![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
The nightclub Club Silencio in the film Mulholland Drive alludes to the concept of Maya through the repeated phrase: "No hay banda." (There is no band). Though seemingly real, all the music in the club is illusionary, provided by a tape recording.
Does anyone have a source for that claim? It sounds like someone is throwing out their theory of a movie that was hard to understand to begin with. If you can source it, put it back, but this isn't a place for new theories or unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.184.99 ( talk) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is not complete. 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Would a Matrix referrence be appropriate? It certainly evolved from Maya.-- Scix 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, while interesting, needs sources. Perhaps users should also begin posting possible places to find reliable sources for this article. Bless sins ( talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Maya in Sikhism" section, the relationship between the snake and money should be deleted until further citation is found (I don't edit, but hope someone else will). The "double snake" connection to the dollar symbol must be deleted; the Wikipedia article on the sign cites four sources for an different origin theory (including the U.S. Mint). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.208 ( talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User User:Mitsube second time deleted the section.
What is the goal of this action?
To keep as a secret that an important and popular Buddhist tradition ( Dzogchen) considers the phenomenal world to be an illusion? -- Klimov ( talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.
As I understand the dispute User:Mitsube has removed information that other users believe should remain in the article. I know nothing about this topic so I have no idea whether this piece of information belongs in the article or not. What I would encourage is conversation. Wikipedia encourages consensus and discourages edit wars. The best way to do this is to have a conversation with other editors. If Mitsube truly believes this section does not belong in this article, he/she should visit the talk page and explain. I have left a message for Mitsube to join the talk page.
If the section is continually deleted without explanation, other users can always request temporary page protection to stop an edit war. Hopefully, though, you can talk amongst yourselves and figure it out. Wikipediatoperfection ( talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that there is some progress. This time there was no wholesale deletion.
However, one would expect some work with the sources and participation in the discussion here.-- Klimov ( talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
सन्नप्यसन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो भिन्नप्यभिन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो।
सांगाप्यनंगाप्युभयात्मिका नो महाद्भुताऽनिर्वच्नीयरूपा रूपा॥(विवेकचूडामणि:)
It is not sat [real], not asat [unreal], not both. It is not bhinna [different], not abhinna, [not
non-different], not both. It is not sanga [with parts], not ananga [without parts], not both. It is
very wonderful and of a form which is inexpressible.
In the world, reality of what is never sublated and the unreality of what is sublated are wellknown as is the case with truth and falsehood. What is never experienced at any time by anybody is unreal as in the case of the horns of a hare or of a skyflower etc. By shruti and smrti texts like bhUyashcAnte vishvamAyAnivrttih [svet.]; taratyavidyam vitatAm hrdi yasminniveshite! YogI mAyAmameyAya tasmai vidyAtmane namah !! mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAm taranti te [B.G.]; “again at the end, i.e., after sravana, manana, nididhyasana, there is the cessation of cosmic mAyA”; “I bow to that vidyAtman namely Brahman, who dispels may when he is lodged in the heart”, and “those who seek refuge in me cross this mAyA”, its [mAyA’s] being annulled by jnana is understood. Therefore, it is not possible to associate reality with it like the reality of the atman. According to the Gita statement: nAbhAvo vidyate satah: “there is no non-existence for what is real”, it is clear that it cannot be real as it ceases to exist after the dawn of jnana. Before jnana arises, as it is seen in the form of its effects and of their transformations, as it is also the subject of inference, it cannot be said to be unreal like the horns of a hare. It is not of the nature of both i.e., it is not both existent and non-existent as existence and non-existence being opposed to each other, it is not proper to predicate them in one and the same place. As it cannot be each of these separately, its being of the nature of both is absolutely impossible. In respect of objects seen in a dream and of those produced in jugglery, they are said to be of the nature of mithya as they disappear even as they are seen. Hence they are said to be