Talk:Maya (religion)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:BRD again, past discussion and admin notes

Previous discussions with Kashmiri and Mayasutra, comments by RexxS, Kautilya3, SpacemanSpiff, etc more in archive

WP:BRD and revisions @Kashmiri: Please respect WP:BRD process. I am concerned with your OR, WP:TE, and personal allegations about scholars who have written on Maya (illusion) concept. Please do not remove Pintchman and other reliable sources, as this is inappropriate per wikipedia policies. Let us discuss it on this talk page, and if consensus does not work, we can take it to DRN and other due process. Let us begin with Pintchman which you removed, how is your concern supported by reliable sources and why is Pintchman's WP:RS not a secondary source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Dear Ms Sarah Welch, Pintchman is NOT a reliable source on Sanskrit etymology and should not be quoted anywhere in any Sanskrit etymology section. Here [4] you can acquaint yourself with Pintchman's qualifications. Please pay attention to the length of time she admits having studied Sanskrit. Hope you agree that her qualifications do not make her a reliable source on Sanskrit etymology for an encyclopaedia. Yes, a reliable source is one that reviews the etymology as proposed by various primary sources, instead of blindly repeating one version that suits her book. — kashmiri TALK 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Pintchman is a professor and a reliable source. Pintchman book is a secondary source, and refers to Gonda (others too, see above section). You can't both be attacking Jan Gonda as primary, then questioning Pintchman's ability to do primary research. Your personal views and OR on Pintchman is irrelevant, as this is not @kashmiri-pedia. As I wrote in the above section, if you find another reliable source that states something different, we can include a summary from it too for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I don't care who attacks or does not attack Gonda or whoever. Enough that Pintchman is NOT A SANSKRIT SCHOLAR, and the book you quoted is NOT ON SANSKRIT ETYMOLOGY. Pitchman only mentions the supposed origins of the word maya just en passant, without even quoting a source, and you make it into a great encyclopaedic source. No, she did NOT do a review of linguistic theories and thus is not a secondary source, and no, being a professor does will not make your work "secondary". When talking Sanskrit etymology, Indo-European scholars are usually the best place to turn to. Some Indian scholars have this weird tendency of tracing every single word of a language to a verbal root. Ma, mother, mummy, mamma, maman, etc., have the same origins which is first words of a baby, and hope nobody doubts it - except a few Indologists who try to make "mother" come from "measuring". Seen that? In the article, you also added that maya "comes from a XXX root". No, words can be related to roots but they do not come from them, since roots are only theoretical constructs, sort of smallest common denominator in a range of cognate words, and not any kind of "proto-language". Take a look here for PIE "mother", and then search for "measure" here. Hope this helps. — kashmiri TALK 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Additionally, there is NO Sanskrit word mā that would mean "mother". Someone confuses Sanskrit with Hindi, which may happen but should not make it to an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri TALK 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As to questioning Pintchman, Wikipedia is not an INDISCRIMINATE collection of views. Wikipedia focuses on mainstream, generally accepted views well reported in specialist literature, not on niche views or original research. When mentioning etymology of a word, a publication from the realm of language studies will be considered a reliable source; whilst a primary study on anthropology, medicine or religion will not. Pintchman's book belongs to the latter. — kashmiri TALK 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: You are free to believe in whatever you want. You have not offered any reliable sources yet, and wiki articles (2 wikitionary links you have) are not reliable sources. Your arguments on Pintchman are WP:TE. The multiple sources I have cited are mainstream. You need to provide a reliable scholarly source that challenges Pintchman, Gonda, what is in the article. So far, you haven't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I don't intend to challenge anything. Just stop adding, to the Etymology section, fringe linguistic theories by anthropologists with little knowledge of Sanskrit. And your being PERSONAL does not help in discussing the article with you. — kashmiri TALK 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: I have added summary with multiple WP:RS. Multiple implies it is not a fringe theory. Your are free to hold whatever opinions /prejudices /wisdom you want to. To show something is fringe, you need to provide scholarly reliable sources. You haven't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I am drafting a RfC here, but wonder why you deleted the hatnote I added and why you restored duplication of Maya as Buddha's mother and Maya as personal name. Just for the fun of reverting? — kashmiri TALK 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC) As to your comments, several scholarly sources starting from MW testify that there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit. Those saying differently express a fringe view. — kashmiri TALK 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Once again, you are free to believe "there is no ma mother in Sanskrit" or whatever else you want. Once again, your view is simply not consistent with WP:RS such as Monier-Williams. I have the Monier-Williams on my desk. Which page number are you referring to, under which article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC) page 804. — kashmiri TALK 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Kashmiri: Page 804 confirms the "measure" part, once again. Did you miss the next two entries? See Mata, mother in MW; and look for its etymological roots. MW is old. See other more recent WP:RS, such as August Schleicher's 2014 book on A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages, Volume 2, pages 222-223. Ma is linked to mother (Mā-tar) in Sanskrit, and other Indo-European languages, writes Schleicher. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Correct, mā- is a PIE root with a -tr- agent suffix, as Wiktionary shows anyway, but it is not a Sanskrit verbal root: Sanskrit uses only the form mātr-. Hence, we should be clear on this and also shouldn't use the root symbol (it is used only for Skt roots). mā- is to measure, sure, and hope you now see that it only is spelled with ā (not short a). And no, mātr "mother" is not related to mā- "to measure", so māyā, if we claim is related to mā-, cannot be simultaneously "related to mātr". Of course, any relation of maya and mātr is fiction, a fringe view, or simply a nice explanation that comes handy when presenting own theories of the goddess in India: as testified by MW (and things have not changed since!), the earliest, Vedic usage of the word had nothing to do with "mother goddess", nor was even the goddess worshipped at the time (at least not by those professing the Vedic religion). I can't quote a source at the moment but I am willing to bet that māyā, like thousands other PIE words, is a primary word and it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots. — kashmiri TALK 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Please skip WP:FORUM-y lectures, your OR, and implying wiktionary as a reliable source. Wiki articles summarize reliable sources, not your personal opinions. The summary in the etymology section is sourced to WP:RS, and it stays. If you find an RS that says something different or additional, we can summarize it too for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) (ps): Neither the article nor the source states that the Vedic usage was about mother goddess. Etymology is a study of the origin of a word and the way in which the meaning of that word has changed, expanded or evolved over history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: