longer."

to

"Ashvamedha (Sanskrit: अश्वमेध aśvamedha) comprises of two words-: Ashva and Medha. Ashva means Horse and Medha means purification ceromony. On joining, it means that purification ceremony done with horse to git rid of major sins like killing Brahmins.

Only a victorious(Chakravarti) king can perform Ashvamedha yagna. A white stallion horse is worshiped by king on Vaishakh Purnima and then the horse should be let to roam wherever it wants for minimum period of 1 year and maximum period of 100 years. The horse must have more than age of 24 years and less than age of 100 years. After letting it wander, the soldiers should follow that horse wherever it goes. The wandering horse must be attained by one hundred number of young & skilled warriors including crown prince or son of King with officers of high court charged with guarding horses who can fight & overcome from all dangers & uncertainty. King has to live a celibate life till the horse returns back to the same place from where it had been let loose and has to donate money, wealth, gold, silver, copper, cows to 20,000 Brahmins & needy people every year.

After dwapra yuga, the changes to Ashvamedha yagna was made and the sacrifice was included in the Ashvamedha yagna. After that, King sacrificed their horse after capturing them to complete the ceremony." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu 1323 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support this change. Moreover, you're proposing to change the lead of the article, which is merely a summary of the rest. So any change like this would have to be accompanied by a pretty thorough rewrite. This would need to done carefully, as it appears that quite a bit here is already well-sourced. It will also require better competency in English and a consensus for the changes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Citation needed but no one can edit... Hipppcrsy at apex.... Without citations, someone is protecting to this incorrect information... akash deep maurya 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashmaurya24 (talk • contribs)

Sacrifice

Sacrifice is defined as

an act of offering to a deity something precious

But somehow this article is written in a way to make it look like that the ritual is associated with killing the horse. This needs more details. citations are limited and many of them are from obscure sources. Not even the usual noted Vedic scholars Witzel are cited here. ChandlerMinh (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Incorrect Correction

This "correction" (Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019) was not correct. Without the final Vedic accent, asvamedha is a name (of a person mentioned in the RV). The final accent is necessary to identify the asvamedha ritual (because the meaning of the word 'medha' changes as a consequence of the accent.) Please consult, e.g., the Monier-Williams dictionary (the print edition, not the online version, which does not show accents) for verification. rudra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Rudrasharman, Done Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Medha means purification (ceremony); ashwa means today, now; that which was not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today. Also, horse signifies our senses. So, this yagya was to purify the senses. Vibhavkishor (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aswamedha of pandavas.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Complaint

The description about Yagna looks like a mischief. People wrote lot of articals defaming other religion. Just cause there is one book and that mentions this process of yagna, doesn't make it true. I can also refer other blog from well known Hindu scholar/s (https://www.swamipurnachaitanya.com/animal-sacrifice-in-the-vedas/) which state that there was no sacrifice tradition dictated. The purpose of Ashwamedh yagna was to mark a territory and exert dominance on neighboring kingdoms. Yagna happens and after that donation is given, like few cows, elephant, horses, including yagna horse. They are not killed but donated to some other entity. Plus, this wife of king having sex with horse is also a nonsense. There is no reason that a wife of a king who is already considered as one of the highest educated people in kingdom will do this thing. There is no reason, looks like it's intentionally appended to existing verses. There should be proper research about this. unsigned

Added just now Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many, many texts, several over 1,000 years old, describing and commenting on the ritual. That is the "proper research". Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Which texts ? There is one book written by Louis Renou - a French guy in the 1940s. We have to trust him ? He did not cite any primary sources at all in his book. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has been heavily edited and mischievous statements have been added in the past few years. You cannot just say these are the English sources we have. India and Hinduism has been colonized. Citing only the colnoizers' texts as the only source is not only misleading but peddling the colonizer agenda. Louis Renou was a french Indologist, his French book does not cite any primary sources at all. The English translation to that was done by Philip Spratt, who was a Communist at that time and was sent to India as a Communist spy. He later founded the Communist Part of India. We all know the motivations of communists w.r.t Hinduism. It's not fair that Wikipedia cites such sources devoid of any Indian sources at all. This kind of a bile propaganda about Aswamedha Yagna has been a constant point of the Dravidian movement in Tamilnadu for the past 100 years. We all know the Dravidian ideology was formented by the missionaries like Caldwell in the 1800s. Rajesh1112 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of Indian scholars, indeed the vast majority, who accept the conventional account. The many sources by Indian authors cited in the article are just the tip of the iceberg. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement about the Queen and the horse is cited by 2 references - both by erstwhile translations in the late 1850s. The Indian author from Reference 33 explicitly states that there is no mention of this nonsense in the Rig Veda or any other text. It's only Pilip Spratt's translation of Louis Renou's book that has this statement. Wikipedia's standards are getting lower and lower. Rajesh1112 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll like this detailed account even less (from p. 122 on). [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Hinduism/zrk0AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Ashvamedha+horse+queen&pg=PT223&printsec=frontcover This one is shorter and more discreet, but makes clear the main points. Here, an Indian painting of the 18th-century shows the horse being strangled. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

