Jump to content

Talk:Vastu shastra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

This page makes a lot of unfounded claims. I mean, it only has 1 reference. Sources need to be provided or else information should be removed. 146.186.218.26 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Sayler

One example: "Our blood is nothing but water with haemoglobin and oxygen." That's unfortunate; it is a tiny subset of modern knowledge of the composition of blood. Surely, this is not appropriate in an encyclopedic text. Regards,, Nikevich (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I guess that is what is all about the ancient texts. They make things as simple and as complicated as possible and there is no in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja.shaher (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Components of Vaastu Shastra

This section could use a rewrite specifically. It sounds like a lot of personal research and unfounded claims. Also sounds very POV and needs more objectivity. 146.186.218.26 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Sayler

Yes, this section makes very strong unverified claims. Yet it claims to be scientific. The author should cite sources or references, otherwise this section should be removed. The content of the section doesn't even have anything to do with the title --zaneyboy (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed almost the whole thing, which seems to have been lifted from http://www.saminteriors.com/blog/?p=6. It's possible, of course, that it was the other way around, but the text makes more sense as it appears in the blog than it did on the WP page. Unfortunately this leaves the section almost empty. Any expert help with this? There are clearly other sections of the article that are also copied from other sources and will have to be cleaned up, though this might decimate the article.--Proptology (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vastu sastra as is practiced in India is dependent on ancient texts and local superstitions that are part of indian traditions and customs. I don't think any reference could be made to any contemporary material. Because as far as I know there is'nt any research done on this nor is there any books written on these except by those 'pundits' who give more superstitious meanings to orientation of buildings than scientific reasons. But we can not simply throw vastu aside. It needs discussion and research. I have found that most of the principles advocated in vastu workout scientifically to make the house better oriented and comfortable. A simple example is that of placing Kitchen in the Southeast. Sun rises in the east. Work of cooking starts early in the morning. It makes sense to have the cooking area in the east to make it more ventilated and bright. It also makes sense as the heat generated will be dissipated by the strong winds blowing from southwest (especially in India-deccan plateau) and northeast. In the case of any fire accident the spread of fire will be retarded by the winds blowing from SW and NE and flames will be blown away from the house. This is only one example. Almost every placement of the rooms in a house has a reason that can be scientifically proved. I am sure that all the principles stand scrutiny to reason and science. What is needed is receptiveness, inclination and unbiased research.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja.shaher (talk • contribs) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

merge

Vastu shastra is traditional Hindu architectural theory. We need a comprehensive article on Hindu architecture where whatever is of merit in this article can be merged. Currently, Hindu architecture is a redirect to Hindu temple architecture. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Vastu shastra is an approach to design that finds application in all the visual arts. It needs to remain as a separate article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • do you have any actual reference for that, or do you just base your claim on unreferenced text found in the article? Such references as we have seem to imply that "Vastu-Sastra" is synonymous with "Hindu Science of Architecture". The point is that we do not have a Hindu architecture article. Hindu architecture can be a redirect to Vastu Shastra as well as vice versa, I just surmise that the average reader will be able to get a clearer idea of the article scope if it is titled "Hindu architecture". --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning. As I understand it, Vastu shastra is a set of compositional yantras, and a method of applying compositional yantras. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This [1] and the proceeding few pages seems to indicate that the Vastu Purusha Mandala (a central feature of Vastu Shastra) is the design basis in traditional Indian sculpture. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, it may make sense to treat this as "traditional Hindu art of construction" rather than just "architecture". After all, the Vishvabrahmin/Shilpi comprise architects and sculptors and what not. What this article really needs is cleanup, throw out the unreferenced stuff and add a concise overview of fundamentals based on some sort of quotable reference. --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Yes this article can not be merged with the shilpashastra. It is a seperate set of shastra-science. About unreferenced stuff - I guess there is more unreferenced rules in India than anywhere else. Taking out the unreferenced text is the idea of those who believe that all that is written is true and anything handed down through the generations is not believable. Masons in India depend on the knowledge handed down to them rather than an engineer and most of the times they are right under the climatic, customary and topographical circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja.shaher (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose a merger with Maharishi Sthapatya Veda (MSV) is a specialized form of VS. It has it's own brand, it's own idiosyncrasies, and it's own unique news coverage making it a notable topic in its own right.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion of merging with Hindu architecture. It looks like the discussion you're responding to is Talk:Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda#Merger.3F. Nonbody there has been able to distinguish that topic from this one, so if you know of actual, significant differences please list them there.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

  • Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


References

There is a mysterious statement in the references. I cannot make sense of it but if anyone understands what it means could they rewrite it cogently with correct spelling, if it's in the right place... 86.153.225.61 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Vaastu is quite like Feng Shui

This article appears somewhat defensive of associating Vaastu with Feng Shui, stating emphatically that they are completely different. However, from a point of view from outside of India, they are actually rather alike in several respects. The first is that they are traditional design methodologies that have highly specific principals, elements, and orientations that are related to and derived from cultural associations and stories. They are both similar in that their adherents profess a universality of truth that is embedded within their design approach, one that is endlessly applicable in any circumstance, regardless of land form or orientation to light, wind, views. Both design systems are being promoted as being perfected, and yet both are very culturally relative to both social culture and political circumstance. For instance, the way that fen shui is largely based on symmetry derives from it's conservatism, as does Vaastu with it's separation of both kitchen, and therefor women, from the central common space of the home.

This article states that Vaastu is unique in that it concerns design from the ground up while Feng Shui is merely about retroactive placements of objects and furniture, which is simply not the case. Both are concerned with larger design decisions based upon a similar spiritual orientation towards deities or elements. 75.92.134.2 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting over measuring the house dimensions

According to Vastu, I have learnt that 'Aaya' is calculated by remainder of (Width X Depth) divide by 9. But many different measures are being used to measure the width and height.. I have seen different astrologers use

  1. Feet
  2. Inches
  3. 18 inches 'Rian'.
  4. Hand length as 1 'Rain'.

So as a result of that the final result get significantly different from one another. So I doubt which one is correct??

~c_nirosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Important Institutions of Vastuvidya

The section for important institutions does not site any references. Furthermore, it lists only two institutions in that section. India is the birth place of Vastu. Without any reference, it is not wise to believe that there are only two "important institutions of Vastuvidya" in India. Ankit21694 13:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistency

Should it be "Vastu" or "Vaastu"? The former is used in the page title (although the latter redirects), but both are used throughout the article. --LarryMac | Talk 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

it's vāstu in IAST. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Does it matter how we spell it. Because the word is not english but SANSKRIT and it has to be pronounces in sanskrit and not in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuja.shaher (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you study vaastu science you will know that vastu refers to the unmanifest energy that creates vaastu, which is the manifest form. They are ultimately the same thing just in different forms. Just as Einstein stated - matter being just a dense form of energy. Matter is energy yet appears to be a different form. Vastu and Vaastu are the same thing in different states and you use one in certain cases and another in other cases. See page 73 of Building Architecture of Sthapatya Veda by V. Ganapati Sthapati ~~G. Leary~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.192.174 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Shastra or sastra

The word "shastra" is inconsistently spelled in the article, 9 times (plus the title) as "shastra" and 25 times as "sastra" (this does not include references/see also/further reading, which spell it "shastra" 6 times and "sastra" 3 times). Shouldn't we make our text consistent, especially with the title of the article? Which should it be? Apparently the IAST translit of the Sanskrit word is śāstra. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to try to rewrite this into coherent language

I mean, what are "coursly bodies" referred to in the article? A Google search only points to this page and plagiarized copies of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.115.234 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up tags

  • The lead does not summarize the entire article.
  • Several sources being used in the article do not mention Vastu Shastra but instead discuss Hindu architecture etc. Unless there is a source that says the two things are the same, we have a problem with original research.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I culled unsourced text and sources that failed verification. One in history section I couldn't verify because I couldn't locate the text. Tagged it. Any other? BabeAnnBabe (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

Whenever I have added the words, 

  "Like many other pseudoscientific systems, "

someone has always deleted it. Why? Please let me state clearly that this is a pseudoscientific system. Just think honestly, is it not pesudo-scientific? 119.226.74.62 (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why this section was added as it was. It looks like a placeholder for additional references. In case that's the case, here they are: --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV violation

This article does not confirm to WP:NPOV guidelines. The editors have frequently removed criticism and skepticism related edits. The article is not a good introduction to the topic and is badly structured. There are big gaps in citations and bad references.