different from the sat and asat, the real and the unreal. So too is it with mAyA. For it is said in the Gita: nAsato vidyate bhAvah nabhAvo vidyate satah! Ubhayorapi drSTo’ntastvanayostattvadarshibhih!! “Of the unreal there is no being; of the real there is no non-being. Of both these the truth is seen by the seers of the essence”. If to origination and non-existence by destruction of what has come to the absolute sat and asat has been declared by Lord himself who said that the fact of these, that the superlatively real cannot be non-existent, and the absolutely unreal cannot become existent and that has been determined by the seers of Truth. Thus also, this mAyA is not a sadvastu [real], it is not an asadvastu [unreal] and it is not both [real and unreal]. As it is not possible to determine if it is real or unreal, it is indescribable [anirvacanIya]. As it is not capable of being stated to be real or unreal and so is called anirvacanIya, so too it is said to be anirvacanIya also for the reason that it cannot be said to be different or non-different from Brahman. If it is said to be entirely different from Brahman, that will conflict with the shruti-texts intimating non-difference. In the world there is absence of difference between a power and the possessor of that power. But if it is said to be non-different from Brahman, difficulty will arise as it [maya] is liable to destruction while Brahman cannot be sublated in any of the three periods of time. If it is said to be both different and non-different, that will be to indulge in a contradiction. The real and the unreal are opposed to each other, relate to different periods of time and it is not right to predicate them together in the same place. Therefore, it isnot of the nature of both what is real and what is not real. Hence it means it is not different, it is not non-different; it is not both. Similarly, it is beginningless. So, it is without parts. For, if it is with parts, it must be said to have originated. But if it is said to be without parts, its evolution [into things of the world] cannot be asserted. Hence, it is not without parts. It cannot be both as both cannot be affirmed of a thing in the same context. Hence, as between reality and unreality, difference and non-difference, being with parts and being without parts, nothing can be predicated of mAyA. Hence it is anirvacanIya, indescribable. It is of a very amazing nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeevothama ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I know it's a weird subject, but the lede seams unnecessarily obscure and idiosyncratic. 1Z ( talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The summary section contains no information about the subject, and the next words found in the article mention how many times the subject is discussed in certain texts. A summary section for the less-devoted reader should be made a top priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB31:93E9:D878:D2DD:2F68:CF19 ( talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Architect Mayasura is in anyway related he is the architect the trimurti and Patala(Underworld)
I feel Maya as illusion, has three pargamtics within its semantics. Maya (illusion) as used in Philosphy, The Vedantic Maya and the Buddhist Maya. These three concepts are similar yet has subtle diffrences. - unknown
(I read everything as if it has a Bible Genesis origin.) And I see things here that I would perceive and agree with what i already know. It seems Maya is being indicated as a spirit light. It is VishNu's return in Manu. Hindu flood story Manu (Man Nu) is known to be Noah. And at Mount Ararat Turkey the Khurds told me, We call him Nu. Alexander Hislop said Vish Nu is the ascension of Man Nu (ish Nu, the man Noah); though Hindu belief reverses this claim as Vishnu came down at the Flood and reincarnated as Manu (Noah). In Chinese, the Maya is the mother who gives birth to Buddha who the Hindu say has been here once before the Flood (as Enoch exempt from death). Likewise, six Menu existed as forefathers to the Flood's Manu. The sothic world (1460 years as 365 leap days to The Return) of the winter solstice is regarded as the return of Noah's spirit, return of Manu, return of Vishnu inside Manu,return of preFlood king Xisuthros (or Greek Christos) all are the same person to save the world again. Thus the Persian regard the coronation of Cyrus as return of VishNu in ManNu, but in China this return is Buddha the birth from Maya. So the existence of Maya as an actual woman (like Mary mother of Jesus) is vague. It is the light giving birth to a christ, a reincarnation of the former savior returning to save again. (in 560bc) So the dispute of enlighten or illusion both exist to define Maya as much as Protestants debating Catholics over the god-power of Mother Mary or dillusion of such. Was it Mary who enlightened Jesus? Was it Maya who enlightened Buddha? The making from nothing can be compared to virgin birth without source materials. Thus (Maya) inventions actually have both sides, the real, and the delusions.
