Talk:Bakhshali manuscript

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ian Pearce's pseudohistory

The page should be pruned of Pearce's text. Tkuvho (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree or at least any content kept should rely on appropriate sources rather thab Pearce.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

After posting the comment above, I noticed that the footnote referring to Pearce actually links to an article by the usual (reliable) authors at the MacTutor archive. It is hard to reconstruct what happened but it could be that between 2007 and now, Pearce's article was replaced at smoe point by a more reliable one. Tkuvho (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but in any case the footnote needs to match the intext attribution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I just saw this addition of yours from 2017. It seems to reference Pearce in a {{cite web}}, but the link goes to a different article (by J. J. O'Connor and E. F. Robertson). Both the linked article and what appears to be a dead link to the Pearce article are listed in the external links section, like this

• The Bakhshali manuscript
• 6 – The Bakhshali manuscript
  (the first one is also correctly referenced either). The correct/new link for the second one seems to be https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Projects/Pearce/chapter-7 (weirdly enough, referring to chapter 7 instead of 6). Do you happen to remember which of the sourced you intended to reference, especially considering the comments/concerns above? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The diff you mention is not my edit. In any case, the MacTutor reference with "Ian Pearce" name was added here by an account called "Mukherjee". Other than the incorrect author(s), the reference seems to be to the correct article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Sorry, I was talking about Special:Diff/800736972; not sure what made the script bug out. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess I must have copied the original 2007 reference to my private database and inserted it here! I had seen the zero notation mentioned in plenty of places. As for the Ian G. Pearce chapter, the renumbering must have taken place when they included it in the MacTutor archive and counted the abstract as "chapter 1"; so this became "chapter 7". The chapter doesn't contain any original research, as far as I can see, but summarises published papers of other Indian scholars. (But on the whole, mathematicians are not particularly good in history. Luckily, we now have proper historians doing it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hayashi

The Oxford press release [1] is wrong when it says Hayashi dated it to 8th-12th centuries. Hayashi said it was no later than the 7th century. There is nothing said by Hayashi or the Indian scholars that is inconsistent with the latest dating. -- Kautilya3 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indian

@EncycloPetey: You change of India to Indian people is perfectly fine and welcome. However, to narrow it any further you do need reliable sources. Numerals are not exactly tied to any particular language, as we know very well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not change India to Indian people, and I do not think that change is fine or welcome. The location is in Pakistan, so a link to "Indian people" is misleading. It would need to be sourced, if a claim is made that the people who wrote the manuscript lived in India. The modern nation did not exist at the time of the mnanuscript, and the borders of that nation do not extend to the locality where the manuscript was found. The manuscript was written in Sanskrit, acxcording to the article. I have merely summarized that fact in the lede paragraph. If you have an issue with the cited source, then it needs to be addressed where the source is cited. As long as the information is cited in the article itself, there is no reason to cite it again when that information is summarized for the opening paragraph. Citing it just once in the body of the article, where the subject is discussed more fully, should be sufficient.

But if you want the opening paragraph to say "Indian people", then that claim must be cited and justified. As I say, I did not put that information into the lede, and it it not cited anywhere in the article, nor is it a justified claim. It is disingenuous to remove information, claiming it is "not cited", and reverting to other uncited information. I have therefore altered the text to a generic geographic claim, since you are unhappy with the cited information being summarized.

Next time you have a disagreement, do not begin by assuming bad faith, or making accusations of edit warring, especially when you have reverted more than the person you accuse of edit warring. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right. It was another editor that added the link to Indian people. It was the right thing to do, basically as explained, the manuscript wasn't found in India.

Coming to your problem, it is either you know too little about India or you know too much and are going OTT about it. But it really doesn't matter. Please follow the sources and stop trying to add your WP:OR.

• A scholarly source has called it "Indian mathematics".
• The Guardian article says in the title, "ancient Indian text contains earliest zero symbol.
• The article also cites a scholar saying, "“This becomes the birth of the concept of zero in it’s own right and this is a total revolution that happens out of India,” said Du Sautoy.

If you don't know why it is being called India, please feel free to go and read up about it. But stop messing with this article. Nationalist outpourings in science and history are not really welcome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That is why I attempted (1) to use the language name instead of a nationalist identifier, and (2) then tried a neutral geographic description in accordance with WP:STATUSQUO, but you reverted that too. At this point you are in violation of 3RR and of pushing nationalism, in violation of the arb decision to which you appealed. I do understand the issues, as I have taught the history of the region and of mathematics. Your repeated reversion is violation of WP policies, and is not helpful in working towards a consensus solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you are stonewalling. Your last edit was still unsourced. And, if you have taught the history of "the region" (whichever it is), how is your edit supported by your knowledge of that history? Make your case. Don't act like a know-it-all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't feel strongly about anything here. Just noticed "Indian" was unlinked, linked it to the country, then realized India wasn't a country back in the day. It was already a subcontinent, though, where people lived and did math, so figured "Indian people" worked. Maybe no link is better than a link which pisses off one party or another. With no link, we can imagine it means what we think it does. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the link. But I suspect the link is not all that is the problem here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There's still the problem of whether the manuscript was found in the village (per the body) or near the village (per the lead). Not as simple as clicking the citation to figure it out, because Google says I've reached my viewing limit. Anybody know which is true? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Language of Bakhshali manuscript

It is obvious that the language of the manuscript is Sanskrit. You can see the text yourself (a link is provided) and if you are familiar with Sanskrit, you can judge for yourself.