—Kenfyre (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean this-[2]? We cannot describe the fringed version of Vastu shastra. Vastu shastra had to do nothing with the superstition, it was just a bad misrepresentation. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Even if you think, it has nothing to do with superstition, it is your own personal view. Diverse views must be included to confirm to WP:Balance. -Kenfyre (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kenfyre: If you have observed, this article has really dubious/vague references, ex, a 1925 book, broad range page numbers like pp 74-92, pp. 83–103, p. 149-157 and missing page numbers. When you specify broad page numbers, its easy to get away with WP:OR. Needs cleanup and verifiable page numbers. -- TheMandarin (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Superstitions

I trimmed the section where the added content is merely stating "X says that politician misused Vastu Sastra and so it is bad", and "Y says that it is silly". These are opinion pieces and grapevine gossiping, which WP:NOTGOSSIP policy of wikipedia discourages. The deleted content is about "comments on those who abuse Vastu Sastra, but not on Vastu Sastra". A mention is due and I have kept a trimmed version, but overemphasis of "he said so" opinions is undue. If there are specific critical analysis of Vastu Sastra texts or actual code, beyond "he said so", that would be more encyclopedic, useful content and consistent with wikipedia policies. BabeAnnBabe (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

These are not "grapevine gossiping", I one looks at the material you removed these are material from University press books, WP:RS. I will be restoring the material, if you disagree I suggest you to start WP:RFC. Can you pls add the page numbers instead of simply adding the links? Also the section is now full of WP:Weasel words "Some Indian-origin architects", "Others state", "activists" vs accurate worded material before. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

"Others state that these shastras are part of history and culture, of importance to the heritage, and they have read the texts to creatively adapt and incorporate ideas from them into new projects." -- this entire line qualifies as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Throwing in a bunch of references does make this opinion true. Here is the analysis of the references:

I suggest mentioning the statement, author and page no accurately. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

...mapped the functions of various squares in the Vastu sastra mandala, and replaced the individual grids with functional spaces incorporating technology that delivers the same functions. -- Here the author talks about "courtyard" and "semi-private openspace", (p.119) there is no indication that every individual grids has been mapped. The claim in the article is quite different from what the author says. This is WP:OR --TheMandarin (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible/potential refs

From [3]:

  • Manoj.s.nair, Vasthuvidya, cornet books,kottayam,
  • Manoj.s.nair, Vastuvidya in contemporary housing(english),ISBN 978-81-240-1923-8
  • Manoj.s.nair, kshethra vidhaanam ,Mahatma gandhi university.
  • Manoj.s.nair & Dr.Mohanakshan nair, MAYAMATHA (malayalam translation),ISBN 978-81-264-3626-2

The author appears to be the owner of http://vastuthantra.com/ --Ronz (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

Lorstaking: I have reverted your recent edit. The source on page 74 of Vāstu, Astrology, and Architecture: Papers presented at the First All India Symposium on Vastu, Bangalore, held on June 3-4, 1995 states, "The excavations of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, the Maya Sculptures of Central America, the architectural techniques of China, the Symbolic Monuments of Japan, the Civil Buildings of British Empire, the magnificent temples of South India, the charm of beauty of Italian structures, the Pyramids of Egypt, (... etc ...) are standing examples of Vastu techniques as revealed and as recorded in ancient Vastu texts". This is a paper presented at an Indian conference and is non-RS because the papers at such conferences do not get scholarly peer review. The same author claims, "The modern historians Mr. James Ferguson, Dr. Havell and Sir Cunning Ham [sic] have come to the conclusion that the historic development of Vastu Shastra took place during the period 6000 BC to 3000 BC". I searched if these scholars indeed published such claims. I am unable to confirm it. FWIW, claims of advanced arts/architecture practice in pre-3000 BCE, that is 1500+ years before Rigveda is typically dated, are dubious and fringe view. Also please do not cherrypick or change the quote when you cite. In this case, the author, unfortunately, does not spell the names right, alleges Pyramids of Egypt have a vastu connection, etc which you should not doctor. I have, therefore, reverted your additions. @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: any thoughts on these Indus Valley Civilization related claims? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I was using the same quotation and had only added the reliable sources. Better if you don't use deceptive edit summaries[4] since there was no such "version". Removed the estimate for now, though it is correct that reliable sources agree with the practice of Vastu in Indus Valley Civilization or before. Lorstaking (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources?.. You "added:

  • Arya, Rohit (2000). Vaastu: The Indian Art of Placement: Design and Decorate Homes to Reflect Eternal Spiritual Principles. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. - "Design and Decorate Homes to Reflect Eternal Spiritual Principles"... Not WP:RS.
  • Krishna, Talavane (2001). The Vaastu Workbook: Using the Subtle Energies of the Indian Art of Placement to Enhance Health, Prosperity, and Happiness in Your Home. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. ISBN 9780892819409. - "Using the Subtle Energies of the Indian Art of Placement to Enhance Health, Prosperity, and Happiness in Your Home"... Not WP:RS.
  • Vāstu, Astrology, and Architecture: Papers Presented at the First All India Symposium on Vāstu. Motilal Banarsidass Publications. 1998. p. 74. The modern historians James Ferguson, Dr. Havell and Sir Cunningham have come to the conclusion that the historic development of Vastu Shastra took place during the period 6000 BC to 3000 BC. - already discussed above. 6000 BCE is the time of Mehrgarh I. From Mehrgarh: "The settlement was established with simple mud buildings and most of them had four internal subdivisions." James Ferguson seems to be a 19th century historian, just like Alexander Cunningham. Not WP:RS.
  • Vyas, Ramnarayan (1992). Nature of Indian Culture. Concept Publishing Company. p. 59. - no reference there for the claim being made. Also from p.59: "Sanskrit is the most scientific language in the world. Its importance has been recognsed even by yhe science of the computer which gives it preference over other languages." Not WP:RS.
  • "Ancient concepts of Vastu Shashtra are also found in the Vedas."
  • Hernández, Santiago. Eco-architecture III: Harmonisation Between Architecture and Nature. WIT Press. - "there are nearly 32 books written on the subject of Vastu from 3000 BC to 600 AD by various authors in Saskrit language" - at 3,000 BCE the Yamna-expansion had hardly begun, let alone the rise of the Sintashta-culture, which took another millennium. Bullshit. Not WP:RS.
  • Maldonado, Eduardo (2014). Environmentally Friendly Cities. Routledge. ISBN 9781134256228. - I won't even bother to check this one.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Meera Nanda (2005), "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism, and "Vedic Science", in: Noretta Koertge (ed.), "Scientific Values and Civic Virtues", Oxford University Press, is the kind of source we call reliable here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Using your personal half-baked opinions to dispute high quality WP:RS (Routledge, Inner Traditions / Bear & Co,) is disruptive. Since you were canvassed to this discussion, I would notify @Capitals00, D4iNa4, and Raymond3023: to have their view as well. Lorstaking (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all sources seem reliable and presented by the scholars of the subject. If you have problem, you can change the source in place of making unilateral reverts concerning the entire section that is here for more than 4 years per WP:BRD.[5] Raymond3023 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Read again: those sources are not reliable. Regarding this reversal and its edit-summary "most seem reliable, change source if you have problem": it's up to you to porvide reliable sources, expecially for extraordinary claims. Datings of 3,000 to 6,000 BCE are completely at odds with mainstream scholarship on the development of the Indo-European and Mehrgarh cultures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have removed that one source now, though rest of the content has been backed with reliable sources, which can be easily verified with more sources, such as even[6] by the academic, Gary Westfahl. There is no rebuttal or sources that would reject this general information. Vastu is one of the Vedic science. Lorstaking (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad we get back to a more serious response, and attempts to find better sources than the ones above. Westfahl refers to the (later) Vedic civilisation (1st century BCE), and writes: "The Vedic civilization also developed a general theory of architecture, called vastu [...] Interestingly, a recent study indicates that several tenets of vastu can be observed in the design of Mohenjo Daro, suggesting these ideas predated the emergence of Hinduism in India." (p.126) Now, what would that "recent study" be? It's a pity he doesn't give that source. Anyway, the statement ""The Vedic civilization also developed a general theory of architecture, called vastu" is clear, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added this info; I think the rest can be removed. Books on house decoration belong to the New Age department, while Ramnarayan Vyas, Nature of Indian Culture, makes claims which are unsustainable; Westfahl is definitely a better source. And of course, there has to be more info on the history of vastu, of a more interesting nature than uncertain claims about the ancientness of this specific aspect of Indian culture. How do they relate to the development of temple-building? Or Vedic sacrificial altars? Like Stephen Knapp (2005), Vedic Culture: The Difference It Can Make In Your Life: "The earliest application of Vastu Shastra may be said to be in the construction of ceremonial alters for Vedic rituals. The Shulbhasutra, the Vedic geometry, was used to calculate and design these alters. Numerous passages of Katyayan, Baudhayana and Apastambha Shulbha deal with the size of sacrificial altars and their method of construction." That's interesting stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot of things were originated or invented in Indus Valley Civilisation, but there is no textual evidence from those times. Textual evidence arose later, since Vedic times, according to scholars, that's why they are said to be developed more significantly afterwards. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion has already moved forward and WP:HISTRS is not a relevant essay here because the sources meet the WP:RS criteria for architectures. You can't imagine a professional historian write about Vasu shastra, and even if there is anyone, they would be rejected for not having enough qualification in the field of architectures. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
We have already agreed that Gary Westfahl is an RS, and Vibhuti Chakrabarti who I have cited also meets WP:HISTRS, his journals are published by Cambridge University Press.[7][8] Raymond3023 (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus about these sources. Westfahl is a PhD in English and studies science fiction (rather aptly perhaps). Chakrabarti might be ok, but he can't be taken at face value unless he has any historical credentials. Even so, the content in the article is overblown. All he says is that the Rigveda has an invocation of Vastospati, the protector of household. Vastu means no more than a home or dwelling. This is a far cry from any Vastushastra being practised. Chakrabarti states quite clearly that it is speculated to be...much before 1st century AD. This is the kind of claim that can go into the article without raising any eyebrows. The other source that is given is also too weak for making historical claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Westfahl is a science fiction historian. Chakrabati wrote that Vastu Vidya's first textual evidence is found in Rig Veda, which is accurate. Section is not talking about the general practice of Vastu Shastra, but only it's origins in ancient times. More can be written on the article but there is no reason to remove the present section. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Raymond3023: your edits do not reflect the source, while Joshua Jonathan's version did. Here is what Westfahl states on page 126:

  • Quote: "The Vedic civilization also developed a general theory of architecture, called vastu, that addressed both the general layout of cities and the design of buildings. (...) Interestingly, a recent study indicates that several tenets of vastu can be observed in the design of Mohenjo Daro, suggesting that its ideas predated the emergence of Hinduism in India."

To replace "several" to "numerous", deleting the sourced mention of "predating Hinduism" etc as you did here is strange. Please explain.

Context matters indeed. The subject is Vastu Shastra, a genre of "architecture texts". Lets not conflate a mention of "Vastu" to be same as Vastu Sastra. For example, Vibhuti Chakrabarti is merely stating that the word "Vastospati" means "protector of the house" and this word is found in Rigvedic verse 7.54.1. To allege this as support for "While the first textual evidence of Vastu Shashtra is found in the Rigveda", as Raymond3023 did here, is OR and inappropriate. Nor do I find support in the Eduardo Maldonado, which was added by Lorstaking without a page number, but in a variant and equally unsupported form. Please provide specific page numbers that explicitly support that claim or its variants.

The second issue to keep in mind is that we can't present primary research papers as if an author's speculations were the general consensus. We must in-text attribute that view, with "According to ...." or "XYZ states ....". Thirdly, I can't find one scholarly review of Rohit Arya's book published in 2000. Can you? Rohit Arya has written more books about "Tarot cards". Is Arya an appropriate RS for the history of "Vastu shastra"? I suggest we drop Arya.