Though there are books that point out similar Egyptian to American Mayans, there are more that equate Mayan words with Chinese. Hindu Indians who study American Mayans do write and claim Maya comes from India. Is it not a direct path from India to China to Copan? 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The term Maya occurs in many Bhagavad Gita verses, moreover the term Avidyā (which has the same connotation as Maya) is frequently mentioned in the principal Upanishads, so it is childish to say that the concept of Maya was introduced by Adi Shankara.
Makyo is a distinct concept from Zen and should not redirect to Maya:
Based on this information from you, I feel Makyo should be directed here then to Maya because it contrasts the fact that man does not (and cannot) distinguish between his enlightenment by God and delusions illusions of the devils. It is fitting to show the issue between magic and miracle. 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Who ever this Maya or spirit gives birth to, I am wondering the son of Chinese Maya and of Hindu Maya in connection to Persian Magi. The kingship stolen by Magi in Persia by Smerdis also uses the name Gaumata, while under Mayan Mother of Buddha in WikiPedia the Buddha son is called Gautama. I dont dispute meanings such as Chinese Maya means love, and Hindu Maya means enLight or Illusion because cuneiform writing at Hattusa Ararat was a mystery due to bias bigotry that cunieform must be Shemetic. It wasnt, it was Latin-German-English. The words agua watar meant to drink water. Agua did not mean a drink, but to drink. Just like American English do you drink, or yes i drink means alcohol, so too in Russia the wadar or wadka is alcohol vodka. We change words. So i see a YES this Maya means all three enlighten, illusion, delusion, and love, even infactuation the illusion of love. So please inform me is there connection between Persian Gaumata as a name and Chinese Gautama, the christ-king saviors who are sons of Maya each in their own religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to edit this as Shankara never used the word Maya. See: The Advaita worldview by Rambachan p. 73. Check the footnote to get the reference from which it is demonstrated that Shankara never used the word Maya.
BTW: Advaita Vedanta does not say that the world is an illusion; rather, the experience of the world as dual, namely separate from Brahman, is an illusion and it is Maya. The world is Brahman; the experience of the world without the experience/recognition of Brahman is Maya/illusion/duality. The experience of the world (books, chairs, tables, people, houses ...) WITH the experience of Brahman is the true experience of the world, which is Brahman. Therefore, the perception of the world is a real perception as long as one is experiencing Brahman when he or she is perceiving the world. The moment the perception of Brahman is obscured, the world is experienced as dual. THAT is Maya--ignorance. So, the part on Advaita Vedanta perpetuates the misunderstanding about Advaita that the world is an illusion. The world is Brahman. The world IS. The world is a true/objective perception of reality when experienced as/with Brahman
in Lila (Hinduism) the following related words appear: "The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian philosophy—has changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the divine actor and magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the spell of the magic play. As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, without perceiving the unity of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya. (...) In the Hindu view of nature, then, all forms are relative, fluid and ever-changing maya, conjured up by the great magician of the divine play. The world of maya changes continuously, because the divine lila is a rhythmic, dynamic play. The dynamic force of the play is karma, important concept of Indian thought. Karma means "action". It is the active principle of the play, the total universe in action, where everything is dynamically connected with everything else. In the words of the Gita Karma is the force of creation, wherefrom all things have their life."
—Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (1975)
could be used to refer to the subject as well as connect it to the term Lila and also to Maya (Buddhist mental factor). my English aint good enough for the job so I leave my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.102.189 ( talk) 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like an issue that should be covered under Fritjof Capra. There are many notable people who have their own (modern) views on Maya, Karma, Brahman, etc. IMO, it would be trivia to include their views in each of these articles. Hoverfish Talk 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to add Tamil to the introduction. The word is identical to the Sanskrit because it is a borrowing from Sanskrit. Shall we list all the identical borrowings? This is the reason WP:INDICSCRIPTS became policy: the endless listing of identical words in various Indian languages. Ogress smash! 07:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Your alleged cite is OR and does not state the origin of Sanskrit as being from Tamil, please use the talk page. Ogress smash! 09:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You are engaging in OR by deciding that the DED information means the word is not a borrowing. That's the definition of WP:OR. Unless DED says "Sanskrit borrowed this word from proto-Dravidian", you are engaging in improper behavior as a Wikipedia editors. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - even if you were correct (and, incidentally, Tamil is not proto-Dravidian), you'd need a reliable source to state it. Meanwhile, there are a ton of reliable cites demonstrating clearly it is a Sanskrit word with a Sanskrit root-form and cousins as well as cousins in non-Indic languages. The closest thing you have to any kind of claim is Southworth's "origin uncertain" in a highly speculative section of his Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia. There is clearly scholarly consensus that maya is a Sanskrit word that appears in the Vedas and in Iranian languages, and pretty much zero mention of Dravidian in multiple cites. Even your paper suggesting the philosophical expansion of Sanskrit terms makes no claims that maya is a Dravidian word: his argument is that the words show Dravidian influence in their evolution as ideas, not that the words are themselves Dravidian. Ogress smash! 18:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Edits on June 14th seem to have eliminated some previous contributions, without comment or justification. -Tim
Schopenhauer's philosophy of WORLD AS WILL AND IDEA also evolved from the same concept of Maya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 ( talk) 20:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Started. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone please remove this from the Etymology section:
Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) ... probably comes from two roots, mā (or may-) which means "measure", and "yā" which means "vanish, to go, undertake".[8] These roots are also related to the root mā, which means mother and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[8][9]
It is sourced, but it is Prof. Gonda's own speculation. It's more than certain that the mā- root for "measure" is UNRELATED to mā (mother). Of course also Sanskrit never forms nouns by a combination of two roots, as is his other suggestion. With due respect to Prof. Gonda, but please the etymology section be sourced to reliable dictionaries. — kashmiri TALK 02:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The term maya comes from √ma, "to measure," and can denote Brahman's creative yet delusive power or the material form that results from the activation of such a power. As the first, maya is often equated with sakti; as the second, with prakrti. Like the other two, maya is often understood to be a cosmic feminine principle, and the use of the term tends to stress the illusory, impermanent, and/or changeable nature of creation in relation to the fully real, eternal, and unchanging nature of the Absolute.
Many scholars have noted the associations between some or all of these principles and female gender in Hindu thought in different contexts.
It is notable also that the mother of the Buddha in early Buddhist accounts of the life of Gautama the Buddha is called Mahamaya ("great maya"), indicating a connection in this literature of the term maya with maternal femininity.
@Kashmiri: The "ma" part does verify. Have you really read Gonda's chapter on Maya etymology? Or did you read Pintchman and misattribute a quote from pages 3-4 to Gonda? Once you were able to verify at least part of it, the √ma part, why delete that part as well? I see three more sources that verify "ma" part of the old etymology. Give me a day to check the remaining. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: I see the "yā" part in Gonda's book. I also see the "yā" part of Māyā in Nirukta explanation as referenced on page 205 of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Volume 24, but it is different from Gonda. The Nirukta one is closer to folk etymology in some cases. I will look into this further, and add "yā" part if there is mainstream support. The "mā" root part of the etymology is same in these two as recent WP:RS such as Mahony, Pintchman, Zimmer, Goudriaan, etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@ 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)
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: 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)
@ 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:, @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)
@Mayasutra: See you at DRN / ANI. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@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)
@ 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. μÎÏÏον , μεÏÏÎÏ ; 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)
@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)
@
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
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)
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]
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)
References
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)
@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)
"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)
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
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. — Spaceman Spiff 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mayasutra: I have reverted this edit, per WP:BRD, because "√mā" which means "measure", is not just according to Gonda and Pintchman, it is the most accepted etymology by numerous scholars, and the article already cited those additional scholars such as Whitney etc. Further, this is not an article on what "mā" means, it is an article on Maya (illusion). So your changes to WP:Coatrack and emphasize "time, death, water" etc is undue and unconstructive. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is distracting and misleading to mention other meanings of ma that are not related to maya (as determined by scholars). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Which means again, you did not read well. I used the same scholars which Sarah Welch did (except one additional Singh who captures Zimmer's stance very succinctly). Try
reading again. You will find stuff highlighted in bold below:
Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology.