One more WP:PERSONAL attack and I am reporting you to ANI, as you show a pattern of disparaging attitude towards fellow editors. I am ending the discussion here as you are clearly unable to have discussions without insulting others. — kashmiri TALK 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC) etymology @Ms Sarah Welch: @Kashmiri: Maya was a personal name and a title in ancient Egypt; where the word today also means water (or denoted ones who came from across the water). There are quite a few books exploring and/or extrapolating similarities in the grammatical forms of Maya and Egyptian languages, noting cultural similarities between them; but that is beside the point here. Would like to bring your attention to a similar context of water with Apam Napat (son of waters) controversially associated with Varuna as can be read from encyclopedia iranica. In the previous version of this article (see) had mentioned association of asuri-maya with varuna. It is obvious the etymology of the word can be controversial. I agree with Kashmiri that maya is a primary word and "it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots". It is obvious the association of maya with Varuna points to a concept which also involves Varuna's Zoroastrian and pre-Zoroastrian links as with Apam Napat, or as nature / cult god. I fail to understand why Sarah Welch is keen to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" which supposedly means "to measure". In addition, I strongly oppose the claim that "These roots are also related to the root mā, which means mother and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[10]". Does not Gonda know mA in Sanskrit means no or don't? Sarah Welch, please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Thank you. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Mayasutra: This article is on Maya (illusion), not water. Wikipedia articles are not an indiscriminate collection of information per WP:WWIN, and talk pages are not forum for discussing random topics such Encyclopedia Iranica and Apam Napat. "Varuna's supernatural power is called Maya" is still in the current version of the article, in the literature section, so I do not understand what your concern is. The rest of your "it is obvious" is WP:OR. If you have a reliable source, mention it with page number, and we can consider it. On rest, you can oppose whatever you want, hold whatever opinions/wisdom/prejudice you wish, but we need to stick to faithfully summarizing WP:RS such as those in this etymology section. @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Ofcourse this article is on Maya (illusion). It is apparent you do not get the concept which asuri-maya or maya signifies. Neither can you trivilize Apam Napat / Varuna into 'random topics' when you retain the sentence that Varuna's supernatural power is called Maya. It is obvious what my concern is, unless you do not read well. Let me repeat it for you -- I agree with Kashmiri that maya is a primary word and "it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots". It is obvious you need to explain two things: (1) What is the need to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" which supposedly means "to measure"? (2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct. Anyways, please reply to the above 2 points. We shall take it from there. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra replies (ec) I am not sure what Mayasutra is trying to get at. It seems partly contesting RS with OR (ma means mother? etc.), arguing DUE about etymology (which should always be there, properly sourced) and alluding to some vague connections between Egyptian maya and Sanskrit maya. @Mayasutra: please focus on one issue at a time. If you have reliably sourced information, please add it. No need to discuss unless somebody objects to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Re (1), if sources talk about etymology then we do too. If you have sources that say maya is a primary word that doesn't need etymology, please mention them and we can find a WP:BALANCE. Re (2), we don't need to know whether Gonda is correct as per WP:TRUTH. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) But we use widely accepted theories published in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and not obscure marginal views not confirmed anywhere else. Moreover, we don't publish theories which are known to be false. — kashmiri TALK 15:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Kautilya, prefer to have Sarah Welch and Kashmiri dealing with this. No point having too many people involved in this. Have made myself clear in the second post with points (1) and (2). Let Sarah Welch answer that please. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Hi Mayasutra, Thanks for drawing my attention to this discussion again. On the points you mentioned, my stance is as follows: (1) There is only one verbal root mā in Sanskrit (per Monier-Williams). It means "to measure". It is unrelated to māyā, not least because Sanskrit does not know a nominal suffix -yā that would add to bare roots; and also because primary suffixes tend to preserve the original meaning whilst meaning of māyā was always "illusion" and not "measuring", "measure", etc. (unless in later reinterpretation). (2) Mā means "mother" in Hindi and a few modern Indic languages. No proof the word existed in this meaning in Vedic times, even less in PIE language. Gonda is plainly wrong. (3) Mā "(do) not" is unrelated to either: connectives are never derived from verbal roots, not in Sanskrit nor in any other language known to me. Historically, how could they be? I can't fathom the noun māyā as related to the connective, either. (4) I am not aware of any academic study that would establish a relation between PIE and ancient Egyptian - will be really surprised if it was true. Would you mind linking one? Thanks, — kashmiri TALK 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Spot on. I should not have mentioned the egyptian part - now realize it was not a good idea :( Am keen to have Sarah Welch replying to the points (1) and (2) in my reply to her. So, lets wait to hear about that. Since the article mentions the Sankya view, it would be an injustice to leave the Pancharatra view out. Perhaps we could work on adding the Pancharatra view to the article after the etymology is resolved. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Hi, google search gives few papers linking PIE with ancient egyptian cognates, like this one. Find a few books on that topic too from google books. Will have a look at all of them, and try to find a good academic paper linking PIE with ancient Egyptian; with something that mentions maya hopefully :) --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mayasutra:, @Kashmiri: Please avoid converting this talk page into a forum to discuss your personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice, per WP:TPNO guidelines. The etymology section has multiple sources, and Jan Gonda etc are well accepted, widely cited scholars. If you have a reliable source(s) or publications from equally prominent scholars, then as @Kautilya3 states, we can add that in for WP:BALANCE. I have no objections to additional content if it meets wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. However, your OR or personal opinions cannot be the basis of what gets deleted or added to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry but Gonda is wrong. Which is why I need to request you to resolve the 2 points above. Kashmiri has put it in a better way (I was not aware of Monier-Williams meaning of measure for mA, so thanks for it). Have rephrased the first point below. Sarah Welch, please let us know: (1) What is the need to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" when it is not related to maya? (2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Your reference (gonda) is not correct. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Mayasutra: See @Kautilya3's comment above. Quit contesting WP:RS. Quit WP:OR. Quit your WP:Forum-y lecturing. Respect the wikipedia talk page and content policies. Feel free to take this to DRN or ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Oh my my... Could you follow what you preach please? Instead of asking others to quit, quit, quit; why don't you just answer those 2 points? If you remain stubborn, then, yeah, will take this to DRN or ANI. Let's try what you have to say here first. Am sure you are aware yourself that mA does not mean mother in Sanskrit (but do not want to admit Gonda is wrong for whatever reason), nor is it possible to link the so-called root "√ma", or "mā" to the concept maya. So, please make yourself clear with those 2 points above. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mayasutra: See you at DRN / ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Sure. Please let me know once you are are done with putting up dispute resolution. Not sure ANI applies here. Good luck. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Mayasutra: Well, you threatened, "If you remain stubborn, then, yeah, will take this to DRN or ANI". I remain "stubborn" that you should quit OR, FORUM-y lecturing, and contesting RS. Go ahead, you file. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ROFL :) This is childish. You first mentioned taking this to DRN/ANI; so asked you to go ahead. Am sure everything sounds threatening to you now. Anyways, stop playing games. Either answer these 2 points or remove them from the article: (1) There is no need to mention the so-called root of "√ma", or "mā" when it is not related to maya. Kashmiri put it very precisely. So, explain your viewpoint why you want it mentioned in the article. (2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Am sure you too are aware your reference (gonda) is not correct in this. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mayasutra: It is not my viewpoint. It is the summary sourced from WP:RS such as by Jan Gonda and other scholars. It stays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Glad you realized childish behavior cannot help; and have responded sensibly. Nope, it is your viewpoint. Go ahead and explain those 2 points and how Gonda sourced it. How did Gonda link "√ma", or "mā" to maya? Your profile shows you know sanskrit. Do you think mA means mother in sanskrit? It is obvious you want to protect Gonda's falsity for whatever reasons. Which cannot help. So, go ahead and reply to those 2 points. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra monier williams source @Ms Sarah Welch: Ref to your latest addition here. Does Monier Williams derive the word maya from the root of "√ma", or "mā"? What is the rationale of using this reference? Yet to hear from you about the 2 points above. Why are you bent on Gonda's misrepresentation? Putting the extract from Monier Williams for mA and mAyA; so the difference can be noted (the vedic usage for mA has always been no or don't, or not, a point of negation): L. indicates Lexicographers, esp. such as अमरसिंह , हलायुध , हेमचन्द्र , &c. मा Westergaard Dhatupatha links: 24.54, 25.6 Whitney Roots links: mA1, mA2, mA3 (H1) म 4 [p= 771,2] [L=153876.1] m. time L. [L=153877] poison L. [L=153878] a magic formula L. [L=153879] (in music) N. of the 4th note of the scale (abbreviated for मध्यम) [L=153880] the moon L. [L=153881] N. of various gods (of ब्रह्मा , विष्णु , शिव , and यम) L. (H1B) मा a [L=153882] f. a mother L. (H1B) मा [L=153883] f. measure L. (H1B) मा [L=153884] f. authority ( -त्व n. ) Nya1yam. (H1B) मा [L=153885] f. light L. (H1B) मा [L=153886] f. knowledge L. (H1B) मा [L=153887] f. binding , fettering L. (H1B) मा [L=153888] f. death L. (H1B) मा [L=153889] f. a woman's waist L. (H1B) म [L=153890] n. (connected with √ 3. मा) happiness , welfare L. (H1B) म [L=153891] n. water L. (H1) मा 1 [p= 804,1] [L=161686] ind. (causing a following छ् to be changed to च्छ् Pa1n2. 6-1 , 74) not , that not , lest , would that not RV. &c [L=161686.05] a particle of prohibition or negation = Gk. μή , most commonly joined with the Subjunctive i.e. the augmentless form of a past tense (esp. of the aor. e.g. म्/आ नो वधीर् इन्द्र , do not slay us , O इन्द्र RV. ; मा भैषीः or मा भैः , do not be afraid MBh. ; तपोवन-वासिनाम् उपरोधो मा भूत् , let there not be any disturbance of the inhabitants of the sacred grove S3ak. ; often also with स्म e.g. मा स्म गमः , do not go Bhag. cf. Pa1n2. 3-3, 175 ; 176 in the sense of , " that not , lest " also यथा मा e.g. यथा मा वो मृत्युः परि-व्यत्का इति , that death may not disturb you , Pras3naUp. ; or मायथा e.g. मा भूत् काला*त्ययो यथा , lest there be any loss of time R. ; मा न with aor. Subj. = Ind , without a negative e.g. मा द्विषो न वधीर् मम , do slay my enemies Bhat2t2. cf. Va1m. v, 1, 9; rarely with the augmentless impf. with or without स्म e.g. मई*नम् अभिभाषथाः , do not speak to him R. ; मा स्म करोत् , let him not do it Pa1n2. 6-4, 74 Sch. ; exceptionally also with the Ind. of the aor. e.g., मा , कालस् त्वाम् अत्य्-गात् , may not the season pass by thee MBh.; cf. Pa1n2. 6-4, 75 Sch.) [L=161686.10] or with the Impv. (in RV. only viii , 103, 6, मा नो हृणीताम् [ SV. हृणीतास्] @agni4H , may अग्नि not be angry with us; but very often in later language e.g. मा क्रन्द do not cry MBh.; गच्छ वा मा आ , you can go or not go ib.; रिपुर् अयम् माजायताम् , may not this foe arise, S3a1ntis3.; also with स्म e.g. मा स्व किं चिद् वचो वद do not speak a word MBh.) [L=161686.15] or with the Pot. (e.g. मा यमम् पश्येयम् , may l not » यम ; esp. माभुजेम in RV.) [L=161686.20] or with the Prec. (only once in मा भूयात् , may it not be R. [B.] ii , 75 , 45) [L=161686.25] or sometimes with the fut. (= that not , lest e.g. मात्वां शप्स्ये , lest I curse thee MBh. cf. Vop. xxv , 27) [L=161686.30] or with a participle (e.g. माजीवन्यो दुःखदग्धो जीवति , he ought not to live who lives consumed by pain Pan5cat.; गतः स मा , he cannot have gone Katha1s.; मई*वम्प्रा*र्थ्यम् , it must not be so requested BhP.) [L=161686.35] sometimes for the simple negative न (e.g. कथम् मा भूत् , how may it not be Katha1s. ; मा गन्तुम् अर्हसि , thou oughtest not to go, R; मा भूद् आगतः , can he not i.e. surely he must have arrived Amar.) [p= 804,2] [L=161686.40] occasionally without a verb (e. g. मा शब्दः or शब्दम् , do not make a noise Hariv.; मा नाम रक्षिणः , may it not be the watchmen Mr2icch. ; मा भवन्तम् अनलः पवनो वा , may not fire or wind harm thee Va1m. v, 1, 14; esp. = not so e.g. मा प्रातृद , not so, O प्रातृद S3Br.; in this meaning also मा मा , मा मै*वम् , मा तावत्) [L=161686.45] in the वेद often with उ (म्/ओ*) = and not , nor (e.g. म्/आ मघ्/ओनः प्/अरि ख्यतम् मो॑* अस्म्/आकम् /ऋष्णाम् , do not forget the rich lords nor us the poets RV. v, 65, 6 ; and then usually followed by ष्/उ = स्/उ e.g. मो* ष्/उ णः न्/इरृतिर् वधीत् , let not निरृतिर् on any account destroy us, i, 38, 6) [L=161686.50] in S3Br. स्म मा - म्/ओ स्म = neither - nor (in a prohibitive sense). (H1) मा 2 [L=161693] cl.3 P. म्/इमाति (accord. to Dha1tup. xxv , 6 A1. मिमीते SV. मिमेति ; Pot. मिमीयत् Ka1t2h. ; pf. , मिमाय ; aor. /अमीमेत् Subj. मीमयत् ; inf. म्/आतव्/ऐ) , to sound, bellow, roar, bleat (esp. said of cows, calves, goats &c ) RV. AV. Br. : Intens., only pr. p. म्/एम्यत् , bleating (as a goat) RV. i, 162, 2. (H1) मा 3 [L=161697] cl.2 P. ( Dha1tup. xxiv , 54) माति  ; cl.3 A1. (xxv , 6) म्/इमीते  ; cl.4. A1. (xxvi , 33) मायते (Ved. and ep. also मिमाति Pot. मिमीयात् Impv. , मिमीहि ; Pot. मिमेत् Br. ; pf. मम्/औ , ममे , ममिर्/ए RV. ; aor. /अमासि Subj. म्/आसातै AV. ; अमासीत् Gr. ; Prec. मासीष्ट , मेयात् ib. ; fut. माता ; मास्यति,मास्यते ib. ; inf. म्/ए -म्/ऐ RV. ; मातुम् Br. ; ind.p. मित्व्/आ , -म्/आय RV. &c ) , to measure , mete out , mark off RV. &c; to measure across = traverse RV. ; to measure (by any standard), compare with (instr.) Kum.; (माति) to correspond in measure (either with gen., " to be large or long enough for " BhP. ; or with loc. , " to find room or be contained in " Inscr. Ka1v. ; or with न and instr., " to be beside one's self with " Vcar. Katha1s.) ; to measure out, apportion, grant RV.; to help any one (acc.) to anything (dat.) ib., i, 120, 9; to prepare, arrange, fashion, form, build, make RV.; to show, display, exhibit (अमिमीत, "he displayed or developed himself " , iii, 29, 11) ib.  ; (in phil.) to infer, conclude ; to pray (याच्ञा-कर्मणि) Naigh. iii, 59: Pass. मीय्/अते (aor. अमायि) ; to be measured &c RV. &c &c Caus., मापयति , °ते (aor. अमीमपत् Pa1n2. 7-4 , 93 Va1rtt. 2 Pat. ), to cause to be measured or built, measure, build, erect Up. Gr2S. MBh. &c: Desid. मित्सति , °ते Pa1n2. 7-4, 54; 58 (cf. निर्- √मा): Intens. मेमीयते Pa1n2. 