Finally, summarizing different views is necessary for NPOV. For example, according to Dufresne, "the earliest architectural treatise in existence, the Vastu Sastra, however, does not seem to be dated before the Gupta period."[1] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maria Dufresne (1990), Indian Town Planning Tradition, Architecture and Design, Volume 7, Issue 4 (Jul-Aug), page 51
Why you are misrepresenting sources? Vastu redirects to this article, that's why these terms are interchangeable here. The book source you are talking about "without a page number" doesn't make sense, because it has been already removed and the link redirected to the page that supported it. Your suggestion is to add Dufresne by using an unreliable source, but how we can do it when we are using only reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond3023: Please stop casting aspersions without support, as this is hostile, disruptive and WP:TE. Identify which source I have misrepresented with edit diffs and explain how. Vastu may redirect to this article, but redirects do not automatically make two topics identical. It is you who added "While the first textual evidence of Vastu Shashtra is found in the Rigveda". Please identify the page numbers, as this exceptional claim seems unsupported in the sources you cite and allege as support. Let us focus on this first. We can discuss your Dufresne comment later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Then why you are marginalizing or isolating vastu? You don't need page numbers when you have direct link, it use the term "Vastu vidya" like I had told in my earlier comment.[9] Vastu vidya is precursor of Vastu shastra, but for hundreds of years it is found in Vastu shastra since its treaties were complied into Vastu shastra. Since the history section is about tracing the origins of concept, you can replace "vastu shastra" with "vastu vidya", but nothing more. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond3023: That too is not supported. You alleged the two sources state "evidence of Vastu Shastra is found in Rigveda"! Now you are claiming, "you can replace vastu shastra with vastu vidya, but nothing more". Which page number does Maldonado mention Rigveda has vastu shastra/vidya? Or, which page number does Chakrabarti mention Rigveda has vastu shastra/vidya? Chakrabarti only states "the word Vastospati means 'protector of the house' and this word is found in Rigvedic verse 7.54.1". Chakrabarti does not state vastu sastra or vidya is found in Rigveda. I am still waiting for a page number. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That's identical I told, not different. "Vastu" is in fact said to have been derived from "Vastoshpati" used in Rig Veda. To make it simple for you, Chakrabarti is talking about Vastu Vidya originating in Vedic times. I was the one to introduce Chakrabarti source and I was only interpreting it. If you really want another source you should look up yourself, you will find[10][11] which provides details on the origins of Vastu in Vedic times. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Nowhere is Chakrabarti stating, "Vastu is in fact said to have been derived from Vastoshpati" or equivalent. Vastospati =/= Vastu sastra or vidya. Vedic period =/= Rigveda. What we can state here is that... "According to Chakrabarti, Vastu Vidya is as old the Vedic period and linked to the ritual architecture. The emergence of Vastu vidya as a specialized field of knowledge is speculated to have occurred significantly before 1st-century CE (see lines 1-8, page 1 of Chakrabarti)." Please do not keep evading. Do state the page numbers for Maldonado or Chakrabarti or whoever you cite. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are being disingenuous with your deliberate obfuscation.
I was stating a fact when I described etymology, I wasn't referring to Chakrabarti. We don't have to attribute this to Chakrabarti since this information is further supported by multiple reliable sources. If you don't have enough competence to check Google books, well, then that's seriously not my problem. Raymond3023 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources you have provided so far verify your alleged etymology either. None verified your "While the first textual evidence of Vastu Shashtra is found in the Rigveda". No, please do not expect others to google to verify your opinions / prejudices / wisdoms. Expect others to only check the specific sources you cite. @D4iNa4: what are your thoughts? In light of the verifiability problems discussed above, we can either go back to Johnbod/Kautilya3's version, or Joshua Jonathan's version, or a version that merges in the summary from Chakrabarti (in bold), or something else. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to be hearing. But nonetheless you can read[12] for etymology. As for the version, I will propose it below. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Second proposal