According to Jan Gonda and Tracy Pintchman, the word probably comes from the root ""√mā"" or "mā",[10][11] which means "to measure".[12][13] Monier Williams list multiple meanings for the root "mā"; including time, death, and water;[14] and states māyā meant "wisdom and extraordinary power" in an earlier older language, but from the Vedic period onwards, the word came to mean "illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick, sorcery, witchcraft and magic".[4][7]
According to P. D. Shastri, the Monier Williams' list is a "loose definition, misleading generalization", and not accurate in interpreting ancient Vedic and medieval era Sanskrit texts; instead, he suggests a more accurate meaning of māyā is "appearance, not mere illusion".[15]
According to Jan Gonda, the word is related to mā, which means "mother", and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[10][16] To Zimmer, maya here implies art, is the maker’s power, "a mother in all three worlds", a creatrix, her magic is the activity in the Will-spirit.[17] However, in Vedic Sanskrit, the word mā has also been used as a point of negation, to represent 'not' and 'do not'; with māyā representing an illusory image or phantom,[14] which is subsequently represented in mahabharata as creating illusions (said of Vishnu), with samkhya identifying māyā with prakriti or pradhana, and vedanta regarding māyā as the source of the visible universe.[14] Zimmer equates water as the primary materialization of Vishnu's māyā-energy; and hence, a visible manifestation of the divine essence.[18][19]
According to William Mahony, the root of the word may be man- or "to think", implying the role of imagination in the creation of the world. In early Vedic usage, the term implies, states Mahony, "the wondrous and mysterious and wondrous power to turn an idea into a physical reality".[12][20]
Franklin Southworth states the word's origin is uncertain, and other possible roots of māyā include may- meaning mystify, confuse, intoxicate, delude, as well as māy- which means "disappear, be lost".[21]
A similar word is also found in the Avestan māyā with the meaning of "magic power".[22]
BTW, no matter how many times you strikeout; what Sarah Welch is doing is POV pushing. Ms.Sarah Welch chose not to reply to requests of common consensus; something which you and SpacemanSpiff overlook. The above is for your clarity only. Your group can keep wiki the way you want to. Good luck. Addition -- if you can read thru well, you will find the additional meanings of ma represented in each of the schools (vedic literature, mahabharat, samkhya, vedanta). I suppose this is what Ms.Sarah Welch lacks despite her copious contributions to wiki (the very basic in understanding sanskrit which even people like me can figure out easily enough; and for which I respect experts like Kashmiri (bow to you sir for putting up with these)). It all boils down to the way you treat others; for which I am entitled to my personal opinions on Ms.Sarah Welch. --
Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (
talk)
10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Addition -- mA has multiple meanings. In vedic sanskrit it just means don't or negation (not, do not, ought not). It does NOT mean mother. But in classical sanskrit, mA acquired other meanings. Which is why modern lexicographers (who include works from classical sanskrit and list them in dictionaries) pose a problem. This is what Kashmiri asks, how can mA of vedic sanskrit be linked to maya and mother? Just because Jan Gonda (the greatest western sanskrit professor), did it, does it become correct? Now that you asked exactly what Kashmiri did, hope you can appreciate Kashmiri's bearing on this topic. Since you said wiki does not bother to know truth as long as source is reliable, I chose to add other meanings of ma and maya. Hope you understand what I tried. Also, hope you understand, this is the reason why Ms.Sarah Welch cannot explain, chooses to get personal, cannot work on consensus, complains, and gets aggressive. (BTW, I believe Kashmiri is a published expert. Certainly deserves more respect than the roadside language of rat's ass and personal nonsense thrown by Ms.Sarah Welch and RexxS). Thank you. -- Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] ( talk) 13:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
I am not sure where we are at. You wondered why your edit was reverted. I have explained. You wondered why the same reasons don't apply to MSW's content. I have explained. What next?