lol. Another book by "Rick F. Talbott" - someone in the US citing other sources. Where is the primary Sanskrit for all these claims ? The painting by another foreign authour does not represent the claims made about the queen etc. BTW, you seem to have a vested Interest in this topic. I wonder why is that ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Far from it. But like other articles on related topics, this needs to be defended against populist Hindu revisionism, denying proper scholarship. You are a fine one to talk about "vested interests" - ALL your very few edits have been to this page. The links above list several Sanskrit sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol. This page has been edited many more times in the recent past to add more and more foreign authors in the links. The article looked very different 5 years ago. That is not populist Hindu revisionism, that is more of a Marxist anti Hindu invasion of Wikipedia - of which I guess you are an Important member. I have given proof from the Mahabharata itself - I don't think there is any more authoritative text than that. You can keep citing some randos as scholars. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There are ZERO sanskrit sources for these claims. ZERO. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

For example, this is from the Mahabharata itself and there is no mention of any of these nonsense claims https://archive.org/details/mahabharataofkri0004unse/page/152/mode/2up?q=horse. The chapter itself is called Ashvamedha parva and I don't think there can be any text more authoritative than the Mahabhartha (except the Vedas). I have also looked into this entire chapter for any references to this Queen claims and there's none. So, Wikipedia article should be corrected. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Wikipedia should be based reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources (WP:PST). Additionally English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance (WP:NOENG). Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is what I am disputing. The secondary sources cited here don't have any reference to a primary source in English or in Sanskrit. Your link also mentions "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page"(WP:NOENG) . I don't see this happening. All of the above defenders of the article only cite one or other secondary sources that don't have any reference to the original text at all. Also, my link above is a direct translation of the Mahabharata with a dedicated chapter on the topic of the article in English. How is this not a good reference compared to 2 books written by Foreign authors who have no connection to the Vedic culture ? I can also write some book and claim multiple things and get it published. Will it be accepted by Wikipedia ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

According to Karmakar (1949), "It is significant that the Āśvamedhikaparvan which describes the other features of Yudhiṣṭhira's Aśvamedha more or less in detail dismiss the उपसंवेशन [upasaṁvēśana] feature in just one line (उपसंवेशयन् राजंस्ततस्तां द्रुपदात्मजाम् [upasaṃvēśayan rājaṃstatastāṃ drupadātmajām]) which shows that in the times of the writer of the Āśvamedhikaparvan, at any rate, this particular feature was looked upon with abhorrence. The वाजसनेयिसंहिता [vājasanēyisaṁhitā] and the कृष्णयजुर्वेदसंहिता [kr̥ṣṇayajurvēdasaṁhitā] mention the details of this obscene ceremonial which seems to have been handed down by tradition, and which had to be gone through whether one liked it or not, as the fruit of the sacrifice can be secured by one only if one sticks religiously to the minutest details of the ritual prescribed." Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Another "article" which is behind paywall and no direct translation of the referred verses. If this is not in the Vedas nor in the Shrutis nor in the Mahabharata or the Ramayana, why is this being Insisted on citing some obscure texts and that too without a direct proof of the verses or the translation ? This whole episode seems to have started roaming the Internet after Wendy Doniger's ridiculous books of psycho-analyzing Hindusim. This same Wikipedia article was much different 5 years ago. Why are you guys so fixated on this topic ? What is your agenda ? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this same level of 100x scrutiny against other religions. For example, the Quran article in Wikipedia doesn't go into the details of the verses used by terrorists for training and killing the Infidels. If Wikipedia cares so much about such obscure texts on Hinduism which have no relevance to today, surely you guys can spend more scrutiny on the abrahamic monotheistic faiths that cause real world harm even today. But no, Hinduism has to be treated differently because of 150 years of propaganda and colonial mentality. I am still waiting for a real proof of these claims, not some vague articles or "Interpretations". Mahabharata and Vedas are still superior sources than some other obscure texts that have no proof of being followed anytime. Rajesh1112 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are more Hindi and Local sources giving the detailed explanation which are totally different than this queen story. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/53454/30248. I have looked at the Hindi and the English sources and they are matching this user's explanation in the Stackexchange site. I have not yet seen any of you people's references like this: Word by word translation of the disputed texts. The above links give word by word translation and the meaning is totally different:

"Basically what happens is that- The queens circumambulate the dead horse(after it is slained) reciting mantras and make three symbolic marks on the body of the horse using a golden needle. Then the chief queen along with other royal ladies and their maidservants sits near the slained horse at a distance(i.e near the yagya kund of Vishnu where the horse will be sacrificed), offering ahuti to the fire(yajña) as it can be seen from ~Yajur veda-23.18 and praying for the welfare and prosperity of the King who is performing this yajña and his kingdom(including the whole world and people in general). After this the horse is finally sacrificed to Vishnu and simultaneously given a heavenly body. As it can been seen in the Mahabharata and Ramayana. https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14089.htm

One more thing to notice is that where ever the description of Ashwamedha Yagya is given in the scriptures the sanskrit word used is either "sits or resided near the dead horse" but it has been mis translated into "sleeping with the dead horse"."

So, either you provide direct translations like this or remove those disputed text from the article. Enough of these arguments using western sources and "articles" that have not been peer reviewed by Indian or Hindu scholars but mainly seen from the Abrahamic lens. Rajesh1112 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is everyone silent now ? Unable to contest the true translations anymore ? Will this be enough to update the article ? 77.215.168.203 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No! We are supposed to use secondary sources anyway, as this article does. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That's sheer agenda working there. I have provided the direct translations from the Mahabharata, the disuputed verses from the Yajurveda both in English and Hindi, the detailed explanations by the user in the Stackexchange site. All that you guys are able to do so far are peddle lies and propaganda through some foreign authors based on mistranslations and direct lies. Wikipedia is a tool for the colonisers and marxists and anti-Hindu agenda. That much is very clear now. Unless you provide more direct evidence, you guys are proving to be propagandists and liars. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, who has the agenda here? The Mahabharata is only one of the primary accounts, and far from the oldest. As one of the commenters in the Stackexchange thread notes, the older English translation on the "sacred texts" site omitted several verses for reasons of prudery. That thread is interesting, with differing views, and imo on the whole supports the "conventional" account given here. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

LoL.. The key thing even in that thread is the lack of original translations. The supposedly omitted verses have been translated by the user I am referring to and there is documented proof of those translations. Mahabharata and the Yajur Veda are far more authoritative texts than any obscure texts that are the basis for your articles. I am also curious of your agenda here. You refute every major Hindu source in favour of one-sided portrayals. Who are you to decide on this matter ? Are you an Indian educated Sanskrit scholar ? How does so many of these proofs does not matter and only the ones you cite matter ? My sources give a word by word translation literaly of the most authoritative text - the Vedas. If at all any text is relevant to today's Hinduism or the rituals, it is the Vedas. But you guys give no Importance to that. Neither does the Mahabharata count that precisely has a full dedicated chapter called Ashvamedha Parva. If this is not agenda and propaganda, I don't know what is. Joseph Goebbels will be proud of you guys. Rajesh1112 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"Original" translations are exactly what Wikipedia does not encourage as sources. What would be persuasive would be authoritative secondary sources, say publications by respected scholars. Your demand that Wikipedia editors themselves be respected scholars rather misses the point of this site. See WP:RS IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

They also mention "When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as and , or article templates, such as and , may be used to mark areas of concern."

It's like saying that the Nazi literature has more published English sources and because the Jewish ones are in Hebrew and are not translated to English, we should only consider the Nazi literature even though the Hebrew translations literally oppose the Nazi claims. The colonial translations are the same for us: They were created to extend the colonial rule, for propaganda and to discredit our native traditions. It's shameful that you guys have this attitude towards one of the two oldest surviving civilzations. I bet that you guys don't have the same guts against the Chinese. Rajesh1112 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I contest the word "against" in your message. Nobody here would seem to be anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. Please, just give a reasonably authoritative translation that disagrees with the ones that infuriate you so much. "Reasonably" here can't mean, "By Rajesh1112" or "By some guy I know." IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read the whole thread. I have given multiple translation sources Hindi and English. Also, this is from the Mahabharata itself and there is no mention of any of these nonsense claims https://archive.org/details/mahabharataofkri0004unse/page/152/mode/2up?q=horse. The chapter itself is called Ashvamedha parva.