Many other sources [13][14][15] are enough for establishing that scholars agree with the existence of Vastu in Vedic period. That's why there is no need attribute it to Chakrabati, since his opinion is mainstream. As for the version, the whole section should be:-
"According to Gary Westfahl, Vastu developed during the Vedic civilization, while several tenets of Vastu can be found in the design of Mohenjo Daro. Others have also noted the traces of Vastu dating back to the times Indus Valley Civilisation. Vastu Vidya is as old the Vedic period and linked to the ritual architecture. The emergence of Vastu Vidya as a specialized field of knowledge is speculated to have occurred significantly before 1st-century CE."
Basically a merge of Joshua and my version with Welch's proposed text. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Stella Kramrisch and Milton Singer are two qualified historians who that before Vastu was complied in texts it was already found in Indus valley.[16] Archaeological Survey of India also agrees with the Indus valley origins.[17]
"Mandalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions", written by scholar/historian Gudrun Bühnemann with H. Brunner, M.W. Mcistcr, A. Padoux, M. Rastelli and J. Torzsok, published by BRILL, describes the origins of "Vastu Purusha Mandala", reads "Indus Valley cities, with their gridded street plans dating from the third to second millennium B.C., have been cited as early examples of the city as 'pivot of the four quarters'."[18] Next paragraphs define Vastu's origins in Veda. Since there are so many reliable sources available, we can either attribute to all of them, or just make a simple statement "Origins of Vastu dates back to the times Indus Valley Civilisation." Raymond3023 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Glad you're coming up with sources now - much better sources, actually, than New Age books on house decoration. Yet, the sentence "several tenets of Vastu can be found in the design of Mohenjo Daro. Others have also noted the traces of Vastu dating back to the times Indus Valley Civilisation" seems to be too unconditional, and too vague, and suggestive of a broad support ("Others have also noted"); Miller himself mentions criticisms of his statements. A more conditional statement would be that "[while] some have proposed the possibility that traces of vastu may date back to the IVC." This (half) sentence could also be appended to MSW's proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am seeing that the information on IVC has been supported by the relevant academics on the subject. The sources posted by Raymond are highly skilled in Indian history as well, such as Vibhuti Chakrabarti has praised Stella Kramrisch in the book that we are using and work of Kramrisch is cited 8 times on the main article. Michael W. Meister who is both an archaeologist and historian is cited 3 times and has written the chapter in the BRILL book cited by Raymond for supporting the Vastu origins in both IVC and Vedas. For these all important reasons and after reading the sources, I support rewording to, "Some concepts of Vastu traces their origins back to the times of Indus Valley Civilisation. Vastu Vidya is as old the Vedic period and linked to the ritual architecture. The emergence of Vastu Vidya as a specialized science concerning the architecture is speculated to have occurred significantly before 1st-century CE." . Capitals00 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • These are better sources, but they state something quite different, far more conditional and uncertain. NPOV requires that we acknowledge this uncertainty as well in this article. Also, we must not do OR:Synthesis, which Raymond3023 and supporting editors must know given the editing dispute in Kalki over the last 10 days. Just because the word square or circle or grid appears on a page, it does not necessarily mean vastu sastra/vidya, it just means square or circle or grid. Lets look at the new sources:
    • Milton Singer source which reviews Kramrisch and Vatsyayan: "How far this principle of composition can be extrapolated backward in time to the Indus Valley civilization is a question on which Vatsyayan's book is reluctant to speculate in the absence of deciphered texts." (p. 117) Then, later, Singer writes, that the traditions of India were embodied in the form of Indian art thousands of years before they were given verbal expressions in the Veda and before the text books on the arts namely Vastu sastra and silpa sastra were composed. (pp. 117-118) In other words, neither Vatsyayan nor Kramrisch are stating that vastu texts/vidya existed or the vastu principles of composition existed in Indus Valley civilization. They are saying that there was Indian art then and this art tradition continued in 1st millennium BCE.
    • Gudrun Bühnemann edited, Michael Meister's source which also reviews Kramrisch etc: On page 251, Meister mentions gridded street plans in Indus Valley cities, but does not state this to be vastu sastra etc. On page 252, he explains that the Atharvaveda recites the vision of mandalas where an unorthodox Vratya ascetic confronts his own divinity; the verses recite a correspondence between human body and temples, something found in later centuries. Meister then writes, "Yet such a vision did not then constitute architecture nor represent a developed practice." Meister also mentions Sulba Sutras from the 4th to 3rd century BCE that describe ritual architecture in terms of circles and squares. But we can't allege this is vastu sastra because Meister doesn't say so. He writes therafter, "It is in fact only in the time of Varahamihira's Brhat Samhita, written in the sixth century A.D., that use of something like a vastupurusamandala to plan cities and buildings was first designated, in his chapter 53 'On Architecture'." (p. 253)
Given what these sources are stating, Proposal 2 is deficient. Proposal 1 above can be improved if we use some clarifying summary from these two sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't cherry pick sentences. Kramrisch said that vastu shastra existed before it was complied into texts and that is a simple fact that you are not getting. While Meister cited example of Indus Valley construction as "early example" for Vastu Purusha Mandala which is Vastu sastra. The proposed sentence "Some concepts of Vastu traces their origins back to the times of Indus Valley Civilisation", seems correct or it has to be the first sentence for the section. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond3023: Quit these snide remarks without evidence and without identifying which page number Kramrisch/whoever states what you allege. I have requested specific page numbers / quotes / evidence repeatedly from you, but you make vague and tendentious claims / allegations. This WP:TE is not helpful. If you lack this basic WP:COMPETENCE, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. So, once again, please provide the RS with page number that states, "Kramrisch said that vastu shastra existed before it was complied [sic] into texts". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"If you don't have enough competence to check Google books, well, then that's seriously not my problem."[19] I think I will need to repeat it again because you really can't WP:HEAR. Read the sources I have provided above at the comment "Mandalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions". And you don't even have to access it again when you have cherrypicked enough quotes from the book, it does means that you have already read it, you need to stop your deliberate obfuscation. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I already quoted from Gudrun Bühnemann's Mandalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions above. You are wrong. It does not state, "Kramrisch said that vastu shastra existed before it was complied [sic] into texts". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"Thousands of years before they were given verbal expression in the Veda (the scripture) and in Vastu Sastra and Silpa Sastra the traditions of India were embodied in the forms of Indian art", and "for the themes and forms of the art of the Indus valley during the third and second mellenia B.C. are continued in Indian art when it remerges in the third century BC." Vastu Sastra being said to have been in practice thousands years before complied in text and such arts and forms were found in Indus valley, by a historian and expert in Vastu sastra. On page 117-118 of Semiotics of Cities, Selves, and Cultures: Explorations in Semiotic Anthropology. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
As explained before, the proposed sentence is too unconditional. It needs attribution, a statement like "X argues that" c.q. "proposes that." That being said, there are more authors who have argued for continuity between IVC and Vedic period, so it does make some sense. But not enough too put it that unconditional. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I had also suggested above "we can either attribute" to each of them, this would solve the dispute at this moment. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If that is what you interpreted as support, you are wrong indeed. "the traditions of India were embodied in the forms of Indian art" =/= vastu shastra. That sentence means Vedas and the Vastu/Shilpa sastra came later than the Indian art 1000s of years before. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I said that thousands years before the art was complied in texts, it was already found in ancient times. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Third proposal

