Talk:Ganesha/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Consorts of Ganesha

I feel the Consorts of Ganesha section is too long (3 paragraphs). Thus a case of Undue Weight can be presented. Since the topic Consorts of Ganesha has a separate article dedicated to it, details like Interpretations of relationships and shaktis can be avoided or only a 2 to 3 line reference to the same should be made. Anyone who wants to read the details can go to the Consorts article. I suggest that the 3 paragraphs and the 3rd paragraph in the introduction of Family and consorts should be clubbed to form 1 paragraph. Everyone' suggestions are welcome --Redtigerxyz 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably can be shorted somewhat, but I do not agree that it is too long now. The issue of the multiple views is clearly notworthy because many authors have covered it. Overall the article is not now too long, and I see no reason to cut it. Buddhipriya 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha article has all the information in Consorts of Ganesha, except 3 paras

1. Bachelor
2. Saraswati - Lakshmi
3. Kala bou.

Thus I feel that the section should be shorted.I will start doing so from today, a little everyday. --Redtigerxyz 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done with Para 1 - Buddhi, Riddhi , Siddhi.--Redtigerxyz 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These cuts are being done without any consensus. This is the same sort of unilateral behavior done despite obections that created disruption on Sritattvanidhi. This article has reached a mature status and has had relatively little content change for the past couple of months except for cases where there has been significant discussion prior to the removal of material. Now we are subjected to cuts with no discussion whatsoever of what should go or stay. This is a disappointing behavior on an article where improvements ideally would be made with more input. If the section is to be shortened, the key question is what are the key ideas that need to stay. I hope that all cuts will be made in a manner consistent with WP:CON. Here are examples of cuts that suggest subtle editorial shifts:

• Here is an example of removal of material that was attempted by this editor in the past, but which was rejected at that time: [1]. This seems to be an attempt to return to content disputes that were previously gone over. Buddhipriya 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a detail that in itself is not major, but which in context makes the point that in the Moragon complex the two shaktis are of the Buddhi/Siddhi tradtion rather than the Riddhi/Siddhi variant that was not cut: [2]. A balanced handling of the two different tradtions needs to come through in whatever shorter version of this material results.

• Here is a cut that for no clear reason gives prominent play to one of the variant myths: [3]. Why is this version given undue weight, and the context removed that shows that there is variation in the myths?

Buddhipriya 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had taken a WP:BOLD and just wanted to show how the section can be shorted somehow if one feel that you didn't like it, please revert.

1. I have just moved the content, i removed in [4] elsewhere. [5] with rationale given.
2. [6] info is moved to 1st para as image caption.
3. That info i moved from Riddhi, Siddhi, Buddhi section to the part where SkandA is discussed, to decipt an example of rivalry between Ganpatya and Skanda cults in mythology. Can be totally removed.

I still feel the section should be shorted. Consorts of Ganesha, except 3 paras is pasted in Ganesha article so why have a different article??(this is a rhetoric question, i do not suggest merging of Consorts article) It becomes so much repatitive. If the Consorts of Ganesha has the details on the subject then the Ganesha article should only have an intro to it.

The Last edition of Ganesha edited by me [7] is shorted to a little extent i wanted to cut down on Intrepetations and Shakti too.

The Introduction should only have

1. Parents, Brother, Consorts - the 4 patterns + shakti , children of Ganesha
2. Intrepretations can be summarized in simple English as the wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified or the wives may be just attendants like Asthasiddhi and not wives. One need give the evidence supporting in the article.(Can be given as Note or can be refered in Consorts article)
3. Shakti as Consorts article' first para says are simply energies or potenies personified, also associated with Tantric worship of Ganesha.

--Redtigerxyz 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the outset, I agree that the section can be shortened, possibly by quite a bit. I also agree on the general point that since the other article exists on the Consorts, it is generally good to reduce the detail here and refer the reader to the detail article. My objections to conflict-oriented editing are that the key issue for a mature article like this one is to exemplify the best possible editing practices, emphasizing collaboration rather than divisive conflict. So far we have had no input from other regular editors, and i would like to hear what they think. We need to determine if there is support for cutting the article, and what the key ideas are that need to be retained. Previously this article was a random collection of myths with no rhyme or reason in their selection. Simply cutting sections out with no strategy moves the article back in that direction. I do not understand the statement "wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified", which does not correspond to any sourced point made by the article.

As a general strategy I would agree with the above statement that the key outline of ideas should be an overview of "Parents, Brother, Consorts" and the the pattern analysis is more important to discuss than the details of the individual patterns. I would like to go over both this article section and the detailed article on the Consorts to double check what is the best-sourced material as well. If we are going to work on this section, this would be a good time to upgrade references (such as finding secondary sources rather than primary sources, if possible).

Note that one of the criteria for FAC status is stability of the article. I have been mainly watching what edits have been taking place and have noticed that since the copy-edit effort began some time ago, there have have been almost no substantive changes, with the exception of the historical material on Tilak. I had begun to think that the article had reached a fairly steady state, but this round of changes will need close review by multiple editors to make sure that we keep the quality high and do not throw out the baby with the bath water. One orderly approach might be to work on the Consorts article first to ensure that all of the material is there and in good shape before making radical changes here. Once we are sure that the other article is solid, this can be cut with less risk of losing material. I have not been watching the Consorts article carefully and have not reviewed it closely, but will do so within the coming week. I hope other editors will also take a look there to ensure that we are all confident that it will serve as a reliable secondary article once the main article is reduced. Buddhipriya 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC status can wait a while til key difference in opinions are resolved.--Redtigerxyz 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant by "wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified" that "wives and children may just be the benefits like success, auspiciousness etc. we get by Ganesha worship, later personified". Also i think Consorts is great (mostly) referenced article which has the details. Why do we repeat them????????

Also i request the other editors to represent a point of view to come to a WP:CON.--Redtigerxyz 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read my comments above in which I am mainly objecting to the process to be used to remove sourced content from this article. Since currently you are the only editor who is calling for removal, it would seem that the best approach is to first verify that the other article currently does contain all of the material to be removed here. The two articles have not been edited in parallel for some time. In the next few days I intend to go over the Consorts article carefully to verify that everything is there. Once that is done, I would like to suggest some reductions here, particularly to keep the mainline ideas and upgrade sourcing in the process. I still am unclear what you may mean by your comment regarding the wives and children being personifications of something. I am not aware of any citation that would support that statement as you are making it. Buddhipriya 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate having been given a few days to look more closely at the Consorts of Ganesha article. I am about halfway through a detailed merge comparison of that article with the Ganesha article. I doing this review, I hit on the idea of trying to do a very good lead for the Consorts article by asking for help from multiple editors to get the lead to be concise and compelling. If a very good lead could be developed, perhaps we could simply copy that lead into the Ganesha article and cut all the detail from here, which would be responsive to the suggestion made by Redtigerxyz to shorten the Ganesha article. My review of the consorts article shows that while the details need a good bit of cleanup to take care of some notes, etc., the article is actually still in pretty complete shape. Over the next several days I will continue with a line-by-line merge analysis (which I am doing using a version comparison tool in my word processor) and will continue with reference work there. Do other editors think that the idea of using the lead here is worth considering? it would address the issue about process for removal of content that I raised, because the systematic condensation of the Consorts article may produce a good result. I would only support cutting the material here after a good lead was in place on the Consorts article. Buddhipriya 07:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the lead of Consorts covers all the patterns and thus can be considered good. We can start cutting the material here. Regarding the intro in Family_and_consorts section in Ganesha, i suggest the lines from intro of Consorts article can be used to cover all patterns + the children - Shubh(Kshema), Labha and Santoshi info should be added.--Redtigerxyz 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you think this suggestion has merit. Let's hear what other editors think. Please do not cut any material here until there is some agreement on the Consorts article that the lead there is stable. Once there is WP:CON regarding what that article says, then the copy of the lead can take place. I ask all editors of the Ganesha article to please work on Consorts of Ganesha in the next week to specifically polish the lead for possible inclusion here if there is more consensus for that strategy. There is no need to rush any major change to the Ganesha article, and ensuring that consensus exists is appropriate before making a major cut. Buddhipriya 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been more than a week since the plan to remove the detail here was suggested, so I will go ahead and remove the three sections that duplicate material in Consorts of Ganesha. I will leave the summary paragraph as it is, pending further refinement in the Consorts article, which is still showing some adjustments being made to the lead there. Buddhipriya 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Buddhipriya. I added info about children from Consorts of Ganesha article. Can you please add references for his sons in both the articles???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see that there have been a large number of edits, including a pass from one of the copyeditors. I will try to go over the entire article in the next few days. Unfortunately my time on Wikipedia is very limited this week, but I will try to get it done as quickly as possible. We still need to be sure that the lead in Consorts of Ganesha is stable, and if so, that text can be used here according to the plan we outlined earlier. That will make it easier to keep the sourcing correct between the two articles. At this point I think that the sentence about Santoshi Ma can be cut from this article, since it is incidental to the main line, and is covered in the Consorts article. I agree with keeping the bit about the sons in both articles. Buddhipriya 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Santoshi Ma sentence should remain. Though it has no Puranic evidence, she is believed to be a child of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz 05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I willing to keep it. Generally I would suggest that we stick to the strategy of keeping this section short, since the article on Consorts is now in fairly good shape. I will try to continue with referencing on the fact-tagged items but my time on Wikipedia has been very limited, so it may take another week. Otherwise I would say that this issue of editing the Consorts section of the article is completed. Buddhipriya 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello! I've completed the proofread of this article--sorry to disappear but I had to take a wikibreak to plan my wedding. However, I saw this come up for proofread on the League's list and decided I had to do the final proof. The article looks great! My only consistent edit was to put compass directions (north, northern, south, etc.) in lower case--they are generally not capitalized unless they are part of a proper name (e.g., North Carolina). If I misinterpreted "North India" and it is indeed the name of the region, please feel free to revert. Congratulations on a fantastic effort. Galena11 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Galena and Finetooth for your painstaking copyediting of the article! I think we should soon be ready to nominate the article for FA status. Cheers. Abecedare 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

At the request of Redtigerxyz, I've had another go at it. I tried to find ways to make the prose more direct without altering the meaning. If I've gone overboard in any places, please revert those changes. It seems to me that the article is getting better and better. Best of luck with the FA. Finetooth 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya's use of wrong sources

On Aug 2, 2007, I had provided evidences about unreliability of the online version (sanskritdocuments.org) of Amarkosha Buddhipriya was using in svadhyaya( cf. the talk titled Amarakośa 2.7.45-46 on my talk page for evidences), but Buddhipriya again used that source in the present article Ganesha. I had informed Buddhipriya that this online sources uses line number instead of verse (shloka) number, but in the edit summary (in present article) Buddhipriya used this source again, saying that it uses differenrt versification. I am sorry to state that Buddhipriya fails to discern the difference between line and verse. Amarakosha uses a verse type called shloka, which is a verse in two lines. The online source sanskritdocuments.org does not clarify where a shloka ends and the next one begins, and its line numbers are also wrong in many chapters, for hundreds of verses ! Using a wrong source even after being informed is a mark of carelessness on the part of Buddhipriya. I have pointed out only some of the errors, there may be many more errors in this source. This online version can be cited only after it rectifies its errors. -VJha 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not agree that the use of this online version is acceptable. Wikipedia policy does not seem to care much if things are true, but places great emphasis on verifiability. The online version gives exactly the same text that you cite. The numbering is different. The purpose of citing it is to give a second indedependent citation that establishes the same point that you made by quoting your edition. I am unsure why adding a second citation supporting the same point has produced such a strong response. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I had emailed the developers of this site to rectify the errors, but they did not care. That is why I came to the conclusion that they are careless and unreliable. You know the numbering is not merely different, but wrong also (for hundreds of lines), which you do not acknowledge. Moreover, Amarkosha was composed in a particular metre which is known as shloka. This site does not make it possible to determine where a shloka ends and next one begins. How many times should I repeat same points ? Once it became clear this site was unreliable, I could not use anything from this site unless cross checked from reliable published sources. The developers of this site made great efforts, and only some finishing touch is needed which they are neglecting. I had requested you in Talk:svadhyaya to request them to mend the errors, because they will listen only when many people will complain. Please note that I am not hungry of "Mr" or "jee", you can address me as VJha, but I am too old to be called by my first name by younger persons. I noticed your answer only by chance. If your reply is not in time, you ought to have notified me briefly at my talk page. I am unfortunate that you have not understood me properly. If there are conflicting secondary sources, primary sources and their commentaries are the touchstones. Do not misinterpret this importance of primary sources as my insistence on WP:OR. If there is no conflict in secondary sources and they are true to primary sources (which is the actual meaning of reliability), primary sources may be and should be neglected. -VJha 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources can be cited to establish what they say, but what they mean is another matter. As you know, Hindu scriptures are complex works that often contain strata from different periods, late interpolations, and significantly different recensions. Thus citations to primary scriptures are often fraught with problems, which is why interpretation of them via secondary sources is the preferred approach on Wikipedia. Regarding methods of address, I assure that you I do not wish to be disrespectful, and if you wish to be addressed in a particular way, it would be helpful if you would indicate that in your signature, which may differ from your user name. Buddhipriya 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an additional online version of the Amarakosa, the complete text of the 1913 Oka edition: [8]. In that edition, the same verse appears, numbered 1.38:

विनायको विघ्नराजद्वैमातुरगणाधिपाः । अप्येकदन्तहेरम्बलम्बोदरगजाननाः ॥ ३८ ॥ vināyako vighnarājadvaimāturagaṇādhipāḥ । apyekadantaherambalambodaragajānanāḥ ॥ 38 ॥

Is there any disagreement about the text of the verse? My impression is that the disagreement is only regarding the numbering of the verse. Buddhipriya 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss my point : once a source is found to be erroneous, it must be checked from beginning to end before certifying it as a reliable source. Why you do not put pressure upon these fellows to mend the errors ? I tried and failed. That is why I feel they are careless. -VJha 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious errors in this article

First, Buddhipriya removed short references to Vedic usages of Ganapati (in Ety. section)cited from MW by me on the ground that another section mentions it. Thus the citation from MW was made partial, which was then declared to be WP:OR and deleted by Buddhipriya, together with the reference. Buddhipriya charged me of "reaching a conclusion about the scripture, not just citing the scripture" (cf. edit summary), because I had stated that Pañchatantra was the 'earliest' source in which Ganapati was equated with Ganesha. If the term "earliest" was wrong or WP:OR, Buddhipriya could have either discussed it before deleting, or removed the word "earliest" instead of removing the entire reference to Pañchatantra from this article. This article states that iconic usages of Ganesha are not found before ca. 400 AD. Hence Pañchatantra had to be removed as a source, and I had to be declared to be adding WP:OR ! Buddhipriya cannot cite any reliable source preceding Pañchatantra which equates Ganapati with Ganesha or even mentions Ganesha ; Pañchatantra is obviously the "earliest" source. But I have replaced the word "earliest" with "early" to avoid unnecessary edit war with Buddhipriya. Whether Ganesha was invented by Hindus in 400 BCE or in 1800 AD makes no difference to me, but the manner in which Buddhipriya is deliberately targeting me everywhere for WP:OR and deleting my well sourced contributions is certainly unwelcome. I had requested Buddhipriya again and again that discussion should precede reverting, otherwise I will be forced to leave Wiki, but to no avail. The preceding talk mentions Buddhipriya's insistence on using wrong and unreliable sources. -VJha 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, I too have reverted your most recent edits (along with some unconnected vandalism by an IP) since statements like "MW puts Pañchatantra after Vedic references, which is natural, and gives primacy to Pañchatantra as an ancient source for the use of the term" and "All other references to Gaṇeśa belong to ca. 400 AD or later. That is why MW named Pañchatantra as an early source. " (emphasis added), along with the whole synthesis from quotes by MW, Joseph Jacobs and Brown is pure WP:OR.

It is possible that there is something useful in the content you added, and I highly encourage you to discuss it here on the talk page before adding bulk content, rather than adding your original research and expecting other editors to separate the wheat from the chaff. Abecedare 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of Mr. Jha's edits constitue WP:OR, since they go well beyond what is in the sources, and make various conclusions about those sources. He is drawing conclusions about what the sources mean. The portion of the Vedic materials that is relevant to this article was already covered in the section on Vedic sources. Relevance was determined by the fact that two Rig Veda passages are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. The additional material being added by Mr. Jha, in addition to being WP:OR, also seems irrelevant. So even if it were established by quoting some reliable secondary source, it probably still would be inappropriate for inclusion since the purpose of this article is to give a brief overview, which it what it currently does. Mr. Jha also raises an issue here regarding dating of the Pañchatantra materials, which clearly is not covered in MW. Apparently the argument is that occurance of the word Ganesha in some Pañchatantra scripture would invalidate the current sourced dating for emergence of Ganesha as a significant deity. This is an interesting claim, but since no citation has been given to a secondary source that makes the argument, it is clearly a synthesis and WP:OR. To make this claim stick it would be necessary to show accurate dating for any use of the term in Pañchatantra, which is a collection of material. In the coming week I will see if I can find any reference to Pañchatantra literature in any of the WP:RS that we have already vetted for use in the article. I would not be surprised to find late interpolations of content into the earlier strata of Pañchatantra stories. Such is the case with the Mahabharata, where late interpolation of the Ganesha-scribe story has been soundly rejected in the critical edition. Buddhipriya 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Krishan (1999:102) specifically debunks the idea that Ganesha as we know him today appears in the Pañchatantra, which he dates as (5th-6th century CE), saying that it makes no mention of the classical Ganesha. He says that "Kālidāsa (5th century A.D.) and Viṣṇu Śarmā's Pañchatantra (5th-6th century A.D.) make no mention of the classical Gaṇeśa. On the other hand, Kālidāsa in Kumārasambhava V.14 mentions Guha (Skanda) as Pārvatī's only son. In the opening verse of the Pañchatantra the names of various gods are invoked but not of Gaṇeśa or Gaṇapati."

I checked the indexes for several of the other main WP:RS currently vetted for use in this article, and the term Pañchatantra did not appear in any of the ones I looked in so far. Thus so far Krishan is the only one where I can find a mention of it, and that is to refute the idea. If someone can provide a citation to a specific verse in the Pañchatantra it would be of interest. Buddhipriya 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

SERIOUS ERRORS IN THIS ARTICLE -

I am sorry to post a lengthy rejoinder. Buddhipriya and Abecedare reverted my edits to this article and both of them accused me of WP:OR. I posted my answer to Abecedare's talk page, but Abecedare did not discuss a single point raised by me and plainly answered that since many (?) experienced editors are against me, I must be in the wrong ! After such an answer, I replied "I am not interested in discussing it more". I got out of this article as well as from discussion. The controversy was over, and what Abecedare and Buddhipriya wanted was done by them, without further protest from me. I knew this article was misinforming the readers but since not a single editor was interested in arguing properly, I gave up. Another reason of giving up was that I have no connections with hindutva bandwagon, and any attempt to argue in favour of Hinduism would give these editors a point to portray me as a Hindu chauvinist.

Even after leaving this article, Buddhipriya took my withdrawal as a sign of my defeat and charged me again and again of irresponsibility : thrice of WP:OR and once of WP:RS in previous post alone (cf. above). Therefore, if I do not answer now, Buddhipriya will continue to level such charges on me till I quit Wikipedia. Let me, therefore, state the facts: (1) I had cited Monier-Williams who clearly stated that 'Ganapati' was used in the sense of 'Ganesha' in Panctantra (p. 343 of SED, MW). If MW is a liar, Buddhipriya should argue against MW and not against me. (2) I did not present something new about the dating of Panchtantra, I only borrowed the source of its dating from the already existing Wiki article Panchtantra in which I never made any contribution. If this article was false, Buddhipriya and Abecedare should rectify it instead of blaming me, because I did not edit it. (3) I also mentioned that though Mahābhārata also mentions Ganesha, some modern commentators regard these passages to be interpolations, hence MW cited Panchtantra and not Mahābhārata as an early source. Buddhipriya interprets this statement as WP:OR and synthesis. (4) Buddhipriya and Abecedare regard Panchtantra to be a later source not worth quoting. Mahābhārata is also unreliable, due to interpolations. What about Taittiriya Āranyaka (X,1) which mentions "Vakratundāya dhīmahi" ,i.e., worshipping/meditating (a god) with "curved trunk" ; Vakratunda is one of the eight incarnations of Ganesha already mentioned in this article, Chakratunda means "trunk curved like a circle/wheel". Buddhipriya and Abecedare should prove that Taittiriya Āranyaka is either unreliable or a modern work. I am providing (unaccented) citations from Taittiriya Āranyaka (10-1-5) :

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे महादेवाय धीमहि । तन्नो रूद्रः प्रचोदयात् ॥

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे वक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्तिः प्रचोदयात् ॥

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे चक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि ॥५॥

In Taittiriya Āranyaka (10-1-15) we again find similar expressions :

चक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि तीक्ष्णदँष्ट्राय धीमहि.