I note a effort to term the language something else. Kautilya3: What is "Gathaic" language? Is it Avestan? Bakhshali manuscript is certainly not that old. (BTW I am familiar with Gathas in Jain Prakrit literature)

Malaiya (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't write our articles based on WP:OR, but rather based on what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: can you take a look at this and clarify? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Malaiya, could you point to the text that makes it obvious to you the manuscript was in Sanskrit? Do you think you are generally able to tell the difference between a text in classical Sanskrit and one in Gatha, which is defined here as a modified form of Sanskrit that contains Prakrit influences? – Uanfala 08:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have seen many, many books in Sanskrit, and many in Prakrit. And yes, I have looked through some Avestan texts. I am yet to come across a book in "Gathaic". (Note that the term Gatha means a verse in Avestan or Prakrit literature. It is not a language). Perhap you can point me to one, (that is other than Bakhshali manuscript, text of which anyone can see in the linked book). Malaiya (talk)

There are quite a few references that term Bakhshali manuscript sanskrit, including some that Kautilya3 has removed. Malaiya (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Even the source you have cited states (p.7) that Hoernle identified the language as Gatha dialect, which was in use in the North-West India till the end of the 3rd century AD. The dating is partly based on the language used.

Please note that we have absolutely no interest in what languages you know, or have seen, or not seen. Please cite reliable sources for all your claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are just a few references:

• "The language of the text may be described as an irregular Sanskrit. Nearly all the words used are Sanskrit, and the rules of Sanskrit grammar and prosody are followed with some laxity"
• "Translations of the text, which is written in a form of Sanskrit, suggest it was a form of training manual for merchants trading across the Silk Road""
• "The manuscript shows a series of Sanskrit numerals. In it, zero is represented by a small dot."*
• "The Bakhshali Manuscript is an old birch-bark manuscript which treats mathematics in Sanskrit."
• "Bakhshali manuscript, which was written in an ancient form of Sanskrit on 70 pieces of birch bark"
• "The Bakhshali Manuscript was transferred to The Bodleian Library at Oxford University. Translations of the Sanskrit text on the document reveal that it was a reference book for traders on the Silk Road."
• Note that the Bodleian Libraries specifically terms it a manuscript in sanskrit as MS Sansk. d.14
• A Companion to Sanskrit Literature
• "THE BAKHSHALI MANUSCRIPT This Sanskrit mathematical manuscript was discovered in 1881 at Bakhshali,"

Malaiya (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Giving random quotes from randon Google hits doesn't get you anywhere. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, you need to carefully weigh each source for its reliability to the context.

Secondly, saying that it is in "Sanskrit" is not enough. The Gatha dialect is a mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit, as the article explains. To contradict it, you need produce a source that has closely studied the text and says that it is pure Sanskrit, and not a mixture. Note that your first source already said it was "irregular Sanskrit". That is another way of saying the same thing. Since you have shown that you are good at doing Google hits, why don't you Google for "Bakhshali Gatha" and see what you can find out? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Gatha dialect. If there was, there would be other books in it. It was just a preliminary term used by Hoernlé, the discoverer. All those who use the term are quoting him. Hoernlé certainly by no means is a final authority. His "A Collection of Antiquities from Central Asia" was based on forgeries he took as authentic. The texts have been thoroughly examined by many researchers since then.

You claim that there is such a thing as pure Sanskrit, and everything else is not Sanskrit. All spoken languages vary regionally, and evolve with time. Are Vedas in Sanskrit? Is Mahabharata in Sanskrit? The Sanskrit texts influenced by Panini's grammar are sometimes thought to be in standard Sanskrit. The Vedas, the Mahabharata and numerous other Sanskrit texts do not follow Panini's grammar.

You simply wish to avoid the term Sanskrit in the article. That the text is in Sanskrit is obvious.