Here is an expanded version:

  • According to Chakrabarti, Vastu Vidya is as old the Vedic period and linked to the ritual architecture.[1] Proposals tracing potential links of Vastu Shastra principles of composition and Indus Valley civilization have been made, but scholars such as Kapila Vatsyayan are reluctant to speculate on such links given the Indus Valley scripts and inscriptions remain undeciphered.[2] According to Michael Meister, a professor of Indology specializing in Indian architecture, even the verses in the Vedic text Atharvaveda do not "constitute architecture nor represent a developed practice".[3] The earliest known Indian text, states Meister, that describes "something like a vastupurusamandala to plan cities and buildings" is found in the time of Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita, dated to the sixth century CE.[3] The emergence of Vastu vidya as a specialized field of knowledge is speculated to have occurred significantly before 1st-century CE.[1]

Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "According to Chakrabarti" needs to come after "Proposals tracing links of Vastu Shastra".
  • "Proposals tracing potential links of Vastu Shastra principles of composition and Indus Valley" can be "Proposals tracing potential links of Vastu Shastra to Indus Valley Civilisation".
  • "Valley scripts and inscriptions remain undeciphered", should be "Valley scripts remain undeciphered", source mention "scripts" and "inscriptions" is just a synonym of scripts.
  • "even the verses in the Vedic text Atharvaveda do not "constitute architecture", the page number (252) that you may have read says "such a 'vision' did not then constitute architecture nor represent a developed practice." He seems to be talking about a vision, "monument of manifestation", not Artharvadeva, on which he said "does provide us with a paradigm for cosmic planning in South Asia". (p.251) We do have to mention the latter instead. Because his discussion regarding the "vision" he mentioned, mostly centers around the writings of Stella Kramrisch.
  • "The earliest known Indian text, states Meister, that describes" should be "Meister, describes that" Meister doesn't mention any "earliest", he just puts Brihat Samhita to be describing "the use of something like a vastupurusamandala to plan cities and buildings" before anyone. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The re-arrangement suggestions may be ok. Please reconsider the rest. Meister does mention Atharvaveda. Then summarizes, from the Atharvaveda, the vision of mandalas about an unorthodox Vratya ascetic. But "cosmic planning" =/= vastu sastra/vidya. It is in cosmology context, not architecture or vastu-related. Your objection to "earliest" is puzzling. Meister states, "It is in fact only in the time of Varahamihira's Brhat Samhita, written in the sixth century A.D., that use of something like a vastupurusamandala to plan cities and buildings was first designated, in his chapter 53 'On Architecture'." (p. 253) The "earliest" reflects "first". It may be better because we must not copyvio, nor too closely paraphrase when possible. Or, maybe we can use the word "first" instead as a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer: "According to Michael Meister, the mystic cosmogony of the Atharvaveda provide a paradigm for cosmic planning, although the verses did not represent architecture nor a developed practice."
And: "Miester says "something like a vastupurusamandala to plan cities and buildings" is first found in the time of Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita, dated to the sixth century CE." Raymond3023 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Principles

This article fails to tell the reader what the principles of Vastu are, or why/how they are beneficial. A new section within the description could remedy this. Could a suitably knowledgeable person add the missing section? FreeFlow99 (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vastu_shastra/Archive_1&oldid=1217724129"