Also, (WP:NOENG) also mentions "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Now there is a dispute. So, why did the editors not ask for the original source for the evidence ? None of the western authors have provided any original source in their references. I have looked into all of them. The statement about the Queen and the horse is cited by 2 references - both by erstwhile translations in the late 1850s. The Indian author from Reference 33 explicitly states that there is no mention of this nonsense in the Rig Veda or any other text. It's only Pilip Spratt's translation of Louis Renou's book that has this statement. So, I ask again, when there is a dispute, Wikipedia itself has a policy to cite the original sources. Where are the original sources ? I have already provided evidences from the Yajurveda and the Mahabharata and their translations. You guys have not come up with any originals so far - all just references to foreign colonial authors with no reference to the original texts. DO you not see the problem here with your arguments ?

It's like referring to someone's text on Christianity that does not have any reference to the Bible or about Islam that does not refer to the Quran or the Hadiths. I can't Interpret this as anything other than an agenda driven behaviour. Rajesh1112 (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Check this link and this link. The Hindi translation also gives a word by word translation. These translations are very clear and their meaning converges with the rest of the theme of the verses. Their meaning is not remotely close to this ridiculous and malicious claims of the queen story.

How come all the Indian authors have no problem translating these verses while the western sources in the 1870s+ only has this problem ?

Are you guys now going to say that 3 different Indian authors are wrong and wikipedia only trusts the colonial western ones ?

Rajesh1112 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, What do you classify as "Authoritative" sources ? To me, Mahabharata and the Vedas ARE the authoritative sources, not some western rando doing psychoanalysis of Hinduism or some authors publishing books in the 1800s clearly with the aim of converting Hindus and extending the colonial rule without any reference to the original texts backing their claims. It's such a low standard to accept as "Authoritative sources" Rajesh1112 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Note doubt you will be able to track down the Sanskrit original of this from the Vajasaneyi Samhita Yajurveda, pages 211-213 (but I'd avoid Hindutva sites), where the translator omits what he calls "the revolting ceremony" , but says where he is leaving a gap. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that can only be called a "Conspiracy theory". I have now found 2 more English translations of those supposedly controversial verses (23-18 to 32). Check this link and this link. The Hindi translation also gives a word by word translation. These translations are very clear and their meaning converges with the rest of the theme of the verses. Their meaning is not remotely close to this ridiculous and malicious claims of the queen story.

How come all the Indian authors have no problem translating these verses while the western sources in the 1870s+ only has this problem ?

Are you guys now going to say that 3 different Indian authors are wrong and wikipedia only trusts the colonial western ones ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The two English links you give are completely different texts - nothing to do with the Ashvamedha (or any specific ritual) at all. As Yajurveda makes clear, there are many different recensions of the texts. There's some Sanskrit for you here (an anti-Hindu site, I'm aware). All the translations are by Indian authors, you'll be pleased to hear. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

lol. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What are you talking about ? The whole Yajurveda is about the damn rituals. This"Agni, fire, is the soul of yajna, a direct participant. The divines perform yajna with agni. Who ever does the yajna with agni wins the sphere where agni is supreme. The same will become your sphere too, you would conquer it if you do yajna. Drink deep at the fount of knowledge and joy purified by agni."

After asking for published sources, now you are linking an anti Hindu blog written by a rabid Islamist without any links to the original sources ? My link itself has the same sanskrit verses and its meanings. If you cannot digest the fact that they make your claims totally bogus and expose the agenda, then there is nothing more to conclude that Wikipedia and it's moderators have an open anti Hindu agenda and you guys are exposing yourself to the public. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What nonsense! Older versions were similar, if shorter. This 2017 version is considerably more explicit:

"The horse, hornless goat, and gayal are asphyxiated. The chief queen lies down and the adhvaryu guides the horse's penis against the queen's vagina, signifying the birth of a new king. The animals are dismembered. The king ascends the throne while the Purusha Sukta is recited."

Many of the sources are older than Doniger's conventional, if rather crudely written, summary of modern scholarship, which of course annoyed Hindutva opinion when it achieved good sales, rather than staying in academic obscurity. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above with direct translations and sources in English and Hindi Rajesh1112 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is everyone silent now ? Unable to contest the true translations anymore ? Will this be enough to update the article ? 77.215.168.203 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No - see above! Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)