I have checked with published version. Buddhipriya may see http://www.sanskritweb.org/yajurveda/ta-10.pdf. for a reliable accented version . (5) And what about a recension of Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyani Samhitā (I am refraining from citing the chapter and mantra, because I want Buddhipriya should do this homework) , which mimics the mantra of Taittiriya Āranyaka, replacing Vakratundāya with "Hastimukhāya" (worshipping a god with elephant's head/face)? Does Maitrāyani Samhitā belong to Mughal period ? Five names of Śiva :Śiva & Sahasrākṣa & Mahādeva & Puruṣa & Rudra, followed with 3 names of Pārvati :Gāngaucya & Girisutā & Gaurī, then 3 names of Skanda :Kumāra & Kārttikeya & Skanda, and then 3 names of Ganeśa :Karāṭa & Hastimukha & Dantī are mentioned in a sequence in the Vedic text itself, although "experts" have reported countless of times that these deities are post-Vedic !!! If Buddhipriya wants to search, I am giving a reliable website (reliable because one can download entire scanned copy of a highly reliable publication)http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/maitrayanisamhit015004mbp/maitrayanisamhit015004mbp.pdf . I am here giving the unaccented version of the last verse among those which mention the entire family of Śiva in Maitrayāni Samhitā recension (śākhā) of Black Yajurveda :

तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥

It is a genuine Yajurvedic mantra and I hope Buddhipriya will not accuse me of WP:OR, because Yajurveda is not a lost treatise and I did not search or research it. If Buddhipriya needs a secondary evidence, I can here cite MW, who gives the meaning of Karāṭa as "N. of Ganeśa,MaitrS" (i.e., "Name of Ganeśa, in Maitrayani Samhita"). Karāṭa occurs only once in MaitrS(which I cited above) and MW shows his knowledge of this passage. SED of MW is most popular SED among English speakers. Does it not prove that prominent Indologists knew that the whole family of Śiva existed in the Yajurveda (MS), yet declared the opposite ! Taittiriya Āranyaka belongs to a different recension. Hence, Ganeśa was worshipped by followers of more than one yajurvedic recension. More instances can be found if searched properly. MW did not give a proper meaning of Gāngaucya(MW:"divine being,MaitrS"), because associating Gangā with Śiva or Pārvati during Vedic Age was against the prevalent Indological wisdom. But such is the structure of these mantras that even a cursory look at original mantras proves that Gāngaucya is used for Pārvati. But I do not want to press this point, because Buddhipriya will again accuse me of WP:OR instead of looking at the original or its commentaries (secondary sources). (6) Yājnavalkya Smriti must be dated to mediaeval period to appease these "experts", because in Āchārakānda (let these expert editors find the mantra, a homework) of this text "Ganesha" is explicitly mentioned. (7) Buddhipriya cites Krishan (1999, 102) as a reliable source. I request Buddhipriya to read the original (Kumārasambhava V.14) , Buddhipriya will be surprised to find that Krishan deliberately distorted the meaning, the text does not mention "Guha (Skanda) as Pārvatī's only son". The word "only" was mischievously added by Krishan who had to prove his point at any cost. Krishan is a liar, and no one should believe in other claims of such authors, e.g. concerning dating of Panchtantra. MW is a renowned scholar. Although even great scholars may err sometimes, there is not a single instance in which MW can be found to lie deliberately. I have provided proof of Krishan's falsehood above, which Buddhipriya can verify. (8) But from Buddhipriya's recent behaviour, I feel that Buddhipriya is more keen in driving me out of Wikipedia instead of verifying my statements, and is taking extra pains to accuse me of WP:OR every now and then. (9)Buddhipriya wrongly accused me of WP:OR in Brahmin and replaced my correct version with a wrong one. I provided proofs in talk pages, and waited in vain for many days, without getting any response. Then I replaced Buddhipriya's wrong version with the correct and well sourced one. Therefore, Abecedare was invited this time (in Ganesha) to revert my contributions and accuse me of WP:OR. Instead of consulting the primary and secondary sources, these editors are taking a recourse to collective action against me through an unfair edit war withou proper discussion, and when I had left the field to them, false accusations were posted against me. (10 Buddhipriya has no time for consulting the sources, which is clear from Buddhipriya's remark "If someone can provide a citation to a specific verse in the Pañchatantra it would be of interest". Why anyone else will do this job? If Buddhipriya wants to edit articles related to Hinduism, Buddhipriya must study the reliable sources. Why real work should be done by others, Buddhipriya acting as a super-editor over them ? Secondary sources ought to be cited in Wikipedia, but the editor must possess a first hand knowledge of primary sources as well, otherwise he/she will fail to judge which secondary source is actually reliable. I know Buddhipriya is generally a sincere and good editor, but I am harsh this time because Buddhipriya has crossed limits. Buddhipriya ought to have discussed the matter frankly before reverting or accusing me, and without inviting superpowers like Abecedare to revert my edits. I had requested Buddhipriya to this end, but in vain. (11) See history : 16:17, 5 September 2007 Vinay Jha (→Etymology and other names -Removing wrong source given by Buddhipriya : online version of Amarkosha is wrong, cf Talk page for reasons. Discuss before reverting !!!) . I had informed Buddhipriya long ago that this source is unreliable, yet Abecedare reverted my good action and restored this wrong source, without answering any of the points raised by me. The argument advanced by Abecedare was might is right, i.e., "many" experienced editors (who have no interest in reading the reliable sources) are against me. (12) Had Buddhipriya asked me to provide better or more sources, this article could have been further improved. Instead, I was only accused of WP:OR, four times in a single para (cf. above, Buddhipriya's talk). Due to such a warring attitude, I refused to edit this article. I fail to perceive why even after resigning I am not being forgiven. Recently, I had to rectify a statement (in Indian astronomy) which declared that Megasthenes had visited India in Gupta period, and therefore all dates of ancient India ought to be revised by 600-1200 years ! Although I try to keep aloof from such controversies pertaining to dating, it is not always possible. I am only sorry for the change in Buddhipriya's collaborative attitude (in svadhyaya). Now, Buddhipriya does not want to miss any chance of accusing me of WP:OR. When I left the field, why they do not stop accusing me? I have more important works to do, and I had requested earlier that half of my time in Wiki is wasted in answering to false accusations against me. But Buddhipriya did not stop. Neither Buddhipriya nor Abecedare are going to read the original sources I have pointed to. Hence, facts (and I) must go, and the errors should remain. I still have some faint hopes that in future these editors,esp. Buddhipriya, will try to study the sources instead of accusing me of WP:OR. Had Buddhipriya asked me to provide sources before accusing me and reverting my edits, my response would have been different. But Buddhipriya has too much faith in some published garbage (e.g., Krishan) which deliberately distort Indian history and culture to take me seriously. Some Wikipedians have no time to consult the real sources. Their chief concern is something else : push a particular WP:POV into Wiki articles, and push out those editors who know the original sources by accusing them of irresponsibility, WP:OR, falsehood, and the like. These editors may defeat me by voting without discussing, what they are already doing at present, but they will be remembered for these misdeeds by every conscientious soul. Anand Coomaraswami had commented that Indians receiving modern (colonial) education were "victims" of education. Some Wikipedians, Indians and westerners alike, are still victims of education, neglecting the original sources and genuine secondary commentaries, and relying upon a particulat set of books which they wrongly regard as reliable. I had no intention to provide the information I am now providing (because Wikipedians like Buddhipriya and Abecedare do not care for such information I am capable of providing), because Buddhipriya and Abecedare had already chased me away from this article and I was in no mood to quarrel. By repeating false accusations against me again and again, Buddhipriya is certainly not going to gain anything. Those who tried to silence Socrates could not succeed even by killing him. Now I hope I will not be disturbed. I do not enjoy such companions, and therefore I have no desire to edit this article. They do not feel sorry for their behaviour. -VJha 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vjha, Please modify the article as per the sources cited.-Bharatveer 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article proves that Ganesha did not exist before 400 AD on the basis of sources which are themselves false, because as I have shown above Ganesha together with his whole family was worshipped right from the Vedic Age (and this knowledge was common among Indologists like MW since 19th century). The spurious sources existing in this article must be removed. But those who added such contributions are reverting my contributions. Hence, it is not possible for me to rectify this article unless these editors cooperate, because I do not want to press for arbitration. I dislike edit warring. -VJha 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, It is quite simple:

• If you have good reliable secondary sources about Ganesha worship before 400AD you are most welcome to discuss them on the talk page or add them to the article.
• However if you wish to base your addition based on your personal knowledge and interpretation of primary sources (such as quotes from Taittiriya Āranyaka, Maitrayāni Samhitā etc. that you cite above), wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to publish that information.

Regards. Abecedare 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Abecedare's refined charges

(1) Abecedare has not mended any of his errors I mentioned above. Abecedare restored the erroneous website as a source for Amarkosha (without checking whether my charge against this website was true or false, because Buddhipriya had cited from this website). I believe Abecedare still does not know he committed this mistake, he reverted my edit without reading the whole. (2) Abecedare reverted my contribution concerning Panchtantra which I had sourced to Monier-Williams, and he is still unwilling to undo this mistake. In other words, he reverts my well-sourced edits and then wrongly charges me of WP:OR. (3) Abecedare is again charging me of trying to push WP:OR , i.e. my "personal" knowledge and interpretation of primary sources" . Relevant words from Taittiriya Āranyaka or Maitrayāni Samhitā cited by me do not need my personal interpretation ; these passage use terms like Vakratunda for Ganesh which are already used for Ganesha in this article citing primary as well as modern secondary source (not supplied by me). There are other reliable sources as well. MW has translated Karāṭa as "N. of Ganeśa,MaitrS" (i.e., "Name of Ganeśa, in Maitrayani Samhita"). But if I cite Monier-Williams for Vakratunda and its synonyms Hastimukha, Karāṭa etc, then MW's interpretations become my personal interpretations and Abecedare reverts them ! There are books which falsely claim that Ganesha did not exist before 400 AD. The question is why books written by liars like Krishan (cf. above for proof) are reliable, and why sources like MW or commentators and interpreters of texts are unreliable ? Abecedare forgets to mention that I have created entire articles single-handedly with the help of reliable secondary sources and recently successfully nominated two of them for DYK. Abecedare is distorting facts to prove that I am a troll pushing my "personal" opinions into Wiki (hardly any message from him does not contain such a charge). All my original research belong not to Hinduism but to the complicated field of weather forecasting, and I sent it to those who understood and honoured my OR. I am not a fool to post my OR to Wiki. The real complaint against me is that I have a first hand "personal" knowledge of texts (on account of which I am capable of distinguishing reliable secondary sources from unreliable ones), and in order to hide his own lack of interest in this field Abecedare now wants to declare me a troll. When secondary sources contradict each other, only primary source can decide which secondary source is reliable, and there are reliable commentaries, dictionaries, etc (which are secondary sources) to decide how to interpret primary sources. There is no need to push one's personal opinion. But now I am convinced Abecedare wants to deny the existence of Ganesha before 400 AD, otherwise he would have tride to get deeper into the proofs I cited above. He has no interest in it. I am not going to waste my time on edit wars against such editors. Abecedare's repetition of false accusations have strengthed my resolve to keep away from editing this article. Following is the list of active editors of this article who have contributed to it during past two and half months, with their total edits to this article. If they cooperate, I may help, otherwise I will keep away from this article. Buddhipriya :1511 ; Redtigerxyz :173 ; DaGizza :156 ; Sd31415 :97 ; Galena11 :59 ; Finetooth :29 ; Abecedare :28 ; Zerokitsune :19, etc. Buddhipriya is the chief contributor of this article and Buddhipriya has recently invited Abecedare to teach me lessons in policies. Following is the passage from Maitrāyani Samhitā (2, 9, 1, 2-6), a branch of Yajurveda, which I request all impartial editors to examine :

देवानां च ऋषीणां चासुराणां च पूर्वजम् । महादेवँ सहस्राक्षँ शिवमावाहयाभ्यहम् ॥२॥ ( : Śiva)

तत् पुरुषाय विद्महे महादेवाय धीमहि । तन्नो रुद्रः प्रचोदयात् ॥३॥ ( : Śiva)

तद्गाङ्गौच्याय विद्महे गिरिसुताय धीमहि । तन्नो गौरी प्रचोदयात् ॥४॥ ( : Gauri)

तत् कुमाराय विद्महे कार्त्तिकेयाय धीमहि । तन्नः स्कन्दः प्रचोदयात् ॥५॥ ( : Skanda)

तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥६॥ ( : Ganeśa)

MW translated Karāṭa and Danti as names of Ganesha(MW qouted Maitrāyani Samhita) and also translated Hastimukha similarly. No sane person can claim that the words in bold letters in this passage refer to art-forms and not to well known deities. The matter is quite simple, there is no need to raise a bogey of WP:OR. There is no dearth of secondary sources, but Abecedare and Buddhipriya have a wrong attitude to this problem, hence I want to keep away. I still request Buddhipriya to show some honesty and decency and restore (sourced) truth in this misguided article. Although I changed my sign to VJha due to Abecedare's use of my first name in spite of my request not to do so (it is an insult in India), Abecedare is not heeding it. Had I known it before joining Wiki, I would have have preferred an imaginary name as Abecedare has done. But now I cannot change my user name, and Abecedare will continue to insult me deliberately. Due to this very reason I had informed him on Sep 6 that I have no desire to communicate with him. I again request such impolite persons either not to use my first name or forget me for good. The tone of my response is following Abecedare's. I still want to entertain some faint hope that Abecedare may change his behaviour(calling by first name). Lastly, after I informed that Krishan was a liar and deliberately misinterpreted Kumārasambhava V.14, Abecedare cited the same dishonest author for reverting Bakasuprman's edit referring to coins. Kumārasambhava is not a rare work. Why Abecedare did not deem it necessary to verify my charge ? Obviously, facts are not important ; attitudes are important, and Abecedare shares Krishan's attitude to Hinduism. It is a blatant lie that Ganesha emerged as a secular art form and was adopted as a religios (cult) figure later : I had provided secondary and primary evidences which Abecedare ignored and charged me of WP:OR instead. The existence of Ganesha does not depend upon Abecedare's and Buddhipriya's mercy. Buddhipriya has added most excellent contributions to this article, but Buddhipriya has added some false sources also (unintentionally), which Buddhipriya ought to remove. -VJha ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: In my view, Krishan has misinterpreted Kumārasambhava V.14 ( may not be deliberately). Kumārasambhava is about "the birth of Kumara (Skanda)" , the first son of Shiva (as per Northen Indian tradition). It describes the killing of Taraka by Skanda and the story ends there. At this moment, Skanda is the only son of Parvati. It was not Kalidas's job to tell about an unborn son "Ganesha". So Kalidas is right in not describing Ganesha or making the statement "Guha is the only son of Parvati" ( if this translation is to be believed) it can well be "Guha is the son of Parvati only".

Point 2: About the coins and its source, [9] , you can verify itself on this online version. Fortunately, the page 32 referrred is available and decide for yourself. --Redtigerxyz 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Redtigerxyz

• Redtigerxyz's opinions are sound but I must add that Kālidāsa did not make statements like "Guha is the only son of Pārvati" or "Guha is the son of Pārvati" ; in Kumārasambhava-V.14 Kālidāsa simply said that even after Skanda's birth Pārvati's motherly affection for all creatures did not diminish (I am giving a reliable summary here; Redtigerxyz should read Kumārasambhava before wrongly pardoning Krishan ; Wiki needs reliable sources and not false authors). Krishan deliberately misinterpreted this statement of Kālidāsa to convince the readers that Ganesha was absent from Hinduism during the age of Kālidāsa.
• As for the online version mentioned by Redtigerxyz, this book totally neglects Ganesha-worship in Yajurveda as cited by me above and proposes that Ganesha originated in Indo-Scythian period. There are good and bad secondary sources, and if a secondary source is not true it is not reliable and should not be quoted, unless for refuting it. Today one Wiki editor told me at my talk page that Śiva did not exist in the Vedic period. I sent him the following names of Śiva scanned from two chapters of White Yajurveda : Śiva, Rudra, Mahādeva, Śambhu, Śankara, Paśupati, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Nīlagrīva (Nīlakantha) and a lot of other synonyms. There are reputed commentaries on Yajurveda, hence do not accuse me of WP:OR for stating facts. Redtigerxyz should take a note of these facts. The whole family of Śiva is mentioned in many recensions of Yajurveda, Āranyakas and Smritis. A particular group of scholars are disturbed by these facts which do not fit into their theories, and therefore falsely declare that Śiva , Ganeśa, etc did not exit in the Vedic period. If a number of scholars commit such mistakes for long periods, the mistake is deliberate. I expect more honesty and boldness from Wiki editors. -VJha 13:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 3: Regarding the WP:OR allegation ,editor VJha talks of (तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे वक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्तिः प्रचोदयात् ॥) from Taittiriya Āranyaka, Maitrayāni Samhitā and तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥६॥ ( : Ganeśa), this verse from Black Yajurveda; this is discussed on p. 70 [10]; Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God By Robert L. Brown; article tiltled Ganesa's Rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature by Ludo Rocher. These verses are quoted in the book. I will add this point in "Vedic and epic literature" section tomorrow, which only discusses the verses that appear to dedicated to Ganesha, but are not, according to scholars. --Redtigerxyz 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, thanks for your input and succinct presentation of your points!

• Point 1: Krishan's analysis of Kalidas' Kumārasambhava, though interesting, is somewhat off-topic since it is not quoted or referenced in the article currently or anytime in the past. The basic issue is whether Pañchatantra was the 'earliest' source in which Ganapati was equated with Ganesha. Mr. Jha considers that to be the case, while Krishan doesn't and clearly as per verifiability we will have to take the word of a published academic over that of a unpublished wikipedian. Of course, if a reliable secondary source is produced that supports Mr. Jha's POV, we can add that to the article.
• Point 2 In spite of VJha's statement to the contrary, I did not revert or delete either the sentence or the reference that Bakaman added to the lead, as can be seen from this diff. Instead I added back the previous sentence about the emergence of Ganesha as a distinct deity, and clarified the distinction with the earlier appearance of elephant-faced man in Indian art and coins, which - as per the two cited sources - some identify with Ganesha while others disagree.
• Point 3 Thanks for locating the secondary source for the BY verses! I have added that to the "Vedic and epic literature", along with the mention of supporting and dissenting views by Sayana and Krishan respectively. Please take a look at my edit and tweak it if needed.

Regards. Abecedare 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The summary edit by Abecedare looks concise and accurate: [11]. Thanks to Redtigerxyz for assistance in locating secondary sources. I checked the text of Ludo Rocher on p. 70 of Brown and it is characterized accurately. The citation to Krishan is important, as it raises the key question, which is the possibility of late interpolation. Buddhipriya 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the IAST be adjusted to omit the Vedic accent marks. IAST does not in fact include a specification for these marks, and since they are not shown in the Devanagari, showing them in the IAST results in the two versions of the text being different. The text in Rocher (Brown, p. 70) includes them, but they are not relevant to the semantics of meaning, in my opinion. I understand that the issue of the accent marks is of interest to Mr. Jha, but is there a specific case for including them, since they do not affect meaning in this case? Buddhipriya 05:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Points : (1) I had deliberately omitted accents in this case because meaning was not affected. (2) Linguistic peculiarities (Gāngauchyā, Karāṭa) in above passage were overlooked by Krishan ; Gāngauchyā is an enigmatic word which no scholar has been able to interpret satisfactorily; it is related to Girisutā and Gauri. Krishan's charge of interpolation in a Vedic text is a serious matter. What arguments Krishan forwarded for regarding MS (Maitrāyani Samhitā) passage as an interpolation ? Mere occurrence of Ganesha in it ? And Vedic accents were falsely superimposed upon post-Vedic interpolations by crooks, which went unnoticed by everyone excepting Krishan ? Even Ludo puts this passage before Śruti and Śāstra period. I had earlier pointed towards Krishan's deliberate falsehood in misinterpreting Kumārasambhavam. Kumārasambhavam is not a rare book, but instead of looking into it, Abecedare flatly concluded that a published academic is more reliable than a Wikipedian. Why Krishan's pseudo-scholarship in the case of Kumārasambhavam ought to be overlooked ? It is not off the mark, because Krishan used it for dating Ganesha falsely.(3) Now I am giving my personal opinions which are not intended for inclusion in the article, but for further enquiry for evidences (hence do not charge me of WP:OR). MS (Maitrāyani Samhitā) contains two words which are archaic and perhaps do not occur in any Vedic or post-Vedic literature. Even MW could not make any head or tail of Gāngauchyā, although the context suggested it as a name of Gauri, and MW gave a vague meaning "divine being". This word is enigmatic, and its connections with Gangā is not clear, but any alternative explanation is also wanting. But context suggests that this entire verse may be related to Ganesha's mother. Another archaic word is Karāṭa, which I have failed to locate elsewhere in entire literature, although Karaṭa, which means elephant, is frequently found in post-Vedic texts, on account of which MW and ancient commentators rightly connected Karāṭa with Karaṭa. Please help me in finding secondary sources which can throw any light on Gāngauchyā. (4) I had cited soures already cited in Wiki article Panchtantra, besides MW, but Abecedare forgets these citations and construes my remarks as my "personal" opinions and WP:OR . Panchtantra may contain layers, but what about its stories depicted on caves of Mauryan period (cf. article Panchtantra for secondary sources, which I had copied to this article but Abecedare reverted it charging me of WP:OR. If MW cited falsely from Panchtantra, Abecedare ought to argue against MW and not against me. K. Krishna Murthy also says in Mythical Animals in Indian Art : "the earliest representation of Ganesha, as pointed out by Coomaraswamy, seems to be that of the Amravati coping". (5) Please do not add "Mr" to any Wikipedian, signature is enough. -VJha ^Talk 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You raise so many points at once that I find it overwhelming. I would like to take one item at a time and bring it to closure. Can you please give me a specific verse or other citation to text in the Panchatantra that mentions Ganesha? Since no specific story or other reference has been given so far, I am finding it difficult to locate. I have placed two editions of the Panchatantra on order for interlibrary loan but it may take a week for them to get here. Also, I take it from your reply that you would not object to removal of the Vedic accent marks from the IAST transliteration, since you agree that in this case they do not affect the meaning. If no one else objects, I will remove them from the IAST and adjust the IAST to be a lossless romanization of the Devanagari. Buddhipriya 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Panchatantra 34 years ago. I cited it from MW and Panchatantra article, and not from my memory. If you insist, I may purchase the book. In the meantime, I am quoting Y. Krishan (Gaṇeśa:Unravelling an Enigma, p.6): "Pārvati who created an image of Gaṇeśa out of her bodily impurities but which became endowed with life after immersion in the sacred waters of the Gangā. Therefore he is said to have two mothers--Pārvati and Gangā and hence called dvaimātura and also Gāngeya." Krishan traces this story to later mythology, but will you try to find some secondary source on Gāngauchyā in Maitrāyani Samhitā, which is mentioned with Girisutā and Gauri, as I mentioned above? I fear this word has been neglected by almost everyone. Gāngauchyā is certainly related to Gangā, its exact derivation is obscure. One Sanskrit professor suggested yesterday :"Higher than Gangā (= Pārvati)". But in my view, Gangauchyā should suggest "Higher than Gangā OR one who holds Gangā on its heights" (=Parvat, father of Pārvati) and Gāngauchyā should mean daughter of Gangauchyā. -VJha 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you are not able to supply a specific citation in the Panchatantra, and only cite the MW entry which does not have any detail whatsoever regarding the appearance of the word Ganesha in that text, and since the only WP:RS we have found that discusses this in detail dismisses the claim, I assume we can put this text on the back burner pending further emergence of a solid citation. Buddhipriya 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidhi Vinayaka