Wikipedia is not a research journal that can accept your original contributions and evaluate them. Wikipedia only summarises what the scholars say. Whether you agree with the scholars or not has no bearing on what goes into Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for digging up the topic after so many months. I saw Gonda was still heavily promoted by Ms Sarah Welch, and Pintchman made into some sort of authority on Sanskrit etymology. I sincerely hope she doesn't propose next a 3rd year student of French as an authority on the French language! So, I have now (1) entirely removed any references to Pintchman from the Etymology section; (2) rearranged etymology ideas in chronological order; (3) removed Zimmer as a non-linguist, too - the quote is far from what we expect from a linguistic publication; (4) combined Gonda's propositions in one paragraph; (5) brought consistency in the way we present verbal roots; (6) made minor edits to keep a neutral Wikipedia style. Here is the edit [9], thank you for any comments. — kashmiri TALK 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Kashmiri: Please stop WP:TE and edit warring. Attacking scholars such as Gonda and Pintchman (both professors, both well cited), and your attacking their competence and scholarly publications is inappropriate. You are repeating your behavior and arguments. In January 2016, you argued that Gonda is primary, while Pintchman is somehow unqualified for primary research, in your opinions/ wisdom/ prejudice. In April 2016, you were back at this again, repeating the same arguments and questions. In August 2016, above you allege "I am still heavily promoting Gonda" etc, and with the edit summary here you are re-attacking Pintchman. You and @Mayasutra have been cautioned and reasoned with by @ Kautilya3, @ RexxS and admin @ SpacemanSpiff in previous discussions on this very topic. This is going on for too long. Please take this to ANI etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Kashmiri: You have been warned multiple times for disruptive editing and edit warring, most recently for removing properly sourced content from this article. Let me make this clear: you are not qualified to take on yourself the decision about which sources are acceptable in Wikipedia. We have three policies that govern that decision: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Reliable sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - WP:V. "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers." - WP:NOR. "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." - WP:NPOV. Pincher's and Halbfass' books are published by State University of New York Press; Braue's and Snodgrass' books are published by Motilal Banarsidass. They meet our criteria for reliable sources on the issue and their viewpoints are properly included in this article. If you disagree that they are reliable sources in this context, you can ask for third-party opinions at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If I see you remove properly sourced content from this Wikipedia article again, I'll ask for you to be topic-banned from this entire topic area. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has multiple cases of sources being rejected because they are published by lulu.com - so much so that urls containing lulu.com are on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and you can't save an edit if it has such a url in it. The reason is that Lulu Press is a " vanity press" where anybody can pay to have a book published. As a self-published source, it will almost never meet our criteria for reliable sources. There's a fairly comprehensive explanation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24 #Lulu.com published books. As far as I know, the only exceptions that have been discussed are at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80 #Lulu.com and Academic Associations where Lulu Press are the printers of some books published by the Society for Historical Archaeology. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maya (illusion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The normal interpretation of Maya is that of non-existense just seeming to exist but the Taittiriya Upanishad 2, 1 clearly states "Brahma satyam" Brahma (the universe) is truth. The Universe is seen as unreal because it was dreamed or meditated on by Brahman (Vayu Purana 1.24.81 and 2.10.50 f.). But Brahma said AUM to his dream or meditation to make it steady, see Jaiminiya Brahmana 1, 88: "By means of the AUM-sound he prevented