Malaiya (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have again started resorting to spouting opinions. We don't care for your opinions. Produce sources or desist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've added some details about the language based on Hayashi's 1995 book. Some copyediting might be necessary. The additions have had the side effect of pushing the whole "Sanskrit" vs. "Gatha" issue into a footnote: I hope you all don't mind. I don't see this distinction as particularly meaningful. The term "Gatha" itself is a bit too obscure to make its appearance in the article text and I got the impression that all sources (with the exception of Winternitz, if I recall correctly) use it with one form or another of quotation markers. Hayashi doesn't seem to mention it all (and let me hasten to add, neither does he seem to refer to the language directly as "Sanskrit", at least not in the sections I've had a look at). I've left out the references to Winterntitz and to Joseph as these mention the language only in passing, but I will have no objections if anyone wishes to add them back. – Uanfala 23:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Uanfala: I have Hayashi's book right on my desk. The book has three sections. The section II, pages 151- 271, is titled simply as "Sanskrit Text". Thought you would like to know.Malaiya (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Uanfala: You apparently have access to the book, and apparently some understanding of the subject. How about agreeing with me about the fact that Hayashi titles section II, pages 151- 271, "Sanskrit Text" (since you earlier claimed that "neither does he seem to refer to the language directly as "Sanskrit", at least not in the sections I've had a look at")? Malaiya (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have access to this book at the moment, but I don't find this surprising: after all, the impression I got of Hayashi not directly using the term was from reading just two chapters. Anyway, is there a specific change to the article that you're proposing? – Uanfala 10:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much. I think Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is clearly a much better term than "Gatha dialect". It is not a "Sanskrit" vs. "Gatha" issue, but rather one of describing the language precisly, which has implications for the dating of the text. So, calling it "Sanskrit" willy-nilly, for branding purposes as far as I can see, throws the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have Takao Hayashi's book on my desk. It is based on Takao Hayashi's PhD 1985 dissertation at Brown University, which relies on the work done by researchers by then. Takao Hayashi is a well known researcher in the field. I will, in the next few months, expand the article using the book. Note that this book is one of the sources rejected by Kautilya3 as "random Google search". I should also point out that the other links I had shared were all respected sources. Malaiya (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not "reject the source". I was rejecting your cherry-picked statements picked up from the web. If you actually read the souce and accurately summarise its contents there would be no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, Hayashi himself calls the text "Sanskrit", and the entire section II, pages 151- 271, is titled simply as "Sanskrit Text". It has been termed Sanskrit by many other scholars as well. Kautilya3 has objected passionately (and aggressively) to calling the language Sanskrit, and had earlier insisted to terming the language "Gathaic". The objection to calling the language Sanskrit appears to be due to religious/national perceptions. The following should be pointed out.

• Bakhshali is only 23 miles from Salatura, the hometown of Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini whose work gave rise to what came to termed standard Sanskrit.
• Bakhshali manuscript is dated to about AD 224–383. When Xuanzang visited the region, he found that Salatura was still famous for Sanskrit learning.
• Sanskrit was used not just by Brahmanists, but by Buddhists as well. Aśvaghoṣa wrote Buddhacarita which is believed to have served as a model for Kalidasa. The famous Amarakosha, still memorized by Sanskrit students in India was written by a Buddhist. Before Yijing (monk) travelled to india, he learned Sanskrit in Srivijaya in Sumatra. Sanskrit was widely used and understood by Buddhists in central asia.

The objection to use of the term Sanskrit is quite notable, and obviously inappropriate. Malaiya (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this debate in which there is doubt whether the language is Sanskrit or not, I will put it to rest today by quoting from the manuscript itself.

               "Ādi pañcama uttaraṃ trīṇi naro yojana gamyate. Dvitīyapratidinas saptagatasya dinapañcakam. Kena kālena samatāṃ kathyatāṃ gaṇakottama?" (Translation: A man(naro/naraḥ) travels 5 yojanas on first day, increasing by 3 yojanas on next consecutive days. Another man travels 7 yojanas every day starting on the 5th day. How much time will it take for them to meet each other?")

- This is from folio no. 6. Anyone who knows Sanskrit will immediately recognize it as Sanskrit anyway. It doesn't matter that it has "Prākṛtic influence". The grammar is Sanskrit. no ifs and buts.

Regarding the dialect, the language wasn't called gāthā in anyway. If somewhere within the manuscript, the language is called gāthā, please do show me a reference. I will be happy to correct myself. Dyutis (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Vasishtha

Vasiṣṭha is Vasiṣṭha. I don't understand why there can't be a refer to the page Vasiṣṭha Can u give me the reason for revert? Zzt514 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have information that the Vasishtha mentioned is the same as Vasiṣṭha? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Rigveda, local indian people started calling Vasiṣṭha a Saptarishi before 11th century B.C. Yes, I understand your question that you need something to prove those two are the exactly same person. But it's really hard to prove the Vasiṣṭha mentioned inside the manuscript is the Saptarishi Vasiṣṭha. But according to the context, we can infer that Vasiṣṭha mentioned inside the manuscript，is the Vasiṣṭha. Just like you won't misunderstand Jesus in most conditions. And I believe the writter of the manuscript won't misidentify Vasiṣṭha as well. And according to A Dictionary of Hinduism, there's no any other namable Vasiṣṭha.Zzt514 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

You can't infer such things for Wikipedia. See WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence. There's no any other namable Vasiṣṭha but the Vasiṣṭha.There's no infer inside. Zzt514 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Zzt514, just because the rishi is the only person with that name to have an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia, does not mean he is the only person with that name to have ever lived. You can't make inferences like that on wikipedia (WP:SYNTHESIS is already linked above), and even if you want to make that inference for yourself you'll have to reckon with the fact that the person in question here lived more than a millennium after the time of the Vedic rishi. – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)