A most common characteristic for Ganesha idols found everywhere is that his trunk will be curved to his left hand side. However there are few rare cases where trunk is curved to the right hand side. Such idols are very rare and unique and are referred to as Sidhi Vinayaka. According to one popular belief such idols should be worshiped with utmost care. One example is Balamuri temple near Mysore, Karnataka. I was wondering whether this information should be added to the article. If agreed upon, we can find some scholarly sources. Gnanapiti 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Brown (1991), which discusses the iconography and several historical depictions of Ganesha in considerable detail, does talk about an icon on page 144 (in an article by Amy Catlin) with a, "rare right-curving trunk called Valamburi Ganesa (Tamil: valamburi, turning towards the right)". However the reference is only passing and no symbolic meaning is attached to the variation in that article. In most of the other images and statues discussed in the book, the trunk is usually left leaning, typically curved towards the modaka Ganesha holds in (or is near his) his lower left hand :-)

I'll look at some other sources to see if I can find something more relevant. May take a few days though. Cheers. Abecedare 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another example would be Siddhivinayak temple in Mumbai. A one-liner or two can be included in the iconography section, common attributes.--Redtigerxyz 13:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of the direction in which the trunk turns is indeed an important identifying factor in classifying Ganesha images. When describing these forms it is important to be precise with use of the terms left and right as either relative to him, or relative to the viewer's perspective. These apply to images where he is viewed from the front. The article now includes a wonderful profile image that is very authentic, and in the profiles we often see a winding shape. I am sure we can find something related to this as citations, but in general it should be noted that the left/right turn is not interpreted consistently in the sources I have seen. It is chiefly a late development in popular tradition, as far as I know. The images are generally broadly grouped as left or right turning, but there is also a smaller group of vakratunda ("twisting trunk") style in which the twists and turns take a sort of "S" shape or more complex convolution. He is also described in at least one case in the sahasranama with the trunk going stright upward to touch the center of his own forehead. When shown in battle he is often shown with the trunk elevated, like an elephant trumpeting. I will try to find something on these issues in the next week but my time on Wikipedia is very limited right now. Buddhipriya 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious source added

I am concerned that this edit [12] relies upon what appears to be a weak source, and the removal of the previous Gupta statement conflicts with the bulk of the cited evidence. I think this source needs to be vetted, and the claims that are pushing the date for Ganesha back to earlier periods need to be challenged. This is another case of using a statement from a general work that conflicts with the better evidence put forward in specialized works on Ganesha. I am going to move the statement to the talk page and fall back to the prior summary pending discussion of this material. This certainly does not belong in the lead. It may be relevant to the historical section, but only to debunk the idea that these images have anything to do with Ganesha. Here is the version of the material as it was today:

Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century BCE. However

I could accept reinsertion of this material in this historical section, but note that the vague "which some identify with Ganesha" should be made more precise if possible. There have been various speculative attempts to find Ganesha in earlier materials, none of which are accepted by the best reviewers of the material. Putting this in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to one of the vague speculations. I moved the dubious material to the section on historical influences, but I am still not happy with how it integrates there, as it still seems to give too much weight to it. I will see if I can find any other citations that may put this into better context. Buddhipriya 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the material is a better fit in the "Possible influeces" section rather than in the lead, since there is active disagreement among scholars whether those early iconic depictions represent the (modern) "Ganesha" or not. Krishan (1981) surveys the academic view about this issue. He begins the section, "Gaṇeśa in Art" as:

"Gaṇeśa is said to appear in sculpture some centuries earlier than in literature. It has been argued that a silver drachm of the Indo-Greek King Hermaeus dating about 10 B.C. represents him as a throned male deity with an elephant's head. A terracotta plaque of the first century B.C. or A.D., found in the excavations at Rairh in Jaipur, is thought to show a Vainiiyaki, a female deity having the head of an elephant. Likewise on two clay tablets unearthed in the digs at Sambhar bearing a figure claimed as elephant-headed is called Gaṇeśa. However all these identifications are highly speculative."

He then goes on to discuss the specifics cases in detail and argues that these "speculative" associations are "untenable"; however he also points out that others, such as Coomaraswamy (A.K.Coomaraswamy in Boston Museum Bull., 1928, no.154, p. 30.) believe otherwise. That is the reason I had rephrased the sentence to clarify that the depictions are of "a elephant faced man" which some identify with Ganesha (I assumed that it would be implicit that others disagree, but if required we can make it clearer).

Krishan may have an updated account on the topic in his 1999 book, which I have not read myself, and there may be other references too. We should aim to make the current scholarly opinion clear in a sentence or two, without giving this whole issue undue weight. Any comments and suggestions appreciated. Abecedare 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find something on this in Krishan's 1999 book which I have on hand, but time is limited this week. You will find that the coin issues are more complex than this, and lead one to examination of some factors in dating and characterization of coins from the Kushan Empire. The geographic spread of Ganesha to Kushan centers is mentioned briefly in the article text now. The problem is that characterization of what the figures on the coins mean is itself disputed. I followed the Kushan Empire article briefly when it became embroiled in conflict, but did not go back. In a nutshell the problem is that some sources interpret the figures as Hindu deities such as Shiva, while others lean toward Greek influences. The bottom line is that all of this coin material is a weak reed to lean upon for evidence. Buddhipriya 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Narain, A. K. "Gaṇeśa: The Idea and the Icon". Brown (1991), p. 27 is another source that differentiates between Ganesha and "visual representations of independent theriomorphic elephant deity [that] can be seen even before the Vedic times". He too emphasizes the non-Vedic origins of Ganesha, although clearly influenced by Vedic traditions (p. 29). Abecedare 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha not in the Vedas

Explain? the verses from RigVeda mentioning names of Ganesha are not Ganesha's? When everyone in the world is chanting these mantras, it is mentioned otherwise. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your specific question is addressed at Ganesha#Vedic and epic literature and you can check the references for further information. Abecedare 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's H. H. Wilson and Ludo Rocher thoughts to do here? It is what they think. I think these comments from H. H. Wilson and Ludo Rocher fit in articles like Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory. There are 1000's of sources that clear sates that these mantras are to Lord Ganesha. I think we should not give WP:UNDUE importance to such comments. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article currently does a good job of debunking the idea that Ganesha appears in the Rig Veda. He does not appear there. The idea that Ganesha was a Vedic god comes up over and over again in devotee literature, and thus merits debunking. Buddhipriya 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points for Buddhipriya

(1) Rgvedic Ganapati cannot be proved to refer to Ganesha, but Buddhipriya is wrong in declaring that the idea that Ganesha was a Vedic god merits debunking. Buddhipriya should not be partial. There is no proof that Maitrāyani Samhitā and Taittiriya Āranyaka passages are interpolations. I believe Buddhipriya is searching for a particular types of evidences (i.e., opinions of writers like Krishan). Buddhipriya made over 1500 edits in this article and failed to notice a single Vedic reference, which were recently added after so much arguing. And now Buddhipriya has again set forth to debunk Maitrāyani Samhitā and Taittiriya Āranyaka, which are Vedic texts. Why Buddhipriya is so partial ? If Buddhipriya will try to discover the original meaning (starting from etymological) of the Vedic deities (e.g., Agni), Buddhipriya will stumble upon unexpected facts. (2) In Gaṇeśa: Unravelling an Enigma (p.19), Yuvraj Krishan says "Śiva as a god is non-existent in the Vedas" and adds "Śvetaśvatara Upaniṣad paves the way of for the fusion of Rudra and Śiva". Yuvraj Krishan either did not consult the Vedas and collected citations and opinions from other books, or deliberately lied (as in the case of Kumārasambhavam). As I mentioned above, following names of Śiva were found in two chapters of White Yajurveda : Śiva, Rudra, Mahādeva, Śambhu, Śankara, Paśupati, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Nīlagrīva (Nīlakantha) and a lot of other synonyms. There are reputed commentaries on Yajurveda (i.e., secondary sources), hence do not accuse me of WP:OR for stating these facts. Y. Krishan is a bad source. Instead of debunking the Vedas, Buddhipriya should debunk Yuvraj Krishan. Krishan believes even Gaṇeśa's father (Śiva) was not born during the Vedic Age, why Krishan would allow the son (Gaṇeśa) to exist ?-VJha ^Talk 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. Please.

I havent read every word of the debates above(dont fault me for that), but I have read a good amount. So here's my take.

I presume both Jha and BP have reliable sources to argue their case. Now Mr. Jha says that Ganesha is mentioned in the Vedas(Rig, Yajur.. whatever). bp says that all 'claims' of such mentions have been 'debunked'. He cites Krishnan for this.

Now, my question to Buddhipriya - do you know of any others other than Krishnan who 'debunk' what they say are only 'claims' and not 'facts'. If Krishnan is the only one we have, I'd be looking at something on the following lines for the prose -

"... The earliest mentions of Ganesha occur in the RigVeda... Krishnan however, dismisses these mentions as later interpolations..."(? thats his line, is it?)

If we have more people and not just Krishnan who 'debunk' the claim, then we'd probably word it on these lines -

"...Notwithstanding claims from some quarters of Ganesha finding mention in Vedic texts, it is widely held that the first mention of Ganesha is actually in the _____ dated to ____...."

Now, lets come to the question of the primary sources that Jha is quoting. Though it wouldnt be the right thing to use primary sources to write articles on wikipedia, I do believe that if we put our heads together instead of arguing endlessly on talk pages, we could incorporate it in the "notes" (as opposed to "references") where we can explain the polemic and thereby add value to the article.

In a nutshell, my take is - if the are reliable secondary sources which insist that Ganesha finds mention in Vedic texts, then we must mention it in the article. If there is opposition from other reliable sources to such a view, then we will mention that too.

Also, I did a little bit of my own searching and I found these -

Ganesha corresponding to Agni-Brihaspati, "Lord of Hosts"(ie., of the Maruts, the breaths,the powers of the soul) in the Rig Veda, and Skanda represent respectively the Sacerdotium(brahma).... - Heinrich Zimmer citing Alice Getty on page 138 of his book "Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization"

Ganesha is one of the most popular deities of the Hindu pantheon. According to certain authorities, he was a pre-Aryan deity of the aboriginals and his one ... - Manohar Laxman Varadapande on page5 of his book "History of Indian theatre".

Comments? Sarvagnya 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s: I re-read the article and it seems to me that my post above may be a little out of place/anachronistic, though not entirely so. But please do comment. Thanks.

Ganesha in RV

I have scanned Rgveda for all major synonyms of Ganeśa, and found that the two verses already cited in this article referring to Brahmaṇspati and Indra in which the term Ganapati is used) are the only verses which have some possibility of connection with Ganeśa, but neither Sāyana nor modern interpreters explicitly mentiont such a connection. RV.2.23.1 refers to Brahmaṇspati. However, various recensions of Yajurveda contain clear references to Śiva and Ganeśa and it is very difficult to declare all these verses as interpolations. -VJha 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my understanding:

• In RV As VJha has summarized above, all scholarly sources seem to agree that the two mentions of "Ganapati" in RV do not refer to Ganesha. Some also specifically point out that Ganapataya's retrospectively did draw this association, so it is not at all surprising that we find such claims in devotional literature. Note: To be clear, scholars consider the interpretations, and not the verses themselves, to be later interpolations.
• In YV There seem to be three opinions floating around about this (1) a la Roucher, the two verses are suggestive of Ganesha, (2) Sayana's opinion that they do refer to Ganesha, (3) Krishan's opinion that the verses themselves are late additions to YV.
• Vedic in general Besides discussion of specific verses, several sources say Ganesha is a post-Vedic deity who arose in 4-5 century (A.K. Narain; Krishan, Roucher et al), although possibly influenced by not only Vedic, but also pre-Vedic traditions (although some have consider even the "influence" to be speculative).

So, as far as I see, the only point of contention is the YV reference. We clearly have to mention all three opinions, but a wider survey of scholarly sources should be used to establish which (if any) is the common view, and which is/are outliers. Abecedare 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Abecedare

• Abecedare has not changed his attitude to Yajurvedic evidence concerning Gaṇeśa. Previously, he called it my WP:OR. Now he wants to downplay the importance of Yajurvedic evidences. Had I entertained any partiality in this regard, I would not have mentioned that major synonyms of Gaṇeśa are absent in RV. Ludo Roucher said "very suggestive of Gaṇeśa" and Abecedare missed to read "very". Sāyan is more explicit, as Abecedare also notes. Krishan also accepts Sāyana's view (i.e., Krishan does not refute association with Gaṇeśa). None of these three say that aforementioned verses do not refer to Gaṇeśa. Hence, these Yajurvedic verses actually refer to or suggest Gaṇeśa is an academic consensus without any dissension and this fact needs to be mentioned in the article. All these Yajurvedic names refer to elephant-god and all these names were preserved and used in post-vedic period solely for Gaṇeśa, with a single exception Karāṭa), although Karaṭa which means elephant was retained.
• The only point of contention is Krishan's opinion that these verses are additions. Ludo Roucher puts these verses in the period before Śruti and Śāstras, which means Ludo Roucher clearly regards these verses to belong to the (Yajur-) Vedic period and not later additions (this is not my WP:OR or synthesis as Abecedare would like to show ; please read Ludo Roucher). Sayana also does not regard these verses to be additions. Krishan's view about Yajurvedic references to Gaṇeśa is a minority view and unfounded, because he merely states his bias. Abecedare is according UNDUE importance to Krishan. Abecedare deliberately forgets that I provided two proofs of Krishan's deliberate falsehood concerning Śiva in Yajurveda, and Kumārasambhavam, which can be verified from translations and commentaries, which are secondary sources. Abecedare tried to belittle this point by saying that it is off the topic, forgetting that Krishan used a distorted interpretation of Kumārasambhavam to prove a late emergence of Gaṇeśa.
• Abecedare rightly says that several sources say Gaṇeśa is a post-Vedic deity who arose in 4-5th century AD. But it is because Rgveda is generally taken into consideration by most of modern authors and archaic recensions (Maitrāyani Samhitā) of Yajurveda, which even brahmins have forgotten, are neglected. If some sources say Sun does not exist, should we accept these sorces as reliable ? If some sources say Gaṇeśa is a non-vedic deity, these sources are refuted by the primary source and their commentators. Instead of rectifying the remaining errors in this article, Abecedare wants to bury Yajurvedic evidences in the name of some modern sources which do not mention Yajurvedic evidences due to ignorance or bias. I am sorry to see that even after viewing evidences in Yajurveda, Abecedare wants to rely on unreliable sources. Archaic words in the aforementioned verses of Maitrāyani Samhitā cannot be proven to be later additions, because post-Vedic literature does not contain these words. The problem is that modern commentators have not discussed this point in the aforementioned verses. To be frank, the problem with Abecedare and Buddhipriya is that they have decided to be true to a particular type of authors, even if the views of these authors are proven to be biased and false. The problem of proper sourcing of articles related to Hindutva is plaguing almost all Wiki articles and it cannot be solved unless and until some editors stop misusing Wiki principle of verifiability, not truth. Abecedare is a sober person, and I still believe when he knows facts, he will not support falsehood. -VJha 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... VJha, I myself added those sentences about YV to the article, based on secondary sources that User:Redtigerxyz and I found, and which you are now citing. Surely, that demonstrates my bias against including YV in the article ?!

PS: You are welcome to rail against Krishnan and throw choice epithets such as thug, liar, etc and call his views deliberate falsehoods, biased, unfounded etc. But the fact remains that he is a respected scholar who has written books and peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and we have only your unpublished opinion against him, which as per wikipedia policy means zilch. I apologize if this comes across as rude, but you have been on wikipedia long enough to have gained an understanding of its policies and guidelines. Abecedare 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare has again started his old game of neglecting the sources upon which I base my statements, and calling me something like a troll (WP:OR, my unpublished opinion, etc). What Abecedare calls my "unpublished opinion against" a "respected scholar" like Krishan are based on published commentaries of Kumārasambhavam and White Yajurveda. I have myself cited Krishan whenever I found him correct and in tune with mainstream scholarship. But I oppose Krishan's deliberately false statements. I do not take sides. Abecedare is taking sides, forgetting Krishan's crimes. Sighs will not help. Abecedare will get a better response from me only if he examines impartially my charges against Krishan instead of harping on Krishan's respectability. If the whole world respects a lie, it will not become truth. Abecedare is a sane person, why he is showing partiality this time is strange. He can get published commentaries of Kumārasambhavam and White Yajurveda to find truth. -VJha 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people would try to pick one issue at a time and work it to closure rather than conflating so many issues at once. Rather than discussing "Vedic" issues it is much more productive to examine specific passages. The Rig Veda claims were already dismissed in the article prior to the current round of additions, which put forward two specific passages from Taittiriya Āranyaka and Maitrayāni Samhitā. In addition to the dismissal by Krishan, these passages also are considered to be late interpolations by Thapan (pp. 101, 137-138). Thapan considers the references to Danti to be suggestive of the most likely precursor figure to Ganesha. The full development of the figure of Ganesha as we know him today did not occur until the Gupta period as is very well-documented in the article now. Krishan devotes several pages to debunking these passages in his 1999 book, and the arguments are too lengthy to conveniently type in here. However he gives examples of other obvious interpolations of similar type, and does a comparison of different recensions to show variations. Those two passages can be mentioned in the article, but only if strong refutation of them is included in a balanced manner.

We also need to recognize that not all sources are of equal quality. Many general works may include nonsence copied from popular sources. This article has made an effort to concentrate on high-quality sources that are specialist materials in the field of Ganesha studies. In this recent flurry of edits some very weak sources are being introduced, and I think they should be discussed on the talk page first, and added only after there is some debate and vetting done on the talk page. Otherwise this article will degenerate in quality. Buddhipriya 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Abecedare has just made a very good edit that sums up what should go into the lead: [13]. While details of the various precursors can be covered in detail in the body of the article, the main point needs to be kept clear, as that edit does. Buddhipriya 04:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Danielou is perhaps the strongest source possible in this context, and he was removed for Ak Narain? Danielou was a renowned expert on the Vedas and Shaivism. Why are we giving undue weight to Narain, when Narain's publications are all over the place? The article has degenerated into a cesspool of ivory tower gafflegab rather than the reflection of popular views. The article itself contradicts itself and really doesn't do justice to widely held views, rather giving credence to a select group of uber-speculators.Bakaman 05:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Will it have to come down to reproducing Krishan's arguments here? I'm somewhat surprised that VJha, for all his Vedic expertise, doesn't know of the issues. For instance,

• TA.10 is a very pedantic way to refer to the material, not a little tendentious, if not also ad verecundiam. It's well known that the ten books of what is now known as the TA classify into three distinct portions: the first six books are the Aranyaka proper (i.e. supplementary to the TS and TB), VII-IX are the Taittiriya Upanishad (VIII and IX were commented on by Sankara), and X is the Mahanarayana Upanishad, which is not among the mukhya. Its lateness is well known.
• MS.2.9.1 is a patent interpolation, evident from the material on both sides of it, which pertains directly to the Agnicayana ritual and is covered in the same order in all the other recensions. (This can be seen clearly from Keith's table mapping the contents of the TS to the other YV recensions -- Katha, Kapisthala, Maitrayani, and Vajasaneyi/Shatapatha -- pp. xlvii-lxvi of the Introduction to his translation of the TS.) In fact, in relation to the others, the MS is the most disorganized of the recensions, with a distinct appearance of patchwork. All of this is well known in the scholarly literature.

That said, even if "very late Vedic" provenance were granted to epithets such as Danti, Vakratunda and the like, it still does not follow that the latter-day Ganesha was meant, only that some theriomorphic deity was in the process of being incorporated into the Vedic/Brahmanic pantheon, a process that also involved the eventual transfer of epithets such as Ganapati. (It's almost like saying that the Vishnu of the Rgveda is the Vishnu of Vaishnavism; the similarity has to do with the back projection, in effect denying any historical development, that is typical of the dogmatically synchronic approach in traditional interpretations of Vedic materials, especially when it comes to "justifying" Puranic conceptions in terms of putative Vedic antecedents.)

This has all the makings of a very sterile debate. rudra 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rudra's comments. Please note that I have added Thapan as a second reference debunking the Taittiriya Āranyaka and Maitrayāni Samhitā as late interpolations, so Krishan is not the only source so quoted. Krishan does not just throw out this mantra, he debunks the entire group of mantras of which it is a part, making a convincing (to me) argument that the entire section is an interpolation. His review of the Maitrayāni Samhitā and the parallel material in TA (Krishan 1999:12-15)note that the mantra is part of a group of 11 gayatris addressed to various deities (MS 2.9.1.3-13), and the fourth mantra of this group is the one we are discussing. This mantra is found only in the MS and in none of the other recensions of the Krsna Yajur Veda. It is also not found in the Shukla Yajur Veda recensions. Aside from the fact that it is found only there, the apocryphal character of all of these mantras is established by comparison with similar mantras in the Taittiriya A. which is in two recensions (details omitted). Though some of the gayatris are common (across multiple recensions) the names of the gods are variant. A table showing the various permutations is on pp. 13-14 of Krishan 1999. The names of the gods to whom this entire group of gayatris are addressed are patently post-Vedic deities, indicative of the post-vedic interpolative character of these mantras. Even Narasimha, whom I doubt anyone will claim as a Vedic figure, is addressed as a deity in this group.

Thapan's analysis (p. 101) broadly cites the view that "these gāyātris are generally considered to have been interpolated at a period when Gaṇapati had become an important god." She goes somewhat farther than this, however, and even suggests that the references in these mantras to Danti and Hastimukha were not even to the figure of Ganesha as we know him today, but to his predecessor deity Danti, who was associated with the Vinayaka imps, a group of troublesome sprites. Regarding Danti, she says that since "this form is not the syncretic deity Gaṇapati-Vināyaka but simply the elephant deity, it is possible that this interpolation was made as early as the second or third centuries AD." Also note that this passage connects in the very important name Vinayaka, which coincidentally came up in an unrelated edit to the etymology section. The name Vinayaka does not mean "remover of obstacles" as Grimes translates it, and Thapan's material is one of the sources to document the Danti/Vinayaka connections, which were the immediate precursor to the figure of Ganesha, who came before us during the Gupta period. Buddhipriya 06:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Krishan's pointing to multiple recensions of the TA is interesting. An online PDF of the TA is available at the MUM archive (it's 16.5 MB!). The first 5 books of the TA have been transcribed, the rest are photoscanned from an edition including Sayana's commentary. The relevant material is on p.332 of the PDF (p.699 of the scanned book). There are only 5 true gayatris (Rudra, Danti, Garuda, Durgi and Vishnu), not 11 as the online PDF of the TA referred to us by VJha. And Sayana identifies Vakratunda/Danti with Vinayaka, an interesting choice of epithet, especially in view of Thapan's comments. Note, also, that we do not have Sayana's authority for other identifications in the 11-gayatri versions, either in the TA or in MS. rudra 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, even Danielou, who Both Baka and VJha trust, broadly agrees with Krishan's analysis, although the latter is better referenced and much more detailed. See The Myths and Gods of India (pages 291-92) where Danielou says:

• That Ganapati is named only indirectly in TA and "in an interpolated passage" of MS.
• He makes his true appearance in Mahabharata; as Krishan also says "Its true precursor seems to have been one of its present synonyms, Vinayaka. The latter, in the plural, signified evil spirits. In the Mahabharata [...] they are spoken of as unfriendly, malignant beings like bhutas, raksasas, and picasas."
• Ganapati is sometimes identified with Brhaspati, who is mentioned in the Rigveda; Roucher also has attested this retrospective identification by Ganapatyas.

I will look for more sources and add details as I find them. Abecedare 08:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For an indirect reference to Ganapati in MS, Danielou indeed uses the words "in an interpolated passage" , but on p.299 Danielou says "The name of Skanda first appears in a passage, possibly an interpolation, of the Maitrayani Samhita" (synonyms of Skanda and Ganesha appear in MS-2.9.1). It clearly means that Danielou found no convincing proof that this passage was an interpolation and was merely suggesting a possibility. Everyone who regards this passage an interpolation rests this opinion upon absence of Ganesha in other Vedic texts and no one advances any independent evidence in support of the claim that it is interpolation. Why an interpolated passage should contain terms which were never used in post-Vedic literature ? Rudra regards entire MS as unreliable, charging me of not knowing the issue. I had discussed the grammatical errors and some archaic terms in this passage with a lot of scholars before commenting here. The errors / irregularities in MS is proof of its archaicness and not of interpolation. Interpolated verses ought to be regular in language, reflecting classical habits. Abecedare &c neglect to answer my charges concerning Krishan's deliberate falsehoods. Why they do not check from published commentaries ? Why Abecedare forgot to mention Danielou's use of the word "possibly" ? Abecedare chose only that portion of Danielou which suited Abecedare's personal taste. Or was it an inadvertent lapse ? Rudra should concentrate on explaining the archaic words in MS instead of poking fun at my ignorance of the whole issue. -VJha 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maintain 1 statement

The article is currently reading Excepting some recessions of Yajurveda, Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas. I think there is already lot of precious discussions done on Ganesha. There is no second opinion on Ganesha descriptions being present in Yajurveda atleast. Currently "Y Krishan's" too has not evidently quoted anything. I think no one should have a problem changing the sentence to "Ganesha is found in the Vedas". Cheers, Ganpati Papa Moriya. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing few statements those are WP:UNDUE. The policy currently mentions "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Absence of Ganesha in RigVeda is also a minority view. As per the policy we will need to edit all of those. References falsifying statements currently included in Yajur Veda itself, is definitely a great example of WP:UNDUE and need not be present at all. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Books stating the verses from Rig Veda and Yajur Veda are for Ganesha, also that Ganesha is being worshiped since the Vedic times.

• Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant-Faced God, By Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Subramuniya ISBN 0945497776 says "HYMNS OF THE VEDAS EXTOL GANAPATI, THE LORD of the Ganas, attendants of Siva. The most famous verse to Ganapati is from the great hymn Sri Rudram found in the Yajur Veda Samhita (and Rig Veda 2.23.1).",
• Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles By Manuela Dunn-Mascetti" By Manuela Dunn-Mascetti at page 8, says "Worshiped since Vedic times"
• "The Thousand Names of Ganesha", By Vijaya Kumar, ISBN 8120730070, says, "Brahmanaspati: Lord of Speech" is one of the thousand names of Lord Ganesha
• "The Heart of Hinduism: The Eastern Path to Freedom, Empowerment and Illumination", By Stephen Knapp, ISBN 0595350755, says "In the word "gaja", which means elephant, "ga" means the goal and "ja" means the origin.", "Ganesha, therefore, is the representation of the man who understands the foundation of the reality upon which the universe rests, as summarized in the Vedic term. "Thou art That", tat tvam asi (Taittiriya Aranyaka 8.1.1)

There are more and more books, I will add all the references and then commit my changes. I hope that will be fine with everyone. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, what you are listing above are devotee publications which are (in some cases) good illustrations of how Ganesha is worshiped nowadays; however they are not good sources for establishing the historical origins of this deity. I have added a sentence to the article which makes this distinction more clear and explicit. Cheers. Abecedare 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above devotee literature contains patent nonsense. For a subject like Ganesha, for which we have a range of material including both devotee and academic sources, we must insist that on matters of histoy the academic sources be preferred. Also note that in this field, like many others, it is important to use current academic sources. Much of the best work on the history of Ganesha has been done only since the 1970-1980 period when much focus began to be placed on the developmental history in more disciplined way. Books published prior to that time ofen did not have the benefit of later work to debunk precursor things such as interpolated passages, obscure elephant images, etc. Thapan's book (1991), which is entirely devoted to the development of Ganesha, is an example of a relatively recent review of the best, current evidence. In academic work it is always necessary to evaluate source quality, even among academic sources. There are dozens of strong citations from these works in the article now, and it is important to continue to protect them from being cut or distorted by devotee beliefs. I say this not in disrespect for Ganesha, whom I love very deeply. One of his many functions is as a god of intelligence and learning, and to fail to respect scholarly methods in writing about him seems much more disrespectful to him that getting the facts right. Buddhipriya 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

guys, what is this debate even about? "Ganapati" means "troop lord". "Ganesha" means ... "troop lord". That's right, they are synonymous epithets, and Vedic occurrence of "Ganapati" has nothing whatsoever to do with Epic/Pauranic Ganesha (the elephant-headed god) any more than Vedic occurrence of krishna "black" has anything to do with Lord Krishna. Anyone claiming otherwise simply has no clue of relative chronology, and is required to present solid academic references anyway before this needs to be addressed. Because there are no such references, why even waste talkpage space on it? It is true, of course, that "Brahmanaspati: Lord of Speech is one of the thousand names of Lord Ganesha" in modern Hinduism. In Vedic times, it's just the other way round, "Ganapati:Troop Lord" was one of the epithets of Brahmanaspati. What is difficult about this? 500 BCE != 500 CE != 1000 CE != 1500 CE != 2000 CE, case closed. --dab (𒁳) 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lord of Speech is one of the thousand names of Lord Ganesha" in modern Hinduism." do you have scientific proof for this? "modern Hinduism"??? These statements are too absurd to take, as you all agree it is not a common practice, also the current writings do not specify those. If the scientific finding are crystal clear we can surely take those. Not otherwise. Certainly not with what some people "think", "consider" etc. I think you all agree that it is violating WP:UNDUE. The WP:UNDUE clearly states, "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BR, we don't have "scientific proof" for a statement that isn't "scientific." While "modern Hinduism" is a vague, please read a concise summary of the history of Hinduism at Hinduism#History to understand how Hinduism has evolved over the milennia. From what I've read here, I think you need to accept that Hinduism as it is now is quite different to the Hinduism some thousand years ago. And there are plenty of sources to support this, so we are not giving WP:UNDUE to minority points of view. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddha as Ganesha

"Bhaskararaya's commentary on the Ganesha Sahasranama says that this name means that the Buddha was an avatar of Ganesha. This interpretation is not widely known even among Ganapatya. Buddha is not mentioned in the lists of Ganesha's incarnations given in the main sections of the Ganesha Purana and Mudgala Purana."

This passage is my view can be regarded as WP:UNDUE. This interpretation is not popular in general Hindu faith, which identifies Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu and only not in Ganapatya as the article says. So this information need not be added.--Redtigerxyz 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree; though verifiable the Bhaskararaya's singular interpretation is being given undue importance. If Buddha as avatar of Ganesha was a popular belief held by Ganapatyas, but contradicted by scholars, then I could understand discussing the issue. But as it stands, we can use the "space" to discuss some more interesting topic.

Note though that the current sentence (after deletion of the above quoted text), "Bhaskararaya interprets his name as meaning Ganesha's ..." may need some minor rewording, so that it doesn't appear that we are misquoting or selectively citing Bhaskararaya ... or we can use some other reference altogether to cite the conventional view. Any suggestions ? Abecedare 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The rewording of the quote was highly selective, keeping one of the two interpretations but not the other. I have shortened the text but restored it to give both interpretations as given by Bhaskararaya. The section is about connections with Buddhi (intelligence, wisdom) so the appearance of the name Buddha in the sahasranama is clearly relevant to that subject, and the quote from Bhaskararaya also seems relevant. I think that the shortened version I have put in is a fair statement of the source. Regarding the significance of the Bhaskararaya commentary, it is the only authentic commentary on the Ganesha Purana version of the sahasranama that I know of. As the only commentator available for the work, his views deserve consideration. The appearance of the name Buddha in such an early verse of the sahasranama suggests that it was considered an important name at the time of composition of the Ganesha Purana. My personal opinion is that it was a conscious attempt by the Ganapatya who wrote the Ganesha Purana to emulate the Vaisnava avatara system, and specifically to annex Buddha (and hence the Buddhist sectarian groups) under the Ganapatya model of all other deities being non-different from Ganesha. Buddhipriya 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We can waste time philosophizing over ivory tower chit-chat or realize that there are serious contradictions in this article. Buddha != Ganesha, this is a fringe view, and really doesn't deserve mention. The fact that BP wrote a soliloquy to justify adding this view indicates that it is non-notable. Some scholars think Ganesha's trunk is a phallus as well. I suppose this is a relevant academic view as well? Common sense is needed here.Bakaman 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage that is being challenged:

This association with wisdom also is reflected in the name Buddha, which appears as a name of Ganesha in the second verse of the Ganesha Purana version of the Ganesha Sahasranama. The positioning of this name at the beginning of the Ganesha Sahasranama reveals the name's importance. Bhaskararaya's commentary on the Ganesha Sahasranama says that this name means either that Ganesha's very form is "eternal enlightenment" (nityabuddaḥ) or that the Buddha was an avatar of Ganesha.

Since there seems to be significant opinion by editiors whom I respect that this is being given WP:UNDUE weight, I will remove the text from the article now pending further discussion. It is not central to the main article. I think the passage perhaps could be added somewhere else, perhaps in the article on the Ganesha Sahasranama. However, the most important thing is to try to use a calm and orderly process for editing the main article. Buddhipriya 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My exact concerns about WP:UNDUE were as follows:

• The original discussion of the topic in the article did point out that the Buddha as avatar interpretation was not a widely held belief; but since it it took several sentences to establish this, it made it seem that this was a major controversy related to the subject which IMO was undue.
• The newer version, quoted above spends "due" time on the topic but places the "eternal enlightenment" and "avatar" interpretations on an equal footing; which again may be non-ideal.
• Redtigerxyz's version which omitted the avatar interpretation will leave us open to charges of selective quotation.

So how do we resolve this ? I think the easiest way would be to find a reference which establishes that the ""eternal enlightenment" is the more popular interpretations and then we can re-add the paragraph with a concluding sentence, (something like) "This is usually interpreted to mean that Ganesha's very form is "eternal enlightenment", or less commonly as the Buddha being an avatar of Ganesha". Is there an appropriate reference that would support such a statement ?
Overall this is not a big deal either way IMO, so it may be better to settle the other issues recently raised on this page, before addressing this topic. Cheers. Abecedare 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support the idea of moving this passage to the article on the Ganesha Sahasranama. It takes several sentences to get the nuances right, which is too much for this article. rudra 07:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about this decision, but would support moving it to the Ganesha Sahasranama article. I will not do it myself, as I feel that it is best that I step back from direct editing of this article. There are so many disputes active at the same time, it is difficult for me to follow all of them. I also do not wish to force my views upon others, and thus will simply comment on the talk page until some consensus emerges here on the various points. Buddhipriya 05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit finished

Today I finished proofreading of this article and corrected three minor spelling errors. I found some serious lapses in content, which I did not touch during copyedit sessions, and I intend to discuss these lapses later. -VJha 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rig views

Micheal gives one interp, but still notes that references to Ganapati are found in Mandalas 2 & 10. Danielou interprets these Rgvedic "Ganapatis" as Ganesha. Danielou was one of the foremost experts on Shaivite Hinduism, the Vedas, and Indian history. Ganesh is Shiva's son, and this fits right under the purview of other relevant works by Danielou. Michael seems to be an anthropologist, so his views can hardly be held as equal to Danielou's views, considering that Danielou specialized in the Vedas.Bakaman 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to draw attention to three points : (1)Rgveda has many instances in which a god has been called with the names of other gods. Hence, Ganapati may be called Brahmanaspati and vice versa. RV.2.23.1 begins a hymn by invoking the Ganapati, and calls Ganapati a personification of wisdom (kavi), and Brahmanaspati. Brahmanaspati has many meanings and MW even associates with the priest called Brahman (the wisest of priests who knew the meanings of Vedas according to Brihadaranyakopinashada). (2) Padapāṭha of Rgveda does not recognise Brahmanaspati as a single word anywhere in the Rgveda, and even in 2.23.1 reads it as Brahmaṇas + pate , and MW describes Brahmaṇas as a genitive case of Brahman. Brahman has many meanings. Hence, RV.2.23.1 can offer various meanings. It is wrong to associate Brahmaṇaspati always with Bṛhaspati. (3) If Bakasuprman has sources, he ought to mention them. -VJha 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I consider Danielou to be a very unreliable source in general, and specifically on this issue he is completely wrong. His view is not shared by any of the other specialist sources we have cited. Buddhipriya 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are doublespeaking here, if you consider one who nets nearly 500 hits in gscholar an unreliable source. See WP:COS for the proper method to display your views of Ganesha on the page.Bakaman 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Danielou has been cited only to show that RV 2.23.1 contains the word "ganapati", which is undisputed. However, as Krishan point out (and as VJha has also commented above), none of the great medieval Hindu scholars such as Sayana, Venkatamadhava, Uvata, Bhattabhaskara, Mahidhara associated the use of that term in RV with Ganesha. AFAIK neither Danielou nor any other modern RV scholar claims that the word refers to Ganesha either. So we may just have been talking past each other. Abecedare 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

'Remover' of obstacles

I understand this has been discussed, but apparently not enough, because Hindus who know better keep reinserting Ganesha as 'remover of obstacles'. I think the reason this keeps happening (and will continue) is because that is the most popular understanding of Ganesha by Hindus. Somehow the popular understanding ('remover of obstacles') needs to be addressed in the lead and in the title of the painting, in my opinion. Perhaps it could simply say "most popularly worshipped as 'remover of obstacles' ". I think the Grimes reference is sufficient, but there are probably more. I know it's not academic and WP:RS, but *Ganesha "lord of obstacles"* gets 1,080 Ghits, and *Ganesha "remover of obstacles"* gets 40,700 (same search on Google books shows 99 for 'lord' and 520 for 'remover'). This confirms my own suspicion that 'remover' is far and away the understanding of most people, whereas 'lord' is perhaps a more academic definition. It could be addressed in that way (popular - 'remover', academic - 'lord'). However it's done, if it isn't addressed, every other new Hindu editor who comes across this article will correct it yet again, and rightfully so. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have been over this many times. I agree that the popular view is probably as a remover primarily, but that is definitely not the correct interpretation of him as the extensive citations show. His entire function derived originally from his function as a creator of obstacles, which is why he had to be worshipped first. I see that we are beginning to have edit warring on multiple fronts in this article, which is a sad development for such a well-cited article. Can't these things be worked out first on the talk page, and then some agreement reached on what should go into the article. After all this effort to build a quality article it is sad to see it disintegrate. And please do not assume that all Hindus have the same popular view of this deity. Any Ganapatya would have a more full comprehension of the tradition. The Ganesha Sahasranama opens with a story of how Ganesha prevented Shiva from conquering Tripura until receiving worship. That is fundamental to the story in Ganapatya tradition, since his essential role is to both place and remove obstacles. The late popular idea that he is only a remover of obstacles reflects poor understanding of his literature. Buddhipriya 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be pretty easy to find an acceptable consensus on this topic. As far as I see:

1. "Lord of Obstacles" is the more "correct" original appelation for Ganesha which very likely reflects his origins (see this article), and is attested by his holding the snare and also several of his names (Vignesh, Vigneshwara, Vighnaraja etc)
2. "Remover of obstacle" is (at least in present times) the role popularaly assigned to Ganesha among the Hindu pantheon.

I don't see anything contradictory between the above statements, and don't see why we cannot mention both in the article. BP is right that devotees familiar the Ganapataya tradition continue to venerate Ganesha as both a placer and remover of obstacles; but since on wikipedia we don't simply state how Ganesha should be worshipped but also how he is worshipped by a significant fraction of his devotees, I think it is fair to clarify his popular role too - assuming, of course, that we have solid references backing the claims of "popularity".

We have several sources attesting to point 1 above, while Grimes supports the second point. I think if we work a bit, we can find further supporting references for point 2; and then we can work on the exact placement and wording. How does that sound ? Abecedare 06:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can support this general strategy, which needs to be considered carefully on the talk page prior to making massive changes to the article itself. I made a separate comment (below) regarding the problem of using the name Vinayaka as translated by Grimes to support the notion of remover of obstacles. That name does not mean what Grimes says it means, and it is possibly the worst choice available, since its original meaning is probably exactly the opposite, relating to the trouble-causing Vinayakas who "lead astray" or "mis-lead" (vi + nayati) as given in other etymologies. The name is even used as an epithet of Garuda, where "vi" is taken to mean "birds" (thus: "Leader of the Birds"). Thus the development of citations to support the popular notion of "remover" should be done in a way that does use the name Vinayaka as the key proof. Also, the fact that the "remover" idea is a current popular view needs to be clearly spelled out. Doing so may require addition of more detail on the trouble-causing aspects of Ganesha's immediate precursors, and the fact that in Ganapatya theology Ganesha is non-different from all other deities and realities, thus including all opposites within him, since he is a representation of Brahman. Buddhipriya 06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can support this stategy also (Abecedare's suggestion above). If Grimes is not the best source, then another one can surely be found, because 'remover of obstacles' clearly is the way that Ganesha is popularly worshipped. Buddhipriya, I don't understand when you say I agree that the popular view is probably as a remover primarily, but that is definitely not the correct interpretation of him as the extensive citations show. Whatever the correct interpretation (I'm assuming pure etymology?), the popular understanding should get the prominence in the lead. At least that's how the real encyclopedias handle it. They all mention first in the lead 'remover of obstacles'. See Britannica [14], and Encarta [15]. The Indian newspaper articles on Ganesh Chaturthi from the last two days all give place of prominence to 'remover of obstacles'. [16], [17], [18], [19]. The Times of India article announcing Chaturthi and explaining Ganesha even has the headline He is remover of all obstacles[20].

In my opinion, the fact that 'remover of obstacles' is so far and away the popular understanding makes it the correct version. I think that the lead is good right now (thanks to Buddhipriya adding "popularly"), with 'remover of obstacles' mentioned first. I also believe the caption of the painting should be entirely, or include, 'remover of obstacles'. I also appreciate the etymology and interpretations of the various names of Ganesha, and believe they are important to the article. Buddhipriya, I feel for your frustration at how messy it gets here. But you also have to try and understand my, and others, frustration at seeing an encyclopedia article that so erroneously deprecated the understanding held by a vast majority of Hindus. I also appreciate the incredible amount of work you've put into this article, and think that it can become something everyone can be proud of. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
Dhavalikar, M. K. "Gaṇeśa: Myth and reality" in Brown 1991, p. 49 may be a source for the evolving role of Ganesha:

Although he is a very popular god, as he is invoked for success at the beginning of every undertaking - the god being the success grantor, Siddhidatta - his admission into the heirarchy of major divinities was quite late, sometime in the late Gupta times in the sixth century A.D. But he gained importance in a short period of time; so much so that the cult of Ganapatayas came into being in the ninth century A.D. The main reason for this appears to be that the god was first the obstacle creator (vighna-karta) and later became the obstacle averter (vighna-harta).

Aplogies for being too lazy to render IAST in above quote and for repeatedly citing Brown (1991). :-) Cheers. Abecedare 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Priyanath says pretty much what I intended to say. 'God of obstacles' is no doubt the literal translation... and to that extent, is right. But it is nowhere near as popular an appellation as 'Remover of obstacles' nor is it imo a fair translation (bhaavartha). Even though 'God of obstacles' is the word for word translation, 'Remover of obstacles' is the better translation and that is what explains its popularity - not just in Times of India and other newspapers but also in scholarly literature. I looked on gbooks, gscholar and jstor and "Remover of obstacles" is the more popular translation/appellation by miles -

RoO / GoO -

• gbooks - 525 / 25

• gscholar - 62 / 2

• jstor - 9 / 1

In the light of the above, I think the "God of obstacles" belongs just in the etymology section and not in the lead or in the infobox or anywhere else. Both the lead and the infobox ought to mention it as "Remover of obstacles" (which is of course what it is now, I guess... though I see that the infobox mentions neither).

Also, in the light of the above, I think we should do away with the "Obstacles" section which seems(albeit unintentionally perhaps) to be there solely to provide space and visibility for the "GoO" POV. And pray, who is Courtright? Even if his view is a widely held one (of which there seems to be no evidence, infact quite some to the contrary), I dont quite see that this issue warrants a quote in article space. The quote can and should go into the refs/notes. Sarvagnya 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot support removal of the obstacles section. The popular view that Ganesha is just a happy good luck charm is completely a contemporary popular view. It does not reflect the historical role of Ganesha. It also does not reflect the bulk of Ganesha scriptures as written by the Ganapatya. The scholarly academic material in this article should not be cut in favor of the rather superficial devotee material. I say this not because I am ignorant of the fact that many people prefer to think of Ganesha as only bringing happy things into their lives. That superficial view is based on lack of real study of his scriptures and traditions. This article currently has more references that possibly any other article in the Hinduism project. It does not seem wise to begin cutting out ones to some of the most-respected Ganesha specialists because they document the more complex nature of the deity. The religion of the popular street can be noted, but it is not the most reliable source. Buddhipriya 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding how many hits one can find for any particular topic, it seems like an example of WP:ILIKEIT#This_number_is_big rather than relying on what the most reliable academic sources have to say. The issue of the history of Ganesha, and the fact that he was originally based on precursor figures that were essentially blockers of action, is not the same question of how the deity we call Ganesha is perceived popularly in the current mass media. Buddhipriya 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a stab at clarifying the popular versus traditional role of Ganesha as per my understanding, references and the comments above (although I hadn't seen Buddhipriya's latest post before making my edit) See diff. As for the points made above by Buddhipria, Sarvagnya and Priyanath - I agree with most of what you all said (yes, I don't see much contradiction in that !), and differ on a few minor issues only; to wit:

• Sarvagnya, your searches may have been somewhat skewed because you searched for "God of obstacles" rather than "Lord of obstacles". Also, while these searches are useful for a preliminary survey, as I am sure you agree, eventually we have to look deeper at the quality of sources and what they say. That said, I agree with your and Priyanath's view that Ganesha's popular role nowadays is also worthy of mention, even if it is ahistorical and possibly naive in some views.
• The issue of "Lord of Obstacles" is not a matter of simply etymology; it is also a matter of his role as attested by the accompanying iconography and the historical origins of the deity (see Krishan, Thapan, or Michaels, in addition to Courtright and several articles in Brown)
• Buddhipriya, I agree with you that the section on Obstacles is indeed needed since that is the primary role associated with Ganesha. I also agree with you with regards to the referencing in this article which is not only extensive but also of a very high quality. We should try to maintain that standard as we (inevitably and correctly) edit and improve this article.

Anyways, as I said above IMO this issue is relatively simple to handle since all involved are experienced editors editing in good faith, and the differences lie only on the point of emphasis and not the underlying facts. Right ? Please take a look at the current version and comment if it satisfies your objections or if it raises some new ones! Regards. Abecedare 16:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the main issue is about emphasis. The different views (Remover of Obstacles, Lord of Obstacles) are both valid. I think it probably demeans the discussion to say one is merely 'superficial' (extremely condescending), or the other is 'academic and out of touch with reality' (it is academic and presents one view of 'reality'). I think it's clear that the mainstream view is "Remover of Obstacles". For that reason, I think it should be given first emphasis, as the real encyclopedias already do. A fair comparison, I think, is the Krishna article. It leads (second sentence) with "He is usually depicted as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (such as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction (as in the Bhagavad Gita)." That is the popular, superficial, or religion of the street view of Krishna. Krishna is presented in may ways, in may scriptures, but the article chooses the two widely popular ways that he is presented and perceived today. Ganesha today is usually depicted as "Remover of Obstacles".

These articles are about living religions and practices. The 'religion of the street' is also the religion of the home, office, temple. It's alive, and not just a topic of academic and anthropological interest. That's why Encarta and Britannica lead with 'Remover of Obstacles', in my opinion. The Krishna article goes further, and discusses other ways that Krishna is worshipped, written about, perceived, studied, and etymology - including the academic perspective. This article does that also, most excellently. It just needs the balance and proper emphasis of how this living religion is widely practiced.

I think the "Obstacles" section is fine, though I'm not enamored of the practice of putting one and two sentence quotes in big boxes. In line quotes, or just references, would suffice for several of the boxed quotes in this article, but that's a matter of personal style, I suppose.

I think the infobox should say "Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles". It's the mainstream view. I believe the other is a minority view, though perhaps more academically and etymologically correct. I believe articles on living religions should emphasize how they are widely practiced, and then go on to discuss the finer points. General-->Specific is also good writing.

Buddhipriya - my use of Ghits was not to prove that "Remover of Obstacles" is right and "Lord of Obstacles" is wrong. One is surely academically correct, and the other is just as surely the most widely practiced and accepted. Both are correct and both need to be presented here. The question then is emphasis, and I hope I've said clearly what I think about that.

P.S. Buddhipriya - I think you've done an awesome job with this article, and have helped expand my own understanding and love for Ganesha. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Priyanath notes above, what got my goat was the almost condescending way in which "Remover of obstacles" was being pooh-poohed on this article. I added it only to be quickly reverted by abecedare and he left me a note to the effect that "RoO" was just plain wrong and unscholarly while "GoO" was 'scholarly' and the right translation.

Priyanath seems to disagree on just one of the counts, but I disagree on both counts. "RoO" is neither just a lowly 'popular'/'street'/'non scholarly' opinion nor is it a bad translation of the word. Like I've already conceded, "L/GoO" is certainly the 'literal' translation but it is far from the 'the only correct scholarly translation'. "RoO" also is a bonafide translation(though not literal) and the currency if finds in scholarly literature(there's a reason I searched only on gbooks, gscholar and jstor and not on google) testifies to this. btw, i searched for "GoO" because if i remember correctly that is what the article said before I changed it to "RoO"(to be reverted). and even if I add up "LoO" to the search, "RoO" still wins hands down on gbooks while on gscholar and jstor, they seem to even out.

Another thing that pushed my button was what appeared to be subtle weaseling/pov pushing in the article. One of the refs reads - "These ideas are so common that Courtright uses them in the title of his book, Ganesha: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings."!! i mean !?!?! Courtright who? Is he the be all and end all of Ganesha studies? Have you checked that authors/books dont use "RoO" in their title? The fact that courtright's book is titled the way it is is irrelevant. Would "these ideals" have become any less commonplace if he'd titled his book differently?

and what is with the obsession with quoting courtright all over? who is he? If he needs to be cited, just cite him. We dont need soundbites from him squatting in the middle of the article. I will reserve judgement on the obstacles section, but all Courtright soundbites need to be packed off into <ref> tags. Courtright's views on Ganesha arent exactly like Lincoln's famous pronouncement about democracy or something for it to be reproduced verbatim.

I apologise if I sounded harsh.. BP has done a very good job on this article but his tone(probably unintended) of 'talking down' to the "RoO" 'school of thought'(so to speak) irritated me. Its almost as if people who insist upon "RoO" are either damned fools and have no clue what they're talking about or are pov pushers! Sarvagnya 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya - I agree with you. I also am irritated by the talking down to the 'religion of the street', 'devotee literature', etc. More respect, rather than less, should be shown for the views of those who are practicing a religion than for those who are just studying from the outside. I also believe that widespread useage by practitioners/devotees is exactly what "mainstream view" means. While I believe the academic view has a place in the article, I believe the practice of a living religion deserves place of prominence. "Remover of Obstacles" is just that, and it isn't merely a 'feel good', 'happy' time understanding. No more than the devotee view of Krishna as cowherd is merely superficial compared to the scholarly view (in fact, I believe the scholarly view can be superficial, but that's a much off-topic). I think we need more academic sources, in addition to the widespread useage, for "Remover of Obstacles". That way we can show that "Remover of Obstacles" is both academic and widespread. The Grimes reference still works for me, but surely there are more.

Regarding Courtright, see "blasphemous statements in Courtright' book" discussion above. Half the boxquotes currently are Courtright's, which give WP:UNDUE weight to one very questionable scholar. Even though I don't believe he's a 'reliable' source, he is a WP:RS, so he probably can't be removed. But he does need to be balanced with sources that express the mainstream view - which is "Remover of Obstacles". ॐ Priyanath talk 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Sarvagnya, here is my note to you and here is my conversation with Gnanapati on the same topic. I am surprised to see those comments characterised as saying that RoO is "just plain wrong and unscholarly" or that GoO (a term neither of my comments used even once) is the only acceptable translation. I am also confused which word you are referring to when you say, ""L/GoO" is certainly the 'literal' translation but it is far from the 'the only correct scholarly translation'. "RoO" also is a bonafide translation" - since there are Sanskrit counterparts for both terms and no one is denying that in the first place.

Anyway, as Priyanath suggests I hope we can lower the heat of this debate, and continue discussion with specific suggested changes and accompanying citations. Cheers. Abecedare 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: And here is the diff of Sarvagnya's edit that I reverted, explaining myself in both the edit summary and on his talk page. As can be seen the article did say "lord of obstacles and beginnings" before the edit too. Abecedare 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Remover of Obstacles" References

Collecting them here in one place, rather than adding them to the article piecemeal or scattering them in discussion.

• Mainstream newspaper articles are a WP:RS to show current mainstream popularity of "Remover of Obstacles" as the most widespread use: [21], [22], [23], [24],[25].
• Krishan, Ganesa: Unravelling an Enigma, p. 38. "According to the Śiva Purāṇa 2.4.18:10-12, the proper worship of Ganesa brings all success (sakalā siddhi) and eliminates all kinds of obstacles (vighnāṅyaneka rūpāṇi kṣayam). Again in Siva 2.4.18.22 he is described as "remover of all obstacles" and the bestower of the fruits of all rites" (gaṇeśa vignahartā hi sarvakāma phalapradā.)"
• Krishan, Ganesa: Unravelling an Enigma, p. 38. "The Padma Purāṇa 1.66 describes Ganesa as sarva siddhikaram, that who brings about all success, sarvābhīṣṭaphalapradam, who grants all the desired results, sarva vighnaharam, who removes all impediments, and sarva vighna vivarjitam, who discards or removes all impediments." Krishan describes both aspects of Ganesha, as "vighnakartā, creator of impediments, and vighnahartā, remover of impediments." Since the popular understanding of Ganesha is as Remover of Obstacles, these references deserve to be in the article to show that Ganesha is also described by academics and the Puranas as Remover of Obstacles. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"... these references deserve to be in the article to show that Ganesha is also described by academics and the Puranas as Remover of Obstacles." Don't you think this is coming across from the current language of the article (Krishan is even quoted in note 116; both Brown and Cortright talk about remover of obstacles, and Dhavalikar even refers to the shift towards that) ? If not, we certainly can rephrase the sentences to make absolutely clear that "Lord of Obstacles" itself is a inclusive terms that encompasses Ganesha's dual role as "remover of obstacles" and "creator of obstacles". I have yet to see any academic or popular source (or any editor here!) that says that Ganesha (as we know him today¹) is not a remover of obstacles, and umpteen citations are available to establish that this is an/the important role of this deity.

Priyanath, can you please clarify what changes or additions you would like to see in the content/language/references of the lead and/or Obstacles section ? (I know your views on the infobox and box quotes, but it may be easier to deal with the issues one-by-one). Regards.

Note 1: I added the qualifier "as we know today" only to differentiate Ganesha from his precursor Vinayaka who as this Michaels paper explains was some sort of "mischief maker" and obstacle creator - only in some Buddhist circles is this still considered Ganesha/Vinayaka's sole role. Krishan's "The Origins of Gaṇeśa" (pages 291-292), also talks about how Vinayaka's (and Rudra's) "power over evil was extended to make them protectors and dispellers" (this is one reason Grimes interpretation of Vinayaka, is so iffy IMO) Abecedare 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Yes, I think the infobox should say "Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles". I would also begin the article "Ganesha (Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa; listen (help·info), also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh, is one of the best-known deities in Hinduism. Widely worshipped as the "Remover of Obstacles", he is easily identified by having the head of an elephant." In Britannica, Encarta, and in almost every current mainstream news article, they lead and/or emphasize those main points: 'most worshipped deity', 'Remover of Obstacles', and 'elephant head'. I point that out not to say 'therefore we should too', but to confirm that "Remover of Obstacles" is so prevalent and popular that it should be that prominent in the lead of this article. The additional references I added above are only to show that "Remover of Obstacles" is also academically correct. The sentence "Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography" doesn't need to be in the lead paragraph, in my opinion. Then I would begin the next sentence "Ganesha is also worshipped as Lord of Beginnings...." ॐ Priyanath talk 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like your suggestions, since it makes the first two sentence a more complete descriptor of Ganesha than the current version (which perhaps I wrote :-) ) and can stand alone as short summary of Ganesha in other articles on Hindu deities. How about this for the first paragraph ?

Ganesha (Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa; , also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh), is one of the best-known deities in Hinduism, who is widely worshipped as the Remover of Obstacles (or more generally as Lord of obstacles) and is easily identified by virtue of having a head of an elephant. As the Lord of Beginnings, he is propiated at the start of all undertakings, religious and secular; and as the patron of letters, arts and sciences and god of intellect and wisdom he is invoked before beginning any intellectual efforts or artistic performance. A rich set of Puranic stories relate episodes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

Some notes about the above version:

1. Although I moved it further down, I retained the sentence about mythological episodes, mainly to provide a link to the Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha article, which will be of great interest to many readers (will need to make sure that "Puranic stories" is an accurate descriptor).
2. If there are strong feelings about including the parenthetical remark about the "Lord of obstacles" in the first sentence, we can move it to the second, which can then read, "As the Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles he is ..." I don't think it makes a difference to the reader either way, so don't have any objections to whatever version is chosen.

About the infobox: I prefer the current "Lord of beginnings and obstacles" since it is a wider descriptor, which encompasses the "Remover of obstacle" role, but perhaps other editors can chime in. Comments and revisions invited! Abecedare 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare. I still feel strongly about both points - infobox should say "Remover of Obstacles". The others are definitely non-mainstream. I also would prefer "Lord of Obstacles" standing alone in the lead, moving the (generally ...) down as you suggest. My real preference is to only have "Remover of Obstacles" in the lead, and mention the others later in the article, when the more minute academic interpretations are given. But what I offered above was a compromise, for the lead, that I think others who understand the widely held view of Ganesha might accept. But I would like to hear what others think. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead paragraph:

Ganesha (Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa; , also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh), is one of the best-known deities in Hinduism. Widely and affectionately worshiped as the Remover of Obstacles, he is easily identified by having the head of an elephant. Ganesha is also worshiped as Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings, and Patron of Letters. He is propitiated at the start of all undertakings, religious and secular; and invoked before beginning any intellectual efforts or artistic performance. A rich set of Puranic stories relate episodes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

This still doesn't address the fact that "Lord of Obstacles" is such a minority (or academic) view that other encyclopedias (and mainstream WP:RS newspapers) don't consider it notable enough to put in the lead of articles about Ganesha. I think it may be strong enough of a minority view to be included in the lead. But I honestly think this should be the starting point of the discussion, rather than the current lead with undue weight given to "Lord of Obstacles". ॐ Priyanath talk 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The function of Ganesha as controlling obstacles in general is not a minority view either among academics or among Ganapatya. It probably is a minority view among the average non-Ganapatya Hindu who has not investigated the history, or read any of the Ganapatya scriptures such as the Ganesha Purana. The article currently has very strong citations establishing the historical role of Ganesha, which in fact was fundamentally grounded in his potential to create problems. That is why he was worshipped first in the order of deities, coming even before the deity to whom the main puja was to be performed. The concern was that if he was not worshipped first, he might create problems in the performance of the ritual, make the priest forget his prayers, etc. This is fundamental to Ganapatya tradition in scriptural sources that I have already mentioned. I think the best approach is to acknowledge the historical role as a creator of obstacles, and note that in modern times, for the "devotee in the street" they pray to him in hopes that he will remove their obstacles. Additional citation can be added to support the historical negative valence, but much of the historical material related to his negative connection with the Vinayaka imps is already documented in the separate article for Vinayakas, which I encourage you to read. Buddhipriya 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that among some groups, it isn't a minority view. But we're talking about the entirety of Ganesha worshippers and Hindus - not this particular academic group, or that school. I held off on this issue for a long time because I assumed the article's weighting was correct, even though the hundreds of people I know who propitiate Ganesha do so solely as "Remover of Obstacles". I wrongly considered that I must be in the minority. I'm not. Based on mainstream publications (both encyclopedias and WP:RS news sources), the majority sees Ganesha as "Remover of Obstacles". Minority schools and academics hold the other views, I agree. That's why I think they should probably be included in the lead, even though Britannica and Encarta clearly do not do so.

I believe that the article does a good job of acknowledging the history, which has led to the current widespread view of Ganesha held by the vast majority of Hindus - "Remover of Obstacles". The article does acknowledge the historical role as creator of obstacles. I'm not advocating removing that, nor the negative valence that is surprisingly prominent in the Vinayakas article, which I've read, thanks. I understand that Thapat deprecates the historical connection between the imps and Ganesha, but I don't have that book in my hands yet. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do you accept the fact that historically Ganesha's role has changed over time, and that the views of Ganapatya are of significance to this article? If you agree on these two points, perhaps an approach would be to note that while currently in popular views Ganesha is mainly seen as remover of obstacles, historically he has a much broader role as both a creator and remover of obstacles, and that those who are primarily devoted to him (the Ganapatya) view him even more broadly as the source of all reality? I urge you to read the article on Vinayakas for detail on the trouble-causing precursor imps who were the most likely precursors of the Vinayaka figure, who was a negative-valenced obstacle creator who had to be propitiated to prevent him from creating problems. This citation in the Vinayakas article are reasonably detailed on this. I personally feel that characterizing Ganesha only as a remover of obstacles trivializes his role and grossly underestimates his general role as ruling over all obstacles, as well as his other functions such as his associations with wisdom and learning, which are also discussed already in the article. For that reason I feel that giving undue weight to contemporary non-Ganapatya views is going too far in the opposite direction. Some more balanced approach must be possible. Buddhipriya 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that characterizing Ganesha only as a remover of obstacles trivializes his role and grossly underestimates his general role as ruling over all obstacles. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. The lead that I offer above doesn't characterize Ganesha "only" as Remover of Obstacles. The article just needs to be balanced to give due weight to what is by far the mainstream view. The other view, and history, are given an extraordinary amount of weight in this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see above, that's why those views are appropriate for the History section and a Ganapatya section. And that's exactly what I'm saying, that the popular and widespread view is "remover of obstacles". It just needs to be given the appropriate weight that other WP:RS sources give it, and that this article has so unfortunately deprecated.

P.S. I'm all for removing the Grimes reference, and just using the Encarta, Britannica, and WP:RS news articles to show that Ganesha is widely worshipped and revered as "Remover of Obstacles." ॐ Priyanath talk 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thapan does not deprecate the connection with the Vinayaka imps, by the way. She discussed them at considerable length. She uses them in part to try to pinpoint when the valence began to shift from negative to positive, eg., p. 27 where she notes that while the Vinayakas are mentioned as evil beings in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, in an age strata of the text that may have been written between the second century BC and the second century AD, in the later Anushasana Parva the Ganeshvara-Vinayaks are described as worshipped with the Rudragana and they are no longer depeicted as evil beings. That strata of the material "certainly belongs to the first one or two centuries of the Christian era." Thus the shift from negative to positive valence probably happened by that time, but the consolidation of the figure of the single deity Vinayaka had not yet been completed. Buddhipriya 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the quote from Grimes regarding Vinayaka, I would support your suggestion that it be removed as evidence of the "remover of obstacles" idea in favor a different source to establish the point. Since Grimes translation is patenly wrong contested by other etymologies, it will call into question the whole idea if you leave it it. I have not had time to find the additional citations regarding the etymology of the name, but in any case it is not central to the main idea, that in popular thinking people wish he would make their problems go away. I have previously given my opinion of Grimes, which is that he is very uneven in his material, but there is no way to toss him out completely because he is a notable specialist in Ganesha. If the lead only says Remover of Obstacles, it will be laughed at by any specialist in Ganesha. It seems important that both views be noted in the lead. Buddhipriya 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article was being laughed at by Hindus when it didn't even mention "Remover of Obstacles" in the lead. I'm all for removing the Grimes reference and using the other WP:RS references (numerous mainstream news articles, Encarta, Britannica) for the widely held view that Ganesha is "Remover of Obstacles." And I still prefer the lead as I wrote it above, and will await feedback from other editors.

add - I'll be able to replace Grimes with the other sources when I have time during the next couple of days. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(undindent) Per discussion, I've removed the Grimes reference from the lead and replaced with others that show the widespread use of "Remover of Obstacles". The etymology was not the issue anyway. I also reverted my earlier addition of the Grimes translation in the Etymology section. Per Abecedare's suggestion above, the lead could still be edited further, but I'll wait before making more changes there. Infobox: It must have "Remover of Obstacles" there in some way, since it is the epithet most widely attached to Ganesha, by far. Suggestions: 1. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles. 2. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles <br>Lord of Obstacles and Beginnings. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that many people like to think of Ganesha primarily as a remover of obstacles, and do not object to inclusion of that fact in the article, I am concerned that the source quality is being degraded by relying on online sources such as newpaper articles rather than using the much stronger WP:RS that have been used up to this point. I feel that the introduction of these weak sources will result in futher deterioration over time. I think that the point that you are trying to make can be made using citations to published academic sources, and I wonder if you would object to such a substition of sources to make the same point, but in a more defensible way? Also, I want to re-state that the more general view that he rules over all obstacles, both placement and removal, is clearly the dominant historical fact, and is a core belief of the Hindu sect dedicated to his worship. I understand that you are seeking a balanced view. Please help preserve those ideas. Buddhipriya 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I would be fine with academic sources if they say exactly the same thing. I personally see the largest Indian news sources as a very reliable source to show current, widely held views and practices—and I think it also fulfills WP:RS. Academics tend to show a highly intellectual study of a tradition, which tends to be biased towards the more 'interesting' (for academics anyway) and historical progression of a religion. My concern is that the article shows worship of Ganesha as a dead religion with an interesting history, or at least giving extreme undue weight to the way it was practiced historically and not currently. I have no concern about the statement in the lead being defensible using the current sources, but if there are sources that you prefer, again showing exactly the same truth, then I don't have an objection. I also agree that the historical view you're sharing is correct, and that the current widespread view of RoO is also correct. It's both/and rather than either/or. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "remover of obstacles" citations, I have been trying to find citations that would establish that as a popular function. I do not know of any devotees to any deity who pray to that deity to create problems for them. Thus it is not surprising that the popular prayer is that Ganesha will solve their problems for them. An example of such a popular prayer taken from Ganapatya scriptures appears in a verse of the Ganapati Upanishad, which is a very popular devotional work that is short enough so it can be read daily if desired. Verse 12 includes a series of salutations in which specific popular epithets of Ganesha are included. Of the epithets included, only one pertains to obstacles, and it is (abbreviated) "namaste ... vighnanāśine" (salutation ... to the Destroyer of Obstacles). Verse 12 in toto is relevant because it is called Ganesha's mālā mantra (garland mantra), since it is a collection of eight of the most auspicious of His names. It is one of the final verses of the devotion. While I generally have avoided citing devotee literature, in this case it seems relevant to cite the commentary on this verse by Swami Tattvavidananda Saraswati, who in discussing the eight key names says that "Lord Gaṇapati is worshipped by the devotees particularly to eliminate the obstacles in his way." (p. 80. Citation is to Gaṇapati Upaniṣad, Swami Tattvavidananda Saraswati, D. K. Printworld Ltd., Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-246-0265-4). I would prefer to see this citation used to support the popular notion of Remover of Obstacles rather than the newspaper articles and web sites that have been suggested. It is a citation to Ganapatya scripture, with a gloss by a secondary commentator.

Having said this, once again I must strongly disagree with the premise that academic and scriptural sources are wrong in characterizing his larger role as governing all obstacles, since that is fundamental to his tradition. Additional citations to scriptures, such as the Ganesha Purana, could be introduced to expand the role as governing all obstacles. The dismissal of these scriptural sources is not just a matter of anti-intellectualism, it is a distortion of his faith tradition. Buddhipriya 04:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Priyanath that it is amatter of and rather than or, and while RoO is for obvious reasons the more popular prayer, the LoO is also a current attribute of the deity and not merely of historical interest.

As for references: newspapers are good sources for topics that are either too minor or too recent, to have specialized books/scholarly articles devoted to them. This is clearly not the case for Ganesha and therefore IMO news articles are not authoritative sources for writing a high-quality encyclopedic article on the subject, although they can serve the purpose and are better than nothing in a start-class article on wikipedia. Therefore I'll go ahead and replace those stop-gap citations with the one Buddhipriya has listed above. I assume this will not be a point of contention. :-) Abecedare 05:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the new reference. It doesn't seem to support the point the way that the other WP:RS references did, but that's a minor issue and not a point of contention. I only bring it up because it may be an issue for someone else down the road. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganapatya - who?

(Buddhipriya's comments(above), brings me to another thing that has baffled me since I read this article.)

The function of Ganesha as controlling obstacles in general is not a minority view either among academics or among Ganapatya.

Just for clarification, do you accept the fact that historically Ganesha's role has changed over time, and that the views of Ganapatya are of significance to this article?

Now, this another point of concern. First of all, it neither surprises me nor is news to me that interpretations and roles of our deities have changed over time. It is almost common knowledge and I dont need to read courtright or thapan or someone else, to understand that. In fact, it would surprise me(for it would be counter-intuitive imo) if such a thing(change in roles/interpretations/understanding) hasnt happened.

That said, who or what is Ganapatya? Do they still exist? If so, where? Is it a sect/cult with a wide following? Or some kind of secret society that is now in the realm of legend? Frankly, I've never heard of them nor have I come across anybody in real life who's claimed to be a 'Ganapatya'. I know that my ignorance of something doesnt mean much on wikipedia, but I just noticed that even the Enc. Britannica describes them as 'esoteric' and that is what got me thinking.

If they are indeed an esoteric sect with an insignificant following, I am concerned at the space the article affords them - directly and indirectly. If they played an important role 1500 years ago in bringing Ganesha to the mainstream, then we will mention just that. But the article itself, should be firmly rooted in the 21st century. It should first and foremost reflect Ganesha as he is understood, interpreted and worshipped today - not 1500 years ago. The stuff of Ganesha's history needs to go into its own section and we can deal with Ganapatya there. I am in fact, starting to seriously wonder if Ganapatya even belongs in the lead. It looks rather pretentiously pedantic to me. Sarvagnya 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I was so appalled when I discovered that "Remover of Obstacles" wasn't in the lead and infobox, and in fact had been reverted out multiple times. Since worship of Ganesha is a living practice, this article should give place of prominence to current practices and worship, just like the real encyclopedias do — along with some stories, which help bring the other Hindu 'bio' articles to life (see my comments at end of "What this article needs -imo" below). For one, I would move the "Worship and festivals" section (which is well done) before Iconography and Etymology. That's because this is a living practice for millions of people. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked what they are Sarvagnya, the Ganapatya are the equivalent to Ganesha as Vaishnava and Shaiva are to Vishnu and Shiva respectively. I am knowledgeable enough nor do I have the sources to determine how much of this article should be dedicated to them. Buddhipriya added most of the information about them here so I'm sure he will provide you a better answer soon. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That Ganapatya is to Ganesha like Vaishnavas are to Vishnu is quite intuitive. But my concern is, should Ganapatya traditions and interpretations be the prism through which we should be studying Ganesha. To me they look suspiciously fringe. Vaishnavas and Shaivas, while being fair analogies arent really comparable here, imo. Both Shaiva and Vaishnava schools(of which there are several) have massive followings all over India. There are Shaivas from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Vaishnava schools are equally commonplace. But I've never heard of a 'Ganapatya' school.. atleast not anywhere in the Southern India. Anyway, lets wait for Bp's reply. Sarvagnya 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganapatya is recognized by Adi Shankaracharya as 1 of 6 main sects of Hinduism. Though i have never met someone who claims to Ganapatya, I just can not just deny their presence. The Ganapatya sect's greatest saint is Morya Gosavi of Morgaon, Maharashtra(Morgaon is central shrine of Ashtavinayak circuit) - a great devotee of Ganesha. His name is always taken with Ganesha in Maharashtra in the central slogan of Ganesh Festival - "Ganapati Bappa Morya". --Redtigerxyz 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This was about Ganapatya, but I think only the Ganapatya view of Ganesha as "Vignesha" (creator and destroyer) of obstacles may not be a very popular view of the general Hindu(not of Ganapatya), though most scholars recognize it. Today, the general Hindu worships Ganesha as the remover of obstacles.

Google search results for "remover of obstacles"[26] 47300 and "lord of obstacles" 9,370[27]. --Redtigerxyz 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Sarvagnya has never heard of the Ganapatya is surprising. They are a well-known Hindu denomination, still very active, primarily in Maharastra. Discussing Ganesha without referring to the views of Ganapatya would be like writing an article on Jesus without mentioning the views of Christians. Buddhipriya 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganapatyas may be a well known Hindu denomination in Maharashtra, but that doesnt mean they're "well known" all over India. Ganapatyas may have had a role to play historically and maybe your "Jesus" analogy would have been justified ca. 500 AD. This, however is the 21st century and the Ganapatyas are just another of the thousands upon thousands of Hindu sects and denominations. There are nearly 800 million people who worship Ganesha today and what is the percentage of Ganapatyas among them? 1%? 2%? or something like 0.01%?

Further, they surely have neither the following nor the eminence of the Dvaita, Advaita or Vishishtadvaita schools even in academia. Even a Vaishnava school like the Dvaitas, though rooted in Ktaka, has a presence(by way of their numerous maTas) all over India(and the world) and are well known. I am afraid, the same cannot be said of the Ganapatyas.

As an aside, I must also confess that the first impression that this article gave me(all the imps and stuff) of the Ganapatyas was that they were some sort of occultist sect. I am still not sure what they are but they do seem a lot more sattvik now. I'd be grateful if you could point me to literature which details the Ganapatyas of the 21st century. Sarvagnya 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be very interested in learning more about current schools or teachers of the Ganapatya lineage. Does anyone have a link to a website? It seems every living practice has one. Even though it may not meet WP:RS, it would be interesting for everyone here to learn more. I think that's what Sarvagnya was wondering about also. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Like most religious groups in India, the Ganapatya have distinct regionalization. The perception that Ganapatya have died out is simply unsubstantiated by any reliable source yet mentioned. They are chiefly found in Maharashtra. For information on them, I would suggest that your get ahold of some of the academic sources that are already cited in the article and read their sections on Ganapatya. Good places to start include Thapan and Courtright. Regarding current documention of Ganapatya ritual, an example of a recent study, with photographs, is The Worship of Mahaganapati According to the Nityotsava by Gudrun Buhnemann (First Indian Edition 2003, ISBN 81-86218-12-2). I am not aware of any census data showing what percentage of Hindus follow any particular denomination. The Ganapatya have been one of the five primary sects of orthodox Hinduism since the times of Shankara. I would need to find a citation to prove it, but I am under the impression that temples dedicated primarily to Ganesha are among the most numerous of any denomination in India, and certainly they outnumber those dedicated to other deities in Maharashtra. The idea that they are an "esoteric sect" is in my opinion patent nonsense. In most temples dedicated to Ganesha, at least one priest will have had at least some training in the performance of special Ganesha pujas and will have mastered the chanting of specific Ganesha stotra. Typically these include at least one of the two Ganesha Sahasranamas, which are chanted often in Ganesha temples, and in the chanting of the Ganapati Upanishad, a late Ganapatya scripture that is very popular for devotional use. Another issue is the fact that in addition to those who may self-identify as Ganapatya, additional families who may identify as Smarta or even Saiva may have Ganesha as their household deity. This is particularly true in Maharastra. Far from having died out, Courtright notes that the number of persons primarily adopting Ganesha as their household deity increased following the political activity by Tilak, which is noted in the article. Furthermore, the points of fact regarding the nature of Ganesha and his history that are under discussion here are supported by very strong citations to the best academic sources on the subject. For all subjects there must be some evaluation of source quality. The weakest sources are general media such as newspapers or devotee literature, which often cannot be relied on for matters of fact. The strongest sources are specific studies of Ganesha done by recognized experts in the field. We have tried to raise the quality of sourcing for this article by concentrating on the strongest possible sources. I reject the notion that these sources are somehow mischaracterizing things. I do not think they are.

Regarding the historical material related to the Vinayaka imps, as the article on Ganesha explains, they were a precursor of the deity we know as Ganesha. The point of discussing them is that learning about them helps to explain some of the otherwise surprising elements in Ganesha's scriptural tradition, including his close association with obstacles. The contribution of the Ganapatya sect was to rework those and other precursor beliefs into an entirely new form, producing the figure of Ganesha as we know him today. The Ganapatya did not and do not worship Vinayaka imps. For a parallel example, consider how the figure of Rudra, who was a rather fearsome figure, came to be understood as the benign Shiva. That transformation also took place as part of the same syncretic activity that marked the period of time we are discussing, particularly leading up to the Puranic period. Buddhipriya 02:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BP - but I really am interested in a Primary Source of living Ganapatya, i.e. a living breathing Ganapatya teacher/practitioner. I know that is a non-encyclopedic approach, but I'm sincerely interested in what a current Ganapatya has to say, directly - rather than in a book that studies and analyzes them in a general way. One of the wonders of Hinduism is that it's living and changing, and I enjoy seeing what the latest teachers and practitioners of a significant teaching like Ganapatya have to say for themselves. An authentic Ganapatya lineage website anyone? ॐ Priyanath talk 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I looked at other deities to see how they are described in their infobox. At least half have no short descriptor. Ganesha may have too many aspects for a short description. For now, I've removed the description as "Ganesha: Lord of Obstacles and Beginnings". If there is going to be a 'definition' of Ganesha in the infobox, it must include "Remover of Obstacles". But it may well be that Ganesha is too complex to stick in one pigeonhole. Above, I suggested two options for the infobox, and now I add a third, which is where it now stands: 1. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles. 2. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles. 3. No need for a five-words-or-less description. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the option of leaving the summary description off. I have never cared for these infoboxes anyway, and this is a good example where trying to summarize a complex deity in a one or two words is not effective. Buddhipriya 04:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinayaka

The recent addition of the citation to Grimes by Vinayaka raises a new problem, which is that this name is very controversial and has been interpreted in a variety of ways by different sources. The interpretation given by Grimes as "Remover of obstacles" makes no sense and as far as I know is not shared by any of the other sources that discuss this matter. It is a good example of the uneven quality of Grimes as a source. The main goal seems to be to get the issue of "Remover" of obstacles into the article more strongly. I can support that goal, but this particular source and name are the weakest possible way to do it. I can try to find better supports for this idea, but there are so many different issues that are being put forth at the same time in this article it is very difficult to do a quality job on any of them. The sources will show that variant interpretations are more often along the lines of either "best leader" or "one who leads astray", the latter being connected to the precursor deity to Ganesha, who was associated with the Vinayakas. The name Vinayaka is a very old one and connects back to that group of precursor imps who caused a lot of trouble for people, thus requiring propitiation. That early association is the "dark side" of Ganesha that predominated before the benign interpretation which came much later. Buddhipriya 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust you are right on the Grimes citation. See my comments above about the need to have 'remover of obstacles' more strongly in the article. How it's done needs to be discussed, but it is important that the mainstream view of Ganesha is given some prominence. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to add in some of the varying etymologies for this name over the next week or so, but since we are in agreement to replace the Grimes citation this is a low priority. The various etymologies mostly revolve around different interpretations of the compound term vi + nāyaka, in which each member of the compound has multiple possible meanings. For example, a story of Ganesha's origin in the Vāmanapurāṇa (Chapter 28, 30-77, as cited in: Martin-Dubost, pp. 59-6) says that the name means "without a husband", with the word vi meaning "without" and the word nāyaka meaning "husband", because in that origin story he was created entirely by Parvati without any role played by Shiva. More to come! :) Buddhipriya 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtright (1985:131-132) says that the name means "to lead away" or mis-lead, with vi here taken in its sense as a negative applied to the root nī ("lead"). This is based on connection with the negative historical valence of the vinaka figure, which Courtight accepts as the precursor for the modern Ganesha of positive valence. In support of this etymology, also see Monier-Williams, p. 971 (right column) where the related adjective vi-naya is first defined as "leading away or asunder" (e.g. RV ii.24.9, which I have not yet actually personally looked at). However MW p. 972 is probably the actual source for Grimes "Remover of Obstacles" translation, as MW does list Vināyaka as "Remover (of obstacles)" as a N. of Ganesha. I must admit I was surprised to find this in MW, but that is one of the values of Wikipedia. So that could be added as a second citation supporting the Grimes etymology. However the fact that the etymology is disputed is still clear. I will continue to add more variations in the etmology to prove that point. However I admit that I have proved myself wrong on the Grimes comment I made earlier. I think Grimes is still to be faulted for not making the range of etymologies clear. Buddhipriya 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Buddhipriya 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the pieces of evidence that Courtright (1985:164-165) uses to show that as late as the eighteenth century Vinayaka was still perceived with a largely negative valence is a rather amusing quote from the Abbe J. A. Dubois, who wrote one of the early European accounts of travels in India. In his book the good Abbe says that "He (Vināyaka) is of a morose and irascible disposition, and always ready to annoy and thwart those who fail to pay him sufficient respect. It is for this reason that so much deference is shown to him, and then on grand feast days his good offices are the first to be evoked, his worshippers fearing lest he should take it into his head to disturb the feast and bring it to an untimely end." I am not suggesting that the views of an 18th century European tourist should be taken as the final view on this matter. However the account is completely consistent with what we do know of the early development of the order of ritual in which Ganesha took the first position for precisely the reasons given by the Abbe. So despite the quaint language, he basically got it right. Buddhipriya 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that other names in the Ganesha Sahasranama that include the word nāyaka include Vighnanāyakaḥ (v. 1.46.2a, Sharma 1993 edition of the Ganesha Purana). Sharma does not give an English translation, but the idea seems to be "Obstacle Leader" or something like that. It is one of the examples of names in the Ganesha Sahasranama that clearly point to his general association as Lord of Obstacles. Another such example is Vighnarājaḥ ("King of Obstacles") which occurs in the following verse (GP 1.24.7). You cannot overlook the fact that the Ganesha Sahasranama clearly identifies this function in one of the very first verses. It is an example of how central this view is to Ganapatya scripture. Please note that the Ganapatya are Hindus, and should not be dismissed as somehow not holding Hindu views. Hindus think a lot of different things. Buddhipriya 02:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thapan (p. 84) says that the name Vināyaka "literally means one without a superior (vi signifies 'without' and nāyaka a 'leader')." She discusses the problems associated with translation of the name pp. 84-85. She notes on p. 85 that this epithet was used by the fifth century AD for some Brahmanical deities other than Ganesha, including Garuda and Vishnu, and also as a name for the Buddha (it has additional etymological uses in Buddhism). In discussing the vinayaka imps as precursors of Ganesha, she says (p. 95) that "The Vināyakas evolve into one being with four names in the Yājñavalkya Smṛti (second/third century AD). This Vināyaka is stated to have been created by Brahmā and Rudra for the purpose of creating obstacles." She then explains (p. 96) the transition from this precursor deity, Vināyaka, to the deity named Mahāgaṇapati (a title previously referring to Shiva) by saying that "Vināyaka acquires that title not before the end of the sixth or the seventy century AD." She notes (p. 97) that various Puranic references to multiple vināyakas probably dating to strata of the texts that fall between the third and fifth centuries CE, where they are mentioned as part of the entourage of Shiva. She notes that (p. 97) "It would be misleading to identify every reference to 'Vināyaka' in the Purāṇas with the elephant-headed deity. It is not obvious in all cases.... At this stage the epithet 'Gaṇeśa' does not appear to be associated with Vināyaka." Buddhipriya 03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the full text of the paper by Michael [28]. I think this was discussed before, but I raise it again in this context because it documents a variety of the views on precursor deities, and also notes the very sharp change in valence from negative to positive. I would not support every statement in Michael, but the general thrust of the argument is consistent with the views of others, inlcuding Thapan, regarding the radical "makeover" that Ganesha got, expunging his negative past. Perhaps this is something like having your court records sealed after some period of rehabilitation.  :) I draw attention to the quote on p. 108, for example: "The idea that Ganapati was catastrophe incarnate and a trouble maker is not confined to literary sources. Some of the early sculptural representations of Ganapati depict him as a terrifying demon and indicate his nature and position to have been similar to that found in the Smrtis noted above." I must say that the remark about early sculptural representations of Ganapati as a demon do not seem correct to me. There are precursor sculptures of the ganas that may fit the description, but I do not know exactly what he is referring to. It is example of how no single source can be accepted at face value for every statement. Academic process requires that we examine multiple sources and look for patterns among them. Buddhipriya 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A pedantic issue that may need clarification: at what point historically did Vinayaka acquire a "beneficent" aspect as an epithet of Ganesha? My concern is the reference to Sayana's commentary on TA.10.1.5: he specifically identifies Vinayaka as the referent of Danti and Vakratunda. Was this a hermemeutic reading of the Vedic past, or was it a contemporary understanding, and if the latter, what did Vinayaka "mean" or connote in Sayana's time? rudra 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Before replying to Rudra's question, I will add one additional citation regarding the general function as a creator of obstacles from Grimes, who is being cited to establish the "remover" idea. Note that on p. 44, in discussion of the name Vināyaka, Grimes says "Thus, not only is Vināyaka the remover of obstacles, but he is also the creator of obstacles." If you read the complete passage in Grimes, he clearly supports the view of Ganesha as having both fuctions. Grimes also notes the name Vighnarāja (King of Obstacles) three times, pp. 38, 48-49, 108 (as listed in the index, which often has incorrect page numbers). I am trying to verify those citations now. Note the name Vighneśvara listed on p. 41 where Grimes says "The following list contains the most popular names..." Buddhipriya 04:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On p. 49 Grimes says "As Vighneśvara or Vighnrāja, Gaṇeśa is the lord of obstacles. His traditional place is at the threshold. Thus he stands both inside and outside, facing equally the demonic and the Divine, placing obstacles and removing obstacles simultaneously.... To remove an obstacle so that the birth of the new can take place, requires the placing of an obstacle as well as the removal of an obstacle. He both creates and destroys, facilitates and hinders." This quote unambiguously puts Grimes behind the idea that he performs both functions. Is there any objection to adding this citation to Grimes in support of the fact that he performs both functions? We have already vetted Grimes as a source, but since this matter is under discussion I am continuing my personal vow of not editing the main article until clear agreement is reached. Buddhipriya 05:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rudra's question "at what point historically did Vinayaka acquire a 'beneficent' aspect as an epithet of Ganesha?', I personally don't think it ever did. Perhaps Grimes got the "remover" spin from MW, but he does not give a citation for his view. It is impossible to tell why MW gives that interpretation, since the sources don't seem to support it. It puzzles me that in MW p. 972 it lists two scriptural uses for the term, including Yājñavakya as one. The Yājñavakya is a key source for documenting the transition for the the negative version of the (multiple) Vinayaka imps to the consolidated figure of one rather problematic deity. Thapan dates the portion that deals with the section on Vinayaka worship as end of the 2nd century or early third century. By that time, according to Thapan p. 28, "Here, the four Vināyakas of the Mānava Gṛhya Sūtra have evolved into one single Vināyaka with four names. His worship is associated with that of Ambikā, Śiva, and Skanda. Yet he is neither Śiva's son nor his gaṇa. Hence this portion is earlier than the Purāṇas." This latter remark deals with the fact that the postive version of Ganesha was a Puranic creation, with his makeover driven by the Ganapatyas. So the interpretation given to the name in the Yājñavakya by MW strikes me a retrospective interpretation. The problem is that if you look at the details, the actual texts don't seem to give a particular positive valence to the name at all. I have given a variety of etymologies regarding the name. Since they differ widely, it is hard to be sure what the original sense of the word was when used originally. However the evidence that the prefix "vi" was intended in its negative sense seems strong to me, based on the troublesome nature of the imps that first held the name. Rudra, I would appreciate your comment on how you would translate the name Vi-nāyaka under two scenarios: 1) if you had no source text at all to give context, and 2) if you had source text in which the term was used to describe trouble-causing imps. Since Sanskrit is so context-sensitive, my guess is that for scenario #2 you might gravitate toward translation of "vi" in the sense of "privation, separation", etc. (a negation prefix) rather than its opposite sense of "best, excellent". I will comment on dating in a separate remark. Buddhipriya 05:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there were indications to the contrary, I'd go with the principal sense of "separate from" usually implying some form of contradistinction. Note, for example, the long list following 'vi'(3) in MW (p.949ff). rudra 06:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the question: "My concern is the reference to Sayana's commentary on TA.10.1.5: he specifically identifies Vinayaka as the referent of Danti and Vakratunda. Was this a hermemeutic reading of the Vedic past, or was it a contemporary understanding, and if the latter, what did Vinayaka "mean" or connote in Sayana's time?" I am unable to answer the question because I have not personally verified the citation to Sayana, and have not been able to find a secondary source that discusses the context of it. It is obviously a hermeneutic since the negative evidence for existence of Ganesha at the time the Danti figure was prominent is well-documente in the current article. The figure of Ganesha as we know him appears in art quite suddenly, for example, and his characteristics go well-beyond the elephant-headed figures that may indeed have had something to do with elephant cults or other such precursors. Also, be careful not to conflate the ideas of the name Vinayaka having a positive valence with the separate issue of whether or not there was an identification of Vinayaka with Danti. I think I have given evidence above to call into question the idea that the name Vinayaka had any postive valence at the time of Sayana. However it is quite possible that he would identify the figure of Vinayaka, who had by that time taken on elephantine characteristics, with the precursor Danti. The timing of when elephantine traits were merged into the Vinayaka-imp-based deity is itself a key question for dating of the composite figure we know as Ganesha. Buddhipriya 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sayana, I had posted a reference earlier. The link is to the MUM archive; on that page is a link to a PDF of the TA, half transcribed and the rest scanned from an edition of the TA with Sayana's commentary. P.332 of the PDF is the scan of p.699 of that book: there is no question that Sayana said Vinayaka. The issue is whether he (also) meant Ganesha. Obviously this hinges on the import of the Vinayaka epithet at his time, or earlier. rudra 05:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, forgive me for missing that. There was such a flood of issues happening at once, I did not see those comments at all. Please give me a little time to examine the source you have provided, it looks very interesting. I will also try to check secondary sources more closely regarding any possible mention of this issue. I regret that I am not a very fast worker, and I find it difficult to follow so many different points being raised at once. Buddhipriya 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have examined the source materials for this, so I am very grateful for your giving this link. I would like to study this more closely, but my initial impression is that the use of the epithet "Vakratuṇḍa" in the gayatri itself is a sort of "smoking gun" that the text itself is a late interpolation. I will need to find a citation to prove it, but I feel quite certain that the use of that epithet is very late, and certainly later than the the term Danti. If this opinion is correct, then it is likely that Sayana would have been thinking of the composite figure of Ganesha, whose iconography was well-established by his day. The Vakratuṇḍa icongraphic issues were mentioned in one of the other of the many threads active right now. The use of that late epithet in the same passage with the earlier Danti suggests a clear effort by the text itself to identify the two figures. Sayana's use of the term Vinayaka in connection with this Danti gayatri is completely consistent with the historical evolution model in which Danti was an elephant deity, and the proto-Vinayaka was a composite trouble-maker based on the Vinayaka imps, with those two figures ultimately being conflated as the composite Ganapati, who had both elephantine features and a talent for creating obstacles.

Also in this text on p. 332 of the PDF, note the emphasis on "बीजापूरगदेक्षुकार्मुक" as iconographic dhyana symbols in connection with this gayatri. These are some of the traditional items held by the composite figure of Ganesha as he would have been known at the time of Sayana. This makes the identification with the composite (late) Ganesha undeniable. I can find some source for these iconographic items but it will take time to look up. The meditation form as described in this passage by Sayana includes the बीजापूर (bījapūra, "lemon, citron; lit: seed-filled"), the गद (gada, "mace"), and the इक्षु (ikṣu, "sugarcane"). This tallies with the scriptural sources as given in the Ganesha Purana, where verse 1.46.41 (1993 Sharma edition) of the Ganesha Sahasranama includes the two names in sequence: bījapūrī gadādharaḥ ("Having a citron", "holding a mace"). This is to me a surprising and significant confirmation of the importance of those two names in particular. For the lemon as an attribute of Ganesha, see: Martin-Dubost pp. 193, 196, 335. The sugarcane is a favorite treat of Ganesha, and the Ganesha Purana describes his loka as a fabulous island surrounded by a sea of sugarcane juice. :) Buddhipriya 06:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I had suspected something like that, but not being conversant with Ganesha-ic iconography, I defered my curiosity. Now, unfortunately, I'm beginning to have doubts about the book that was scanned into the PDF. It's highly unlikely that Sayana would have concerned himself with iconographic details. This book seems to have a further commentary superimposed, hopefully restricted to the stuff in explicit double quotes (which, obviously, Sayana couldn't have used.) At some point I'll be taking a look at this in the NY Public Library, though with two other editors listed I'm still somewhat worried that a pure "Sayana only" text will be hard to find. rudra 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the lateness of the gayatris is pretty much established. The only issue is how late, in particular, whether late enough to constitute an outright interpolation as opposed to a supplement. I think the MS version is the smoking gun here: MS.2.9.1 fairly screams interpolation when all the other recensions are consulted for their versions of the Agnicayana, and especially given that the start of MS.2.9.2 (namaste rudra manyava uto ta iṣave namaḥ) is so well known that not being at the start of a major section of the samhita should strike anyone as more than a little odd. rudra 07:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since both Krishan and Thapan are in agreement with the interpolation idea, I would just close the case on this unless some additional secondary sources can be found that discuss the issue. I have stopped editing the main article since I do not wish to become involved in edit warring over these various points. The citation to Thapan should be added to the main article debunking the passage, but I will leave it to someone else to add it if they agree that it has merit. Buddhipriya 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even Dhavalikar (in Brown (1991)) says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity." I added this quote to the article too in addition to Thapan and Krishan who are already referenced. Unless some new solid references to the contrary are forthcoming, I think this issue is closed for now. Abecedare 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Brahamanaspati

Brahamanaspati which means the Lord of speech is one of the 1000 names of Lord Ganesha.

• The Thousand Names of Ganesha, By Vijaya Kumar
• ISBN 8120730070

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On the same grounds you could say all the Rudras mentioned in the Vedas refer to Shiva because Rudra is one of the names in the Shiva Sahasranama. What that shows is that Hindus have made the Vedic gods various forms of the more popular current deities. Using the Sahasranama argument, you can also say Vishnu and Shiva are the same god because they both appear in each other's Sahasranama. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BR, please read the article. It already explains how the name Brahmansapati (and its reference in RV) was adopted by Ganapatyas, starting sometime after ninth century CE. Also note that Ganesha Sahasranama dates somewhere around 2-3,000 years after the composition of Rig Veda, and so is not evidence of contemporaneous use of any of the terms in Vedic times. Abecedare 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Ganesha, why do you want to discuss things otherwise here? This is a popular belief do you agree with me or not? When right from Shri Shri Shri Adi Shankaracharya to everyone has taught this. When do you want to quote things other wise? Every one is stating it is from the Vedas and these verses are for Lord Ganesha. You want to show remote finding which has no stand here in India.

• http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok3.htm (This is a online book with proper ISBN) BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From the article, the verse was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is used even to this day. Yes we agree that it is a popular belief and that is why we this sentence is there. Nothing more to say. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, does the author you stated have a proof that these wordings are not for Ganesha? Something that is ROCK-SOLID? if not, it is not a good thing to have them here. No PROOF, it does not stand and sense. You all agree that it is not a popular belief then you explain me will these wording not provoke a problem? and more than just plain words none of the Authors have any kind of PROOF. They only consider. How can strong popular beliefs change with any ones consideration. They need to be proven.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow if I consider Sun is not there, I say it is an illusion, would you believe me? I will show you 1000 articles that say, "Every thing you see is an illusion". So, should we start addressing them? and write statements like "Sun is not there". I personally believe what you just addressed is a minority view and is WP:Fringe, more than that looks to me like a BLUNT LIE and an outcome of no scientific evidence.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk

I don't mean to offent you BR but your argument is fallacious. Just because Jesus being resurrected from the dead is a "popular belief" (2.1 billion officially believe in it), we don't write such outrageous claims in an encyclopedia. We only state this by mentioning it is a Christian perspective. It is also a popular belief that Hanuman lifted a mountain. But we can't state it as fact, it is not "history." We do say however that a common Hindu belief is that Hanuman lifted a mountain, just as we do in this case. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but right now this is not the topic of discussion here. The matter is something else. There is clear mentions of Lord Ganesha in Yajur Veda. Some author says that he considers that they are later additions. Would you accept bogus "considerations" with no scientific evidence and quote them at an encyclopedia. Isn't it an outrageous claim?? too??? But, it has made in here? Should I be not surprised. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Ganesha appear in the Upanishads??

I distinctly remember listening to fragments if the Upanishads about Ganesha (I think it was the Taittiriya)? I think it would be a good idea to include some info about it. Kkrystian 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha has his own Upanishad. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa. I don't know if and to what extent he appears in the earlier Upanishads. I agree that if he did appear, even in modified versions of the texts, it would be valuable to add it. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any authentic reference to Ganesha in any of the major Upanishads. That is because Ganesha as we know him came together during the Gupta Period, based on precursor deities which include Danti (who is mentioned in the Mahabharata) and Vinayaka (the eventual consolidated form of the Vinayaka imps. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa is a late work of the Ganapatya, and is one of the important sectarian scriptures of Ganapatya tradition. The single best source for this historical summary is Thapan, whose entire book is devoted to the development of Ganesha. Buddhipriya 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What this article needs -imo

Baka's quip that this article is a cesspool of ivory tower bafflegab isnt too much of the mark. I am not suggesting that we have to get rid of all the 'bafflegab' and dumb it down to a Amar Chitra Katha.. but I would like to see more Amar Chitra Katha content in the article. Lots more. For starters, we need a ==(Ganesha in) Mythology== section where all the popular mythological accounts(the one about his broken tusk, his curse of Chandra, about his birth etc.,) should be summarised. Then we badly need a section about all the rituals and customs that go with the propitiation of Ganesha. Maybe the "Ganesha/Ganapati homa" needs a mention somewhere.

I know that lot of this is already in the article but they need to be in their own dedicated sections. Stuff needs to be moved around and the article needs to be restructured. Also the "Rise to prominence" and "Beyond Hinduism and India" are too long for purposes of this article and need to be pruned. And ofcourse, we need to lose all those quote boxes. None of those 'quotes' are exactly 'quotable quotes' and can easily be incorporated into the text or the refs/notes. And with the rise in prominence, we need to only summarise the conclusions and the details of any polemic should go into the child article which could probably be titled "Ganesha in Hindu canonical texts" or something like that. And of course, I second Priyanath's views a few sections above about how to deal with the "Remover of obstacles" issue. And I dont remember where I saw the proposal, but I like the idea of separating the notes from the refs. Sarvagnya 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the overly academic approach to the article - it needs to be balanced with the widely practiced understanding of Ganesha. Not by dumbing it down, as you say, but including (or more prominently featuring) widely shared stories and practices. I prefer the use of 'widely' over 'popular', because popular makes it sound like a popularity contest, when it's clear that these are mainstream and widely held views we're talking about. I also agree about the boxed quotes. After looking at all of them, most could be in references, and I think one or two could be blockquotes.

I've only had the time to go into the lead so far (my time to edit Wikipedia is limited). Like Abecedare requested above, specific suggestions for each section would be helpful - perhaps taking one area at a time until some agreement is reached. I also want to add again that alot of excellent research (and time) has gone into this article already. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous rounds of editoral discussion resulted in the creation of Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha as the place to hold the mythological stories. There is so much that could be said about Ganesha, we need to be careful of main article fixation. Currently the article has a link to that detail, which I think is appropriate. I personally do not feel that the article is overly academic. The discussion has led me to wonder if editors agree with the basic idea that our divinities have evolved over time, with different understandings of those deities appearing over the centuries. If that fundamental idea is not shared among editors, any attempt to uncover Ganesha's "roots" will be difficult. I personally will not make any further edits to the main article unless editors have first made use of the talk page to reach agreement. Through dialog we may all come to reach a deeper understanding of this material. Conflict is unworthy of us as editors who all share a love for this great deity. If Ganesha wants this article improved, he will get it done by calling in his gang (gaṇa) of valued editors, who each will have something of value to contribute. Shiva's ganas are a troop of semidivine entities who are noteworthy both for their individualism and their ability to work together to make short work of whatever demons happened to be causing problems at the moment. Buddhipriya 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose separating notes (in the sense of comments) from references (in the sense of citations). Any statement made is likely to require a supporting citation, thus I do not see how you can have a note ("comment") without a reference ("citation"). This idea of dividing up notes and references in that way was attempted on the Hinduism article where I objected to it there. It is not the standard found in WP:LAYOUT, where the References section is defined as a bibliography of works cited in Notes. From time to time we see a note that simply contains some statement, with no citation. When I see these, I generally just remove the ref tags so that the statement appears as text in the main body of the article, and then place a fact tag on the statement calling for a citation. The strongest type of note, in my opinion, is a citation that includes a gloss specifically linking the citation to whatever point is made in the main text. Buddhipriya 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of separate issues that we are discussing in this section. Perhaps it needs to be split up. About the boxed quotes, I think I can see both sides of the argument. I believe Buddhipriya added them because the author expresses the idea very well in these quotes but of course they visually and otherwise break the flow of the section and article as a whole, particularly in the "Aum" and "First Chakra" sections. The best way to solve this IMO is at least in most cases, paraphrase what the author is saying (even if it is close to word-for-word) and integrate the information in a paragraph. I understand that this may not be applicable in every instance, especially when the bosed quote refers to a translation of something. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So long as the complete source text of the quotes is preserved, I would support moving the quotes into the ref tags. Stylistically, I prefer to see very well-glossed references, which is why I lean toward that alternative if the boxes are considered offensive. I would point out that we have had two different members of the League of Copyeditors go over them without complaint. I also strongly object to the idea of gutting the very well-referenced historical material that is presently in the article. In my opinion it is a good summary of the current state of the art in Ganesha studies. Buddhipriya 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that stylistically, the article will read better without so many boxed quotes, especially the smaller ones. Of course any quotes un-boxed should go into the reference tags, which also gives a thread for those who want to know more. The way I understand it, the League of Copyeditors' fine-tooth comb doesn't necessarily extend to things like whether and how much to use boxed quotes, blockquotes, placement of photos, etc. I would also like to see some stories included in this article, per Sarvagnya. I looked at other articles of Hindu deities, and every single one included stories, to very good effect. It made those articles much more alive and engaging, and less of a dry dissertation. It doesn't mean 'gutting' the historical material, which can surely stay (I don't see anyone actually asking for that, Buddhipriya). I'd like to address the stories suggestion later, since there are so many different issues being brought up with this article right now, by different editors. Buddhipriya, you might want to begin to pray to Ganesha as the er, um, well,....Remover of Obstacles :-). ॐ Priyanath talk 01:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck with your efforts. I know that you are well-intended, and it is important that this article includes the perspective of as many editors as possible. Regarding potential gutting of the article, Sarvagnya made the comment that "Also the 'Rise to prominence' and 'Beyond Hinduism and India' are too long for purposes of this article and need to be pruned." I strongly disagree with removal of that well-referenced material, and it concerns me that an editor who has never heard of the Ganapatya may not be the best judge of what this article should contain. I hope that other Hindu editors with more context in the subject matter than that will step in. An alternative to gutting the article would be to move any of the well-referenced material that is considered too long for the main article to some new sub-article, such as a new article on the historical development of Ganesha. We need to avoid main-article fixation, and twice before when the article was getting very long we moved out material to new articles to preserve the detail rather than simply cutting it. Buddhipriya 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Most longer FA and GA articles use WP:Summary style to good effect. I don't anything should be removed altogether, as there's alot of well-researched information. You really have done a fantastic job. I do think the article needs to be more well-rounded. I think where Sarvagnya is coming from is that many more people (and I agree) will come to this article looking for a few of the basic stories of Ganesha than for the finer points of the history or 'outside India'. I'm not going to make alot of changes quickly, since I don't have the time, but I will put some ideas out there for people to see and decide. More Hindu editors on this would be good, I agree, though I doubt you're going to find many who actually know Ganapatyas outside of books. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

...Regarding potential gutting of the article, Sarvagnya made the comment that "Also the 'Rise to prominence' and 'Beyond Hinduism and India' are too long for purposes of this article and need to be pruned."...

• I never in the least meant that the pruned information should be flushed from wikipedia altogether. What I meant was, just move the info "as is" to their child articles and condense it here. Further expansion and improvement can take place in the child articles.

...it concerns me that an editor who has never heard of the Ganapatya may not be the best judge of what this article should contain. I hope that other Hindu editors with more context in the subject matter than that will step in...

• You might want to write to Encyclopedia Britannica and impress on them that the Ganapatyas are not an 'esoteric' sect. Or, since they think that it is, you might want to ask them not to write articles about Ganesha or Ganapatya - since they're clearly not qualified(in your eyes). Better still, it would help if you could be a little less paranoid about other editors' intentions.

...An alternative to gutting the article would be to move any of the well-referenced material that is considered too long for the main article to some new sub-article, such as a new article on the historical development of Ganesha...

• Be my guest. Sarvagnya 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense at this stage to create a daughter article on the historical development of Ganesha, and moving some of the excellent cited material in Ganesha#Rise to prominence to that article, while summarizing the main points here. My main reason for saying so is that, while Puranas are the texts that are of the greatest importance and relevance to Ganesha, the article currently spends more time debunking the "myth" (sorry, couldn't think of a better word :-) ) that Ganesha is a Vedic deity than talking about the texts in which he undoubtedly does appear. The daughter article will also allow us to expand upon the development of the idea of Vinayaka etc. Would Historical development of Ganesha be a good title, or can someone think of a better one ?
As BP has indicated, it might be useful to handle each of these issues one-by-one - so perhaps we can tidy up the origins issue (I expect that creating a decent sub-article on the topic may take a few weeks), before tackling the the inclusion of Puranic episodes. Abecedare 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is long enough that WP:Summary style needs to be used. I would like to see a stories section for that reason, also Summary style, that includes those stories that have the widest interest and telling (even though they may not have the most academic significance or meaning). This article should address the interest and needs of a broader audience. The academic audience, which is probably much smaller, is extremely well-served already. I think we also have editors with different interests, and for that reason focusing on two of these issues at a time would be more inclusive. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that creation of a sub-article on Historical development of Ganesha would be a good idea. I will go ahead and create that article now by copying material from the historical section of the main article to it, including the various Vedic scriptural discussions, since they clearly pertain to this historical issue. I will not remove anything from the main article. The new article will simply preserve what is in the article as of today. Next step could be for someone who is good at summarization to implement a shortening of the main article. I would nominate Abecedare for this duty, due to prior involvement with all of the issues. Buddhipriya 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! the new page already looks like a good article! I'll be happy to help with rearranging the content on the Ganesha page - it may be a good idea to do so on a subpage so that the main article remains somewhat stable while we hammer out any minor details. I don't suppose there is any great urgency in this matter (right ?), so perhaps we can take a week or so in developing the "history" article and summarizing it accurately. Regards. Abecedare 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not support merging the existing article on the Vinayaka imps entirely into the new Historical development article because the imps have their own story to tell. They are one of various precursors, which should be mentioned in the overall historical article. I do not think that the historical article article needs to be extensively rewritten, as prior to this round of edits it was in good shape already. I do not agree with the premise that the article is somehow misleading or incorrect. Buddhipriya 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The new page looks like a great idea. I will be working on a stories summary section, and will create a sub-page when ready (so it can be edited and reviewed before adding to the article). I realize there are alot of different threads going on here, so will wait a few days before doing that. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Let me know if I can be of any help (I still have fond memories of us all working on the Mahabharat family tree)

I recently borrowed Martin-Dubost, which has a chapter on Puranic birth stories, and Brown's book has an article by Cohen on "Wives of Ganesha". Of course, most of this will belong in Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha and Consorts of Ganesha, but some of it would may be relevant to your efforts too. Anyway, it may be better to discuss the details at the talk page of the sub-page. Cheers. Abecedare 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare - I also have good memories of working on that family tree. I'm waiting for a book before I start, but still plan on doing this in the next week or so. And I fully agree - start a sub-page with a proposal, and discuss on its talk page. ॐ Priyanath talk 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganapati in Pancatantra

Buddhipriya had asked me to locate the reference to "Ganapati" in Pancatantra. Pancatantra-I.3.170 (shloka number 170) contains this word "Ganapati" in the sense of Ganesha. Here, the whole family of Shiva is described in a story titled Dantila-gorambhyayo-kathā. I hope the enlightened brand of Wiki editors will find some excuse for declaring this story as a mediaeval or modern interpolation, or a wrong citation from me, as I already have been accused of so many times. Sourced contribution referring to stories of Pancatantra painted on caves of Mauryan period has already been deleted and declared to be a proof of my near-vandalism.