6-4 , 66. [cf. Zd. ma1; Gk. μέτρον , μετρέω ; Lat. me1tior , mensus , mensura; Slav. me8ra; Lith. me3ra4.] (H2) मा 4 [L=161698] f. » under 4. म , [p= 771,2]. Kindly compare with mAyA below: माया (H1) माय [p= 811,1] [L=163076] mfn. ( √3. मा) measuring (» धान्य-म्°) [L=163077] creating illusions (said of विष्णु) MBh. (H1B) माया a [L=163078] f. » below. (H2) माया b [L=163081] f. art , wisdom , extraordinary or supernatural power (only in the earlier language) [L=163082] illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV. &c [L=163083] an unreal or illusory image , phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc. = false , unreal , illusory ; cf. comp.) [L=163084] duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. 69 (in phil.) Illusion (identified in the सांख्य with प्रकृति or प्रधान and in that system , as well as in the वेदा*न्त , regarded as the source of the visible universe) IW. 83 ; 108 [L=163085] (with शैवs) one of the 4 पाशs or snares which entangle the soul Sarvad. MW. [L=163086] (with वैष्णवs) one of the 9 शक्तिs or energies of विष्णु L. [L=163087] Illusion personified (sometimes identified with दुर्गा , sometimes regarded as a daughter of अनृत and निरृति or निकृति and mother of मृत्यु , or as a daughter of अधर्म) Pur. [L=163088] compassion , sympathy L. [L=163089] Convolvulus Turpethum L. [L=163090] N. of the mother of गौतम बुद्ध MWB. 24 [L=163091] of लक्ष्मी W. [L=163092] of a city Cat. [L=163093] of 2 metres Col. [L=163094] du. (माये इन्द्रस्य) N. of 2 सामन्s A1rshBr. @Kashmiri: I suggest removing the so-called root "ma" and replacing the phrase with meaning for mAyA from Monier Williams (as above). Your thoughts please? If at all Gonda's version must be mentioned (though erroneous) let it be mentioned as Gonda's view alone -- "According to Gonda, the word is....." Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mayasutra: A summary on Maya from Monier-Williams is already in the article, and has been. As @Kautilya3 explained above, you can't battle WP:RS with WP:OR, and for WP:BALANCE we must include different views from various WP:RS. The summary about the root "√mā" is from multiple reliable sources, and it will stay in this article. FWIW, @Mayasutra, you don't need to cut and paste from some website/source such a wall of post, just a link is enough. See the hard copy of Monier-Williams, where there is more on mā including it as root of māta, mātri as mother, on Lakshmi etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I do not have a hard copy of Monnier Williams. Does Monier Williams link "ma" to maya also? Can you post on it? Which are the multiple reliable sources linking "ma" to maya? Yet to get your reply to those 2 points. I disagree with Kautilya, which I shall handle with him. From your part, it will be good if you reply to the points concerned. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Mayasutra: I have and will ignore your two points, and rest of your WP:FORUM-y stuff, per WP:TPNO. You don't run wikipedia, or make rules here. If you are looking for a forum, try another website, wikipedia is not for you. If you don't have a hard copy of Monnier Williams, go to a library. Read the first line of the Etymology section, for the root "√mā". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Ofcourse you have no choice but to ignore. Because you know they are wrong. Funny that you got personal; and now are talking rules. You do not run wiki either (again childish silly statements cannot help you). Sure, I can walk down few mins to the library. But you have a job to do. In addition to the above 2 points, prove how Monier Williams links "ma" to "maya". --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Primary and secondary sources @Kashmiri: In response to this to @Kautilya3 above, please explain why Gonda and Zimmer are not a secondary source? They are not writing the primary texts in Sanskrit, their publications are "an author's own thinking based on primary sources", per WP:SECONDARY. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Note that WP:PRIMARY sources can be used with in-line attribution, which seems to have been done in this case. People can't keep battling RS with OR. They need to bring other RS to ask for BALANCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kautilya, I disagree with this stand - it is incredulous that "we don't need to know whether Gonda is correct as per WP:TRUTH" - which means any book can be used as a reference, irrespective of whether it is correct or not. Such an approach does not behoove well for wiki. If that be the case anyone can extrapolate sitting in an academic chair and peddle POVs. I have a suggestion. Why not rephrase to say "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology." Then go on to provide individual views as is done with William Mahony, Franklin Southworth, etc. You could say, "According to so and so, maya probably comes from the root ""√mā"", which means to measure". When you say that, it would be helpful to have a verse from the Rigveda to show that ma (to measure) is the 'way and context in which maya is used in the rigvedic tradition' (to support Donald Braue's reference or Tracy Pintchman's stance). So, please provide a verse from Rig (similar to the maya-bheda verse provided in the article). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Mayasutra: If you find it incredible that any reliable source can be used as a reference then I am afraid you have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. That is why I referred you to WP:TRUTH. If you want to question the policies of Wikipedia, you need to do so at the Village Pump, not here. Some of the valid reasons to exclude particular sources include other reliable sources contradicting them (WP:WEIGHT), the author lacking expertise for the subject at hand (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), etc. But nothing in Wikipedia policies says you can exclude them because you disagree with them. The second part of your post where you say "why not rephrase" etc. is fine. You can do it as long as you develop consensus for it on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Re to Kautilya @Kautilya3: You misunderstood the context. Whatever be the case, you could have said it in a better way. You chose not to. So, now it seems the lines have been drawn? It is apparent how some editors use wiki policies. Here's why you should be at the village pump: (1) Monier Williams gives no case to link ma (to measure) with maya. So, how does Ms.Sarah Welch use this reference? (2) Ms.Sarah Welch provides 2 citations, besides Gonda; that is, Tracy Pintchman and Donald Braue. From page 2-4, Tracy Pitchman makes a case for maya linking shakti with prakriti; wherein she says "The term māyā comes from √ma, "to measure," and can denote Brahman's creative yet delusive power...." - this is the only book which states emphatically that maya comes from √ma "to measure" and can be represented in the article as stated above, "According to so and so (Tracy Pintchman), maya comes from the root...." It is necessary to mention so because it is indeed 'according to Tracy Pitchman' who provides no reference for her statement. (3) Donald Braue says this in p.101: Etymologically the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā which means: (1) measure; (2) measure with, compare; (3) mete out; (4) arrange form; build; make.1 Therefore, the literal meaning of māyā is "that which measures, arranges, forms, builds, makes." Whitney says the primary meaning of √ma is "to measure." 2 L.Thomas O'Neil agrees 3 in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition. Radhakrishnan writes: "Maya is that which measure out, moulds forms in the formless."4 Unfortunately, the etymological meaning of māyā is only the tip of the proverbian iceberg. Most meanings of māyā in Radhakrishnan do not meet the etymological eye. Radhakrishnan summarizes the meaning of māyā five times:......It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Radhakrishnan thinks the term māyā has six meanings. The author then goes on to explain each of those, as (1) Maya as inexplicable mystery (2) Maya as power of self-becoming, (3) Maya as duality of consciousness and matter (4) Maya as primal matter (5) Maya as concealment (6) Maya: community, need and affection. It is apparent Ms.Sarah Welch has chosen to take a part of Braue's statement. Secondly, Braue's own reference does not mention the root mā: 1 Charles Rockwell Lanman, A Sanskrit Reader, p.215, says -maya). "1. measure; " 2. measure manavaka, m. manikin, dwarf, [man- with, compare; " 3. mete out; " 4. arrange, form; build; make, 72 2. [for 1, matarigvan, m. Matarivan, mystic... It does not say the root is mā. Subsequently in p.216 (which is not part of the reference Sarah Welch provided, Lanman says maya, f. -1. (a working, and so) a power; esp,. in Veda, supernatural or wonderful power; wile; -2. later, trick; illusion. [of √1 mā , 'make, i.e, have effect, work,; 1149, cf.258.] Here, he uses the context of mā for 'make, have effect, work'. There is no 'measure'. It is also apparent there are many ways and contexts in which maya is used in the Rigvedic tradition. If this source must be used, the author's view in bold must be mentioned. (4) FINALLY, if ma must be mentioned as the sanskrit root word, why would you ignore the distribution of nostratic pronoun stems of *mi-/*me- and *ma-/*mə in PIE, PAA, Sumerian, Afroasiatic; as per the book "The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship, by Allan R Bomhard and John C Kerns, p.3-4"? In any case, there are enough books that will suffice WP:TRUTH and reliable source to represent ma for water; including monier-williams. So, why is Sarah Welch keen to represent the view of Gonda and Tracy Pintchman with ma for measure? If you are going to use context of modern lexicographers of ma for mother; why not mention other meanings of ma too? Why not have a consensus in representing the multiple meanings of ma? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra If I am a typical reader, I think constructing Sanskrit etymologies is a huge industry, most of which are far-fetched and don't make a whole lot of sense. But that is not a problem that Wikipedia can fix. We just report what the scholars say. Sine in-line attribution is being used, our requirements are satisfied. In today's version, two facts that catch my attention are (1) That Monier Williams thought that, in the older language, maya meant great power, nothing to do with magic. This is presumably connected to how asuras were originally great powerful gods whereas, later, they became magical demons, at least in India. (2) That in Avestan maya meant magical power. These ideas pose a question to historians as to when maya turned magical and how the Iranian asuras escaped the magical turn. If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them. I don't see MSW objecting to such. It is only when you say you want to exclude RS because you disagree with them that problems arise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Remember also that "etymology" is only a study of where the word comes from. It is not an analysis of where the meaing comes from. The meaning can evolve even after a word has formed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) What you are saying is that you agree to point (4) above. Can you confirm? so that I can proceed to list out the multiple meanings of ma in PIE root; including the context of water as has been used in vedic sanskrit (have listed some sources below). For the sources I provide, I expect and request Kashmiri to work on it; to represent in the article. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Kautilya3: Based on what you said, have edited the etymology section to reflect other meanings of ma and listed each author's view separately. Though insignificant, have included -- root ""√mā"" or "mā" -- to reflect representation in Donald Braue's reference. Let me know if changes are required. The explanation of maya as per siddha/nath and pancharatra will go into the literature section which is best left to Kashmiri to do so. @Kashmiri: Please let me know if the etymology section is acceptable to you. By separating out Gonda's and Pintchman's views out as their own (as is represented for other authors, Shastri, Zimmer, Mahony, Southworth); we reach a compromise wherein the author's view is mentioned, but is also left to the discretion of the reader based on multiple meanings. I do agree with you that maya has no root word; however this is the best way we have, to work on wiki. If this is settled, I request you to include maya from siddha and pancharatra in the literature section. I have no academic background in these topics (it is a long persistent interest at best); am verbose and afraid I cannot do justice to representation of maya from various schools of thought as wiki would require in brief. The only thing I would insist on is a few lines to represent Varuna as the sole custodian of maya before Indra took it on (in vedic literature), and a few lines on Apam-Napat/Varuna from the Zoroastrian school. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra re I will let @Kautilya3 review the section and reply to any comments above, if appropriate. FWIW, the section already acknowledges "unclear etymology" and equivalent. On [4] and Allan Bomhard source, I am fine with adding something from page 661 and 674 where 'maya' is mentioned, such as *maya (earth, land), Finnish maa (...). I do not see support for adding Iran, Egypt and water, as @Mayasutra mentioned earlier, based on what is in Bomhard. Some WP:RS needs to link Maya to water, just like Zimmer links Maya to mother. We can not do WP:OR-synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Kautilya certainly needs to review and reply to this. It is appropriate. You do not have to say that (unless you want to make wiki policies). Did I say Iran, Egypt? What's the matter with you? Monier-williams mentions water and poison. If you have Zimmer for mother, Pintchman for measure; and includ Monier-Williams to represent your case; let the case be represented in its entirety; not selectively with a handful of authors as you have done so. In any case, let's have Kautilya reply to this first. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra replies @Ms Sarah Welch: Secondary sources are those that summarise or review primary sources. To give a prime example, a paper that proposes a new treatment for cancer will be a primary source (such papers are usually labelled as "Original research articles" in academic journals). But A Review of Available Therapies for Cancer will be a secondary source (note "Review" in title). Neither Gonda's not Zimmer's publications are summaries/reviews of other publications - rather, they present authors' original interpretation of Sanskrit texts. One of the key reasons Wikipedia insists on secondary sources is in order to exclude fringe opinions. Like, treating cancer with carrot juice. Anyone is free to publish such a fringe opinion - primary research is hard to verify - but of course such method will not be included in a scholarly review of cancer therapies. Sure, there is nothing wrong with adding primary sources provided they are clearly marked as the author's own opinion. Gonda's suggestion of a linguistic link between "maya" and "mother" is such a minority opinion, his original research - no one else supports this IMHO. Hence my reservation whether such a marginal view should at all be included in this short Wikipedia article. — kashmiri TALK 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: A research paper on a new treatment of cancer is indeed primary, but a paper or book on ancient texts is secondary. The ancient texts are primary. Any modern scholarship on historical texts is secondary, because it is by a secondary author and one step removed from the primary authors. See WP:PSTS. Regardless, as @Kautilya explains, attribution is adequate for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) No no no, Sanskrit texts for Gonda are like the disease for a medical writer; they are the object of study. Gonda is not reviewing the texts: he offers his own original deconstruction of certain concepts in those texts :) — kashmiri TALK 16:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) The texts used by Gonda do not state that maya is related to ma "mother" - not least because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit. It's Gonda's own theory :) — kashmiri TALK 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: As soon as a published scholar offers their interpretation or opinion of an issue, they are creating - by definition - a secondary source. The very essence of a secondary source is that is an analysis of prior sources. We need secondary sources to create Wikipedia content because we need expert analysis and opinion to provide that content. We are not capable of carrying out that analysis ourselves. Our job is to identify all of the relevant reliable sources. These are the sources that are published in media which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: for example, peer-reviewed journals with a high impact factor, books from a respected publisher with editorial oversight. This is how we are assured of the quality of what is written. You are not qualified to judge the accuracy of a source based on your own amateur opinion. We can judge accuracy only by comparison with other equally reliable sources. Where they agree, we summarise them. Where they disagree, we attribute them and state their conclusions neutrally. If you want to claim that Gonda's view has little currency in the mainstream, then you're going to have to either supply an overwhelming number of equally reliable sources that contradict him, or a reliable source that clearly states the Gonda's view is not mainstream. Your own opinion is not sufficient to do that. I hope I've been clear here. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @RexxS: Happy to see that you know how we use sources on Wikipedia. See, the problem was, Gonda's book is a primary source (as are the majority if not all of his books), but the etymology he proposed was mentioned in this article as if it was a generally accepted truth. As you might see, it has now been correctly attributed. As to whether my opinion is "amateur" or not, you will forgive me but I will not disclose my real name and academic credentials. But I am warning you that this sort of personal attacks is unwelcome on Wikipedia. — kashmiri TALK 21:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) And I'm sad to see that you don't understand how we use sources on Wikipedia. In addition, don't patronise me, especially when it's clear that you don't know what you're pontificating about. The actual problem is that you don't understand that Gonda's book is a reliable secondary source. Jan Gonda was a professor of Sanskrit and a published expert in the field and I don't give a rat's ass who you are. You're just an editor and your opinion on Gonda's work is worthless here. Any opinion you put forward on Wikipedia is by definition amateur and you need to get a grip on your tendentious editing. That's your warning. If you want to argue the toss about the reliability of a source, the Reliable sources noticeboard is that-a-way. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC) @RexxS: Indeed, spot on. @Kashmiri: Monier Williams traces "mother to mā in Sanskrit" on page 764, along with other meanings/etymology. It is strange, and not constructive, that you keep FORUM-y repeating your own OR, such as 'because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit', regardless of what WP:RS such as Monier Williams are stating. As @Kautilya3 and @RexxS explained above, if you have other WP:RS, instead of your personal opinion/wisdom/prejudice, we can consider it and add it for WP:BALANCE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: Check your references please - MW 764 contains words from bhūri to bhṛtya. If you had in mind 4. ma (MW 771), "L." signals that the meaning has never been encountered in Sanskrit usage/text and has only been listed by modern lexicographers. I am also surprised such an intelligent person as you certainly are keeps slapping FORUM on whoever contradicts you, even though WP:FORUM relates specifically to article space and not to Talk pages. Ever bothered reading? — kashmiri TALK 21:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Aren't you capable of reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines? WP:FORUM states quite clearly " In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". Which bit of that didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Kashmiri: You are not looking at the identified edition. See MW Page 764. Regarding FORUM, click on WP:TPNO, and read the last bullet; also its opening line about repeated violations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Sure we are not discussing the concept of Maya but how to source the article. Didn't notice that? BTW, this is a guideline, not a policy, see hatnote. — kashmiri TALK 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Perhaps you missed the following line, that I requested you to read, "Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Wikipedia guidelines enjoy general project-wide consensus. Although there may be more exceptions to guidelines that to policies, you risk losing your editing privileges just as quickly by flouting guidelines without good reason. You may take that as a warning as well. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Don't worry about my editing privileges, they are precisely one of the topics that should NOT to be discussed on an article's Talk page in the light of rules you mentioned. — kashmiri TALK 21:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Falsifying sources Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) This [5] edit of yours seems to be deliberate attempt to falsify the sources so that they suit the theory you are pushing. You have prepared your "quote" from Monier-Williams dictionary to look as if mata "mother" was listed in the dictionary under ma "measure". You have made what Monier-Williams listed under three separate entries look as if they were under ma "measure". That's a blatant attempt at falsifying sources. I will disappoint you: Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary is available online for anyone to verify. [6] Page 771 col 2: म 4. ma m. time, L.; poison, L.; a magic formula, L.; a music note, L.; the moon, L.; name of various gods (...), L.; mā, f. a mother, L.; measure, L.; authority, Nyayam.; a light, L.; knowledge, L.; .... — note the "L.", which means "meaning only found in lexicons". Page 804 col 2: मा 3. mā (...) to measure; ... 1. mātri m. a measurer, Nir. XI, 15; one who measures across or traverses, RV. VIII, 41, 4 (cf. 10); a knower, one who has true knowledge, Cat.; ... I am unable to find what dictionary entry you took your "ja-mātri", etc., part from - it's none of the above. So, in your edit, you misleadingly combined all of these separate meanings from different dictionary entries to appear as if they all were listed undr ma "to measure". Additionally, please note that Monier-Williams, a TERTIARY SOURCE, expressly states (page 807 col. 1): mātri 3. f. (derivation from 3. mā ["to measure"] very doubtful; ...) a mother, any mother; (...) A single Gonda going against an established and respected tertiary source in a footnote of his book is not sufficient to overturn the consensus that the tertiary source expresses. As to your intentional falsification of sources, I am left with no choice but referring the matter to appropriate boards. I am also removing the entire reference you added since it is fake. — kashmiri TALK 22:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: MW Page 764, column 3, starting 1/3 from the top, particularly the last 20 lines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC) That's the first edition (1872). The corrected 2nd edition (1899) is normally used. — kashmiri TALK 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Here is another by Hatley, [1] a scholarly source published in 2012, on mā, mātṛ, and mother. So we now have three sources, versus your personal view / OR. All this is merely related to a mention of Jan Gonda versus your FORUM-y repetition such as 'because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC) References S Hatley (2012). István Keul, ed. Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond. Walter de Gruyter. p. 99. ISBN 978-3-11-025811-0. Jeez, how people read what they want to read. Where does Hatley say that mā or amman are in Sanskrit? FYI, the former is Hindi, the latter is Telugu and Tamil, boy, not Sanskrit. Try to improve your viśiṣṭa-dṛṣṭi, it is indispensable if you want to be an academic! — kashmiri TALK 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The word Sanskrit is on that page of Hatley source. The expanded 2008 version of Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary original, hosted by Universität zu Köln, too has 'mā and mother'; Adding a sentence each from Gonda and Zimmer expands the diversity of views in the section, which is WP:NPOV. @Kashmiri: your behavior since January 2016, attacking multiple professors and Indologists such as Gonda and Pintchman as "wrong" and questioning their competence, because your opinion is "right", not doing what @Kautilya3 and @RexxS have suggested, deleting sources and content, etc, is disruptive, WP:TE and not helpful in improving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC) What you are doing is POV pushing. Which is why you get personal when there is no need to. Please see my reply to Kautilya above. Let there be common consensus on representing multiple meanings of 'ma'. Let each author's view be mentioned seperately as is already done in the article with authors like William Mahony and Franklin Southworth. Do you agree (1) to have common consensus and (2) to represent each author's view seperately? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mayasutra: The etymology section already represents each author's view separately, because almost all sentences start with "According to X..." or equivalent. Don't cast aspersions such as of "What you are doing is POV pushing". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) If I had to cast aspersions, I would say other things. Do not assume. I cud care a rat's ass for who you are because you too are just an editor here, getting support from places in ways that are not constructive. If what you are doing is not POV pushing you should have replied to my 2 points above. You chose not to; and instead got personal. Anyways, now (1) let me know if you are willing for common consensus in representing multiple meanings of 'ma'. (2) And nope, your claim (of already representing each author's view separately) is convoluted. Currently the page reads "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root ""√mā"",[10][11] which means "to measure".[12][13]". I suggested (to Kautilya) to break the sentence into ""Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology." Then proceed to add "According to so and so, maya is....". So that way you will be representing Pintchman and Gonda's view separately; just as you have done so with other authors William Mahony and Franklin Southworth. Do you agree to these 2 points now? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Yes, @Ms Sarah Welch, it represents now, because I managed to add this despite your constant attacks and reverts.[7]. You still keep refusing to follow the most up-to-date edition of Monier-Williams's Great Sanskrit English Dictionary and the consensus on the Proto-Indo-European roots expressed in the Wictionary. Instead, you derided Wiktionary; keep pushing fringe views from cherrypicked non-linguistic publications (which basically propose, in true spirit of Hinduism, that everything is the same and all words can be related to each other; does "theory of matrika" sounds a bell?); and manipulate dictionary entries. All this is accompanied by personal attacks. Look, I have translated numerous Sanskrit texts, much more complex than Hitopadeśa or Gita, at the time you perhaps were learning your mother tongue; and conducted studies of PIE language. I did not mention this earlier here because I wanted to focus exclusively on sources and show you the difference between linguists and anthropologists. Nevertheless, if someone tries to push a view that the the noun maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma and ya, as you did [8], then I will block adding such nonsense to Wikipedia; even if someone managed to get this printed. I insist that in all etymology discussions, we stick to Monier-Williams Dictionary, 1899, a widely respected tertiary source, unless newer linguistic research has proposed a different etymology which is attested in a secondary or tertiary source. Publications by anthropologists, philosophers, poets, religious scholars, gurus, etc., should be removed from Etymology sections. Hope I can ask for this. — kashmiri TALK 17:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, of course you've translated numerous Sanskrit texts, just like I got a Nobel Prize for Literature. Anybody can claim anything in a medium where editing is anonymous, so your preening and posturing cuts no ice here. Now you look, I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather, sonny, so you can save that supercilious attitude for elsewhere. You can insist all you want, but editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus and you don't have any consensus to insist on just using one source that suits your fancy. Read WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's all of the significant views, not just the one that fits your POV. Attempting to remove reliable sources simply because you don't like them personally is a sure-fire route to the end of your editing career. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC) the case for vedic maya and thirumular's maya I agree with Kashmiri that we stick to Monier Williams. Would like to hear from Kautilya on it. In addition I suggest the following sources be included in the article. Pasting the text. Request Kashmiri to put in his own words in the article, since am not sure I can get it right (in the way it is represented): (1) Keith A.B., The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads (chapter Maya and Prakrti Illusion and Nature), p.529-532. Would esp bring to your attention this from p.531: " The precise character of the nature of the external world is summed up finally in the doctrine of the Cvetasvatara upanishad which sees in the world other than the absolute---which it conceives in a theistic way--an illusion, Māyā, a term thus first introduced into the philosophy of the Upanishads, to become, through the adoption of this theory of the universe by Gaudapada and Cankara, the basis of the orthodox Vedanta system. It would, however, it is clear be a mistake to regard the new term as being a mere individual innovation of the Cvetacvatara school without previous preparation in the literary tradition. The idea of the concealment of the divine nature by illusion is seen in the Atharvaveda,8 where it is said that the flower of the water, who is Hiranyagarbha, the personal Brahman, in whom are fixed gods and men as spokes in a nave, is concealed by illusion, and the illusion of Indra in his many shapes are mentioned in the Rigveda". (2) Heinrich Zimmer, Joseph Campbell, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization p.34-35: "Waters are understood as a primary materialization of Vishnu's Māyā-energy....Therefore, in the symbolism of the myths to dive into water means to delve into the mystery of māyā, to quest after the ultimate secret of life". (3) F. Max Müller (ed)., Vedic hymns, Part 2, p.224: "Verse 3: Note 1. The meaning seems to be that Agni won vigour (máyah) by dwelling in the waters (see Pada 3); comp the well-known words ápah hí sthá mayah-bhúvah (X.9.1), 'for you, O waters, give vigour.' " (4) Tirumūlar, Iraianban, Vedas: An Extract Of The Universal Values - the verses speak of maya in following ways: (1) as an outcome of Shakti but conjoined with Shakti, (2) as prakriti maya (material) sphere, (3) as the origin of space, (4) as the sphere in which Shiva tattvas reside, (5) as an impurity of ignorance to be surpassed, along with mamaya, in order to see the cosmic dance of Lord Shiva. Am pasting Thirumular's verses on your talk page. Since I do not want to crowd it here. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra I disagree that we artificially restrict our sourcing, just on your say-so. WP:NPOV requires us to represent all significant viewpoints and you're going to have to supply a very good reason to prefer a century-old tertiary source over publications from eminent academics such as Jan Gonda. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Can you read go thru my replies to Kautilya, before you say things? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Gonda's book is a primary source by a non-linguist. Judging from your question about MW Dictionary, you don't seem familiar with Sanskrit studies - but this is the only comprehensive dictionary of Sanskrit language. No, Sanskrit has not changed significantly since 1899, nor since 5th century B.C. for this matter - on Sanskrit etymologies we can safely quote even Panini if I am concerned. — kashmiri TALK 21:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Gonda's book is a secondary source by one of the most eminent Professors of Sanskrit of the last century, who published articles on the language for over 60 years. It's interesting that you don't know about his credentials. Although Vedic Sanskrit certainly has not changed for more than two-and-a-half millennia, scholarly research and analysis continues. It precisely that analysis that Wikipedia makes use of, because we can't trust self-proclaimed experts to do that job. A dictionary is a useful resource, but it is by no means the only source. Gonda was a philologist of considerable repute and his published works are equally authoritative. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Hi @Mayasutra:, the other books you listed can certainly be used but not in the Etymology section please. Neither author appears to be a linguist. I also need to note that the opinions of Keith and Mueller are only of historic value. I would be cautious with Zimmer - "water as primary materialization of Vishnu's Maya" only belongs to Pancaratra and should not be generalised beyond that school of thought ("primary materialization" is also Zimmer's understanding; even though Karana-sagara in Pancaratra is not exactly "matter"). I haven't read Zimmer's book but will prefer that his ideas are clearly marked as such. As to Thirumular, I have no opinion. — kashmiri TALK 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC) The few papers and content (due to lack of translation into english) for Pancharatra are woefully insufficient. Zimmer's thoughts are summarized in this book from p.131-133; more so in a single phrase: "Water is regarded as the primary materialization of Vishnu's maya-energy; and therefore known as a visible manifestation of the divine essence" Yes, of-course I agree it should be in the content section; not the etymology one. For the etymology one, I prefer to have each author's view represented separately. Because Gonda's and Pintchman's views are theirs alone. So, let it be "According to so and so, maya is....". Your thoughts please? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Kashmiri: Jan Gonda has been, as @RexxS notes, an eminent academic, and more importantly widely cited Sanskrit professor on a wide range of concepts in Indian religions, including Maya, the subject of this article. The Monier Williams source is primarily a dictionary that is etymologically and philologically arranged, but not an exhaustive work on etymology. Jan Gonda's work on Maya topic is far more recent than Monier Williams. The etymology and terminology section of this article already cites both, as well as numerous other professors/scholars who are WP:RS. Your snipe at @RexxS, with "you don't seem familiar with Sanskrit studies", is inappropriate. And no Pāṇini, or more appropriately Yāska's work on ancient etymology, is not appropriate, because they are WP:Primary and the meaning of Sanskrit words/concepts did evolve. @Kautilya3, @RexxS and I have already asked you to bring new WP:RS related to Maya (illusion), that are not included in the article, and we delightfully would help you add it to this article, regardless of whether it about Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Siberia, Mongolia or Polynesia. But you don't listen, you are not bringing WP:RS, you just snipe at @RexxS or me, you attack RS/professors with your own OR, and you want WP:RS deleted because they differ from your personal opinion/wisdom/prejudice. Let me invite an admin here. @SpacemanSpiff: could you please clarify the article talk page behavioral policies? Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Again, you get personal. You look for snipes when there are none. Perhaps you want to edge on people to retaliate so you can use that, as an excuse, for your POV pushing. Instead of complaining to SpacemanSpiff, why did you not answer to the 2 points raised earlier? If you did, then it would not be POV pushing. Again, you chose not to; and instead got personal. As for your stance of "delightfully help add", I don't think you speak for Kautilya or anyone else. Since you are the editor here you speak for yourself. Is there a need to say such things? By putting your sentences in such way; what do you want to show? Sorry, but am making it clear that for content Kashmiri and I work on in the talk page; I expect and request Kashmiri to add them to the article (not you please). You have not answered if you agree (1) to have common consensus for multiple meanings of ma and (2) to represent each author's view separately. Yet again, you did not want to reply to that, hence, typically got personal to avoid answering. Neat tactic but it does not help. You need to answer that in order to move ahead. So, answer that please. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @Ms Sarah Welch: Since you prefer getting personal and complain; refuse to respond to 2 points raised earlier (and again did not respond to 2 points mentioned above), I take it that you are disinclined to respond to issues, to move ahead constructively. In view of that, I have edited the etymology section; which have explained to Kautilya above. Before you go into an edit war or change content therein; please seek consensus here. You had ample time to respond to the 2 points and come to common consensus; but you did not do so. Now, its your turn to respect content in the etymology section and if possible, try to stick to the topic instead of getting personal. You cud be a noble winner, or janitor or whatever else you please; but getting personal, bringing in people to get personal, just because you refuse to address issues, does not help you one bit. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra Notice Please discuss and gain consensus on article content citing reliable sources and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Content and evaluation of those should reflect scholarly work, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Also, please do not personalize any disputes, and no personal attacks or motive attribution. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) @SpacemanSpiff, Please note I used reliable reputable references (the ones Sarah Welch uses, Monier Williams and Zimmer). Please see what had included for content in the etymology section -- kindly note, I did not remove Sarah Welch's content. Can you explain the rationale of Sarah Welch in reverting without common consensus?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra @SpacemanSpiff, I do not know if you asked Kautilya to strike out comments (seems he did it on his own, based on your notice). Am I entitled to strike out name-calling offensives by Kautilya, Sarah Welch and RexxS? Just want to know how this works. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra We use the striking-out device, only very rarely, to help focus the discussion on content. I didn't bother doing it for any of the earlier posts even though there has been a lot of finger-pointing here over the last week. Even though there is no bar on any editor striking off-topic remarks, you would be better off leaving it to uninvolved editors. We don't want yet another debate on what should be struck and what should not be. Let us just focus on content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Great. Should have expected that from you. Yeah, you can assume am casting aspersions - because anyways, there is nothing to focus on content here (should be a joke considering Ms.Sarah Welch is not willing for common consensus). That's been made clear on my talk page. You get to hear from me only if RexxS, Ms.Sarah Welch, you, or anyone else gets personal here again. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra BTW, I don't think you get the right to strike out my appreciation for Kashmiri. Am removing that portion. What a shame.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Kashmiri: why again? see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)