These editors did not believe in the evidence of Sir Monier-Williams and believed in a proven liar like Krishan. I have deciced to devote my precious time to more lasting and precious works than trying to convince those who hate to study primary sources. Citing secondary sources is another thing, which should not be used as an excuse for hiding one's ignorance of primary sources. The impolite language and biased attitude of these editors has cured me of my zeal to waste my time over those articles which some enlightened editors have decided to detoxify (i.e., de-Hinduise). Lord Ganesha or Hinduism does not need the permission of these editors to survive. Buddhipriya had removeed Lord, because the academics regard Lord Ganesh merely as an animal-symbol. I had expressed my unwillingness in the beginning that I am not interested in contributing to this article, but I was forcibly dragged in. I request all editors that I should be forgiven and forgotten, please do not mention my name again. Dbachmann has already ensured that I should not waste mt time over articles of which I am an expert (he has put all opponents of Aryabhatta under Aryabhatiyan Model ; Surya Siddhanta still contains pseudo-scientic content in spite of my protests). Those who hane little knowledge of these topics want to exercise dictatorial control. Obviously, the aim is not to improve the content of these articles, but to ensure a particular point of view and expell all those editors who do not subscribe to this narrow viewpoint. I am quitting because I do not believe in bullfighting over intellectual matters. Good Bye. I will try to contribute, if possible, to those articles in which these bullfighters are not interested. -VJha 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may be a latter-day interpolation. There are many versions of the Pancatantra. The Harvard Oriental Series published the Purnabhadra recension of the late 12th CE. I believe that is also the text carried at TITUS. (A Penguin Classics translation of this by Chandra Rajan also exists.) Arthur Ryder's translation was that of a Kashmiri recension edited (and also translated) by Benfey. None of the above (Rajan, Ryder, TITUS) have a shloka about Siva's family anywhere near I.3.170. That isn't to say that no recension has it, but it would have to be identified. rudra 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about Shiva (rudra). But, which one authentic, how does one decide that?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I still cannot confirm that there is any reference to Ganesha in the Pancatantra. Please note that there are multiple recensions of the text, so it is essential to state which edition you are using when giving any line numbers. To research this I have checked three sources so far. First is the online Sanskrit text at: [29]. For purposes of showing variation in recensions, note that the higest line number marked as "Panc" in that electronic source seems to be 5.93. Since the text is in electronic form, it is easy to verify that the word gaṇeśa does not appear anywhere in the text. The only usage of the stem "gaṇap" is in line 1.169 reads "attuṃ vāñchati śāmbhavo gaṇapater ākhuṃ kṣudhārtaḥ phaṇī". It is clear that this text contains a superset of the contents of the Edgerton edition, which is the basis for the translation by Olivelle (1997) ISBN 0-19-283988-8. Olivelle reviews the problems with the various recensions and includes a table of stories that were not included by Edgerton in his edition, which was an attempt to uncover the core of the original text, omitting all later additions. At 1.169 in Olivelle we find the story of the iron-eating mice, and nothing to do with Shiva or his family. The words Ganesha and Ganapati do not appear in the index to Olivelle. Skanda appears in the index, with one reference on p. 15, which corresponds to 1.45, where there is nothing at all about Shiva's family. The high verse in book five is 5.3, probably indicating that Edgerton rejected most of book 5 as original (but I have not seen Edgerton to verify this).

The Śarma edition (1993) ISBN 0-140-45520-5 ends with high number 5.71, showing it uses yet another recension. Like Olivelle, he uses a numbering system in which there is a book number (1 to 5) and a verse number. Thus it is difficult to locate a text numbered as I.3.170, which seems to be including a frame number (the frame system of keeping track of stories in this work is a sort of meta-analysis of the content) unless this means either 1.170 or 3.170 in their systems of versification. The scan of the Titus text suggests that it is probably 1.169 in that source, but it is impossible to be sure. In any case, at 1.169 in Śarma we have the story of the power-drunk lion, and nothing about the family of Shiva. There is no index to Śarma. Based on all of this I am still unconvinced that there is any reference to Ganesha in this work, and if one can be shown, it is apparently an interpolation, not accepted by the Edgerton recension. Buddhipriya 04:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There probably is no "authentic" Pancatantra. The collection of stories has been added to, reworked and modified time and again, so many times that scholars don't even try to reconstruct an "ur-Pancatantra". One could speak of popular versions, but these too vary according to where you are: obviously, local versions would be preferred. Basically, all versions available today have lots of late material. That's why it's pointless to look for "early" references in the Pancatantra. Far more valuable would be some other work, more securely dated, attesting to the contents of the Pancatantra in its own times. rudra 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are very complex problems in determing the recension issues. There is a good summary of these problems in the Introduction to Olivelle. According to Olivelle (pp. xliv-xlv), Edgerton (1924) was an attempt to construct an Ur-Pancatantra or "original" Pancatantra based on analysis of recensions. In doing this Edgerton drew upon the work of Hertel. Apparently that work is controversial, as one might expect. The key point for me is that we still cannot find any story about Ganesha in either of those two English translations. I should add that it has been many years since I have actually read the Pancatantra and I have never studied it in an academic sense. One of the unexpected delights of this discussion is that it motivated me to dig up the two translations, which are now on my nightstand since they make such delightful reading. The point of this is that I am almost completely ignorant of the literary issues, but the stories are fun to read. Buddhipriya 04:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i think ganesha is a spiritual idol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.185.71 (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Ganesha not in the Vedas

Note - The RFC title "section" param was pointing at another section of the article, I have corrected it to point to this section. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was nice to get a third view involved.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement BalanceRestored (talk · contribs)

Ganesha, is clearly cited in TS (Yajur Veda),

Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God By Robert L. Brown ISBN 0791406563, See Page 70. Online book [30]

This book is clearly mentioning those verses are for Ganesha. Also, almost the entire of India, and specially people living in Maharashtra, today mentions these verses "Vakratundaya Dheemahi Tanno Danti Prachodayat" primarily in their daily prayers during the 11 days of Ganesh festival while reciting "Ganapati Gayatri Mantra", which Robert L. Brown is also mentioning at page 70.

“ Vakratundaya Dheemahi

Tanno Danti Prachodayat

”

Secondary Reference explaining this Vedic Ganesh Gayatri Mantra

1. "Invoke the Gods: Exploring the Power of Male Archetypes By Kala Trobe" ISBN 0738700967, Online Book [31]
2. "Meditation and Mantras: An Authoritative Text" By Vishnu Devananda ISBN 8120816153, Online Book [32]

Google links to understand the popularity of the Ganesha Gayatri Aarti Mantra [33], [34], [35] [36]

Some author Krishan "considers" that, these narrations are later additions in Yajur Veda. Based on this author's considerations (with no evidences) such WP:UNDUE comments like "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas" are primarily placed in this article. See the section on "Vedic and epic literature" in the main article. This is clearly a WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE voilation.

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement Comesincolors (talk · contribs)

It seems that if there is a controversy here, all that is needed is to present all well-sourced sides fairly. For example, say "according to Prof. Smith, the Ganesha of the Vedas is not the same as the Ganesha worshipped in later times", and "others, like Prof. Jones, disagree". I am no Vedic scholar, but it seems that those who are ought to be able to outline any real disagreement fairly. Comesincolors 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Abecedare (talk · contribs)

This issue has been thoroughly discussed above in the talk page. To summarize the evidence (which is already contained in the article itself!), for (modern) Ganesha's absence from the Vedas here are the relevant references:

• Rocher, Ludo. "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in Brown, Robert (1991), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, Albany: State University of New York, ISBN 0-7914-0657-1
• Krishan, Yuvraj (1981–1982). "The Origins of Gaṇeśa". Artibus Asiae. 43 (4): 285–301. Retrieved 2007-09-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Krishan, Yuvraj (1999), Gaņeśa: Unravelling An Enigma, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, ISBN 81-208-1413-4
• Dhavalikar, M. K. "Gaṇeśa: Myth and reality" in Brown, Robert (1991), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, Albany: State University of New York, ISBN 0-7914-0657-1
• Nagar, Shanti Lal (1992). The Cult of Vinayaka. New Delhi: Intellectual Publishing House. ISBN 81-7076-043-9. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Furthermore, the following references also talk about emergence of the modern day Ganesha as a Hindu deity in the 4-6th century ( i.e 1-2,000 years after the Vedic period):

• Narain, A. K. "Gaņeśa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon" in Brown, Robert (1991), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, Albany: State University of New York, ISBN 0-7914-0657-1
• Thapan, Anita Raina (1997). Understanding Gaņapati: Insights into the Dynamics of a Cult. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers. ISBN 81-7304-195-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/ISBN 0-19-505742-2|'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000025-QINU`"'[[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]]&nbsp;[[Special:BookSources/0-19-505742-2 |0-19-505742-2]]]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn= at position 1 (help)
• Michael, S.M. (1983). "The Origin of the Ganapati Cult". Asian Folklore Studies. 42 (1): 91–116.

I am sure rudra and Buddhipriya can add to the above list of scholarly articles/books.
All this is mentioned in the article, and has been pointed out to BlanaceRestored on several occasions by multiple editors. Unfortunately he has chosen to forum-shop (based on his original interpretation of primary sources) rather than read the references and accept the consensus. He has even been blocked for "exhausting the community patience" and being disruptive with regards to this issue. I have also explained on his talk page why we say "Krishan considers" rather than "Krishan has established" or "Krishan has proven" - but if that is a sticking point for him, we can change the phrasing to the latter. I wonder if a admin intervention, CSN discussion or user RFC would be more relevant at this point, than a RFC on the content issue. Abecedare 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN is becoming a valid option at this point. I do not presume to doubt BR's good faith, but as rudra has put it, "Sufficiently advanced naivete is indistinguishable from trolling". People who cannot grasp WP:ENC even after trying hard simply have nothing to contribute to the project. dab (𒁳) 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Dbachmann (talk · contribs)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) has discovered WP:RFC as a means to perpetuate disputes after all of his points have been answered and resoundingly rejected. This is just forum-shopping. Intelligent disputes consist of a dialogue where both parties show receptiveness, and re-align their position in the light of valid criticism. BR instead just repeats his points on all Wikipedia fora long after he has been sufficiently answered, without showing any understanding of the material involved. Why does he insist on "participating" in topics of which he has obviously no background knowledge, and no interest to acquire such? This is just a waste of time for other editors. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Surely, as an admin, one should know that, but of course some admins have other fish to fry.Bakaman 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab has assumed good faith with BR for a long time, Namakab. Check Dab's user talk page for proof. And so has Abecedare, Buddhipriya and Vassyana. Blind accusations because of a personal grudge never help situations like this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and Pluto is a planet. I have no doubt about Abecedare, I have respect for him as a user and contributor, however I am aware you have remained fairly firm in your continuance oif the legacy of Ravan's stone.Bakaman 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Buddhipriya (talk · contribs)

I endorse the remarks by Dbachmann (talk · contribs). Buddhipriya 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Shirahadasha (talk · contribs)

Just want to mention that it's completely appropriate for religion articles to present notable religious beliefs as a distinct notable POV, hence, the article can certainly present the views of contemporary religious authorities as to what the Vedas mean and other aspects of the traditional account. The traditional views of a religion and the views of its religious authorities are appropriate and relevant to an article on that religion, and sources do not have to be limited to only the views of secular professors. However, views need to be attributed so it is made clear which views are being presented as religious views and which as the views of academic historians. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shirahadasha suggestions. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Sources Added

I've added the necessary secondary source where I gathered my information about the Sanskrit verses from.

The verse : "tát karāţāya vidmahe | hastimukhāya dhîmahi | tán no dántî pracodáyāt||" For secondary source explaining the Interpretation see: Rocher, Ludo, "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in Brown 1991, p. 70

The verse: " tát púruṣâya vidmahe vakratuṇḍāya dhîmahi| tán no dántî pracodáyāt||" For secondary source explaining the Interpretation see: Rocher, Ludo, "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in Brown 1991, p. 70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&diff=160902651&oldid=160901052 BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You have alleged above that I've interpreted things on my own understanding, which I did not do, See above AB quote "(based on his original interpretation of primary sources)", which I did not do. So, I thought I present the Secondary sources. I understand that you are not asking about those primary interpretations. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BR, The information you are repeatedly adding is redundant. If you read just one sentence ahead, you'll see that the article already provides a source for these YV verses and references Sayana's opinion. Also read the related discussion above to understand that the issue of interpretation of these verses is different from the issue of dating these verses. Abecedare 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you wanted me to provide you with the reference where I gathered the information from. So, what original interpretation from me are you talking about in that case. I did not understand that. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you sure regular editors won't get confused with that? I always saw all the details about the Primary Sanskrit Scripts explained with Secondary English resources always added? Though they are repeated, I think it would avoid confusions. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation problem to Bhandarkar

In copying the historical material to Historical development of Ganesha I noticed a note to "Bhandarkar. Vaisnavism, Saivism and other Minor Sects. pp. 147-48" supporting the idea that the Vinayaka imps were easily propitiated. The statement is true, but there is nothing about them on pp. 147-148 of my edition of Bhandarkar. Perhaps the page number is wrong? I have not been following the edits to the main article closely and am unsure where this crept in. If the material is to be cut from the main article, we can concentrate on fixing it in the copy in the new daughter article. I suspect that I may have made the page error myself at some point in the past, but I cannot recall it. I will go over Bhandarkar to find the correct citation. Buddhipriya 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha Temples

While temples of Ganesha and the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka) and mentioned in passing in the article, I do believe it needs its own sub-section, probably in "Worship." Temples are an integral part of Hindu worship for any deity and Ganesha is no exception. I don't expect any great detail (a sub-page can be created for that) but I feel the article is missing something without it. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Added List of Ganapati temples link.--Redtigerxyz 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ashtavinayak circuit is already covered in the article. There are other thousands of Ganesha temples; all of which can not be discussed. Again there are temples where Ganesha is not the prime diety; but has a small temple in the temple complex or a small shrine in the main temple dedicated to him.--Redtigerxyz 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Section "Worship in Temples" written.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice addition Redtigerxyz. I shortened the title to just "Temples" and copyedited a bit. I had to remove the phrase about "self-existent (svayaṃbhū) monoliths" since I could not figure out a way to make the intended meaning clear to a reader without considerable additional explanation. If any of you have any bright ideas about this, feel free to addit back; else it can be explained in the main Ashtavinayak article. Cheers. PS: Should we move Ashtavinayak to Ashtavinayaka for consistency ? Abecedare 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The only exception from a Ganesha context is Ganesha Chaturthi, since it is a modern festival. Welcome back by the way! Did you enjoy your Wiki-break? Buddhipriya hasn't returned from his yet. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. By the way, the temple section can use a bit more copyediting for clarity and to reduce listiness; also perhaps a better reference than [37] can be used. Note that any web reference should have publisher and accessed-at information included (User:SandyGeorgia will certainly bring this up at the FAC! ) Abecedare 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The other ref I found was Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant Faced God By Sadguru Sivaya Subramaniyaswami, p.264. But i remembered the way all references from the book were unceremoniously removed from this article; dubbing it as "devotee literature" and not RS.--Redtigerxyz 08:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha references in Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations

Additional Inputs are required on the following

“ Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity" ”

Any XYZ can make such statements, I request editors to present valuable inputs/findings from Mr. Dhavalikar on concluding such statements. The current article has nothing that's currently backing up the statement. It is a request that editors include the authors findings to draw such conclusions/interpretations. The current article is lacking the same.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does present the other view. It says two sentence before, "The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club,[204] is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin".[205]" Here it shows a scholar who believes the god Dantin in the Vedas is representative of Ganesha. Afterwards, it says Krishan and Dhavalikar disagree with this. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a request to present Krishan and Dhavalikar reasons/findings for the disagreements. Readers can otherwise think that both the editors are just pasting statements out of no logic, and just because they think so. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think no one has any study to the findings of both Krishan and Dhavalikar. Looks like both of them have ill-logically quoted statements off their own creativity.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit questions

Hello! Redtigerxyz asked me to do a copyedit for the changes you've made as a result of your FAC review. I have some questions.

Lead: I have a question about the first sentence. As noted in the FAC review, this phrasing is awkward: "...is one of the best-known and most worshiped deities in Hinduism and India." Using the references as a guide, I suggest this change: :"Ganesha (Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa; listen (help·info)), also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh, (also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka) is one of the best-known and most-worshipped deities in the Hindu pantheon; his image is found throughout India." Do you approve, or should I keep working on it?

I think ; this sentence sounds better. Can we find a way to eliminate one of the "also"s ?--Redtigerxyz 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Ganesha (Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa; listen (help·info)), also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh and known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is one of the best-known and most-worshipped deities in the Hindu pantheon; his image is found throughout India. Galena11 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats better. changing it.--Redtigerxyz 06:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vahanas: The title "Vigneshvara" is only used one time in the article, in this sentence: According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāmata-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence.[83] Is Vigneshvara the same as Vighneśvara? If so, may I suggest changing this title to "Lord of Obstacles" (in English), because most users will not understand the context if the Sanskrit word is used.

Galena11 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I support both of your proposed changes. Vigneshvara and Vighneśvara and indeed the same. The latter uses official IAST transliteration while the former gives a reader with no knowledge of Hinduism or Sanskrit a better understanding of how to pronounce the word. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out; Vigneshvara and Vighneśvara are the same. This an epithet of Ganesha but also a name. The name is also used in the Temples section as part of a direct quote.

Vigneshvara should be retained as it is.--Redtigerxyz 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, please: The spelling of in the Temples section is within a quote, which I don't alter in any case, and is spelled Vighneśvara. Do you mean that Vigneshvara in the Vahanas section should be kept with this spelling, changed to Vighneśvara, or can it be translated to the English title Lord of Obstacles? Galena11 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Galena; Vighneśvara is a name as well as an epithet as are most names of Hindu Gods. I think that IAST be given once and then Vigneshvara be used; unless quotes. The confusion rises due to dual usage of IAST and English spelled ; as in case of Labha too.--Redtigerxyz 06:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Shall I use that as my standard throughout the article, for consistency? Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO we should use the non-IAST spellings of Ganesha's names for consistency. Most of the article contains Ganesha not the IAST Gaṇeśa.--Redtigerxyz 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was my original thought and what spurred the question. Should we do that for all instances of an IAST or non-IAST name? In other words, should all names that have both variants in the article be named with both in the first instance, then the non-IAST afterwards and throughout the article? Galena11 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there should be consistency. I think , now there is consistency in Ganesha's names (all non-IAST, unless quotes) as those appear many times. For Lābha or Vināyakas (in Possible Influences) only IAST are used, these are similar to English spelled - Labha and Vinayakas not causing much confusion.--Redtigerxyz 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this if you are. Galena11 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First chakra: Two things in this paragraph: *This statement is not obvious in its meaning: From the standpoint of manifestation or outward expansion of primorial Divine Force, the muladhara chakra is the principle on which everything rests.[98] Can you clarify?

This is a direct quote. I think the the modified statement is better.--Redtigerxyz 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

*I believe the second sentence in this group is redundant to the quotation and the last sentence is somewhat problematic:

Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Seated at the spine, Ganesha holds, supports, and guides all other chakras, thus governing the forces that propel the wheel of life.

I suggest the following to eliminate the redundancy and keep the topic to chakras (and away from possibly non-NPOV, dogmatic statements):

Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha holds, supports, and guides the other chakras.

"Seated at the spine, Ganesha holds, supports, and guides all other chakras, thus governing the forces that propel the wheel of life" from the Tantra bookis a direct quote.--Redtigerxyz 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see. Is it a continuation of the Courtright quote? If so, then the closing quotation mark and ref tag should be moved to the end, after "...wheel of life." and the current closing quote after "muladhara cakra" should be deleted. If not, please enclose in quotes (it currently only has a closing quote) and supply a reference. Thanks! Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Seated at the spine, Ganesha holds, supports, and guides all other chakras, thus governing the forces that propel the wheel of life" from the Tantra bookis a direct quote. The

Ganesha "has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara" is part of Chinmayanda's translation of the same verse of Ganpati Atharvashirsha.--Redtigerxyz 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so we need to split this sentence into two quoted sections? I can do that part, if you'll fix the refs. Thanks! Galena11 15:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted Chinmayanda in ref. I think the references are right. I didn't get what I need to fix???? --Redtigerxyz 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its probably fine...I understood you to mean that there were two quotes from two different sources. Galena11 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Family and consorts: Is there a translation for the second name in this sentence? In Northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha.[119] Nevermind, just saw that the name was mentioned previously with translation, I think. It spawns a second question, is the Lābha in this sentence the same as the Labha (no mark over the "a") in the first sentence: Labha (profit)? If so, which is the appropriate spelling?

Labha and Lābha are same.--Redtigerxyz 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood as per the discussion above. Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Worship and festivals: I would like to remove this sentence from the third paragraph because it is already mentioned in Iconography and doesn't really further the topic of worship. If I must keep it, I would like to remove "one of his iconic elements", as it is redundant: He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra, one of his iconographic elements.: The modakapatra statement is connection to Devotees offering Ganesha modakas. IMO should be retained.--Redtigerxyz 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but can I remove the redundant phrase ""one of his iconic elements"?. The first part "he is often shown..." implies this very thing. Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted strikethrough pending answer to the above question. Thanks! Galena11 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done.--Redtigerxyz 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Scriptures

• The first sentence begins with, "Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism...". A couple of problems with this: 1) You mention in the lead that Ganesha is one of the five gods of Smartism, but this is the only previous mention of this and doesn't refer to Brahmins specifically and 2) It isn't until much later, in the Puranic period section, that you explain the history of this event. I'd like to eliminate this phrase and combine with the paragraph below: ::Ganesha is one of the five principal deities for orthodox Brahmins of the Smārta tradition. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.[139] The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana, and their dating relative to one another, has sparked academic debate...

Moved Scriptures as it was before.--Redtigerxyz 07:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That takes care of it, thanks! Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a little gender confusion in this series, unless Phillis is an unusual man's name? Please clarify. However, Phillis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. He bases his reasoning... Galena11 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Galena was right about Phyllis Granoff. Corrected. My apologies to Phyllis Granoff for the folly; on behalf of the Ganesha editors.--Redtigerxyz 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. :o) Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to striking out the items that have been resolved, so we know what to keep working on? Galena11 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking out things. Please do not hesitiate to remove strikes if anyone has some objections.--Redtigerxyz 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit finished! Once we get the outstanding questions listed above resolved, you should be good to go. Galena11 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all of the outstanding items have been resolved. I hope this helps you make it thru FAC. Galena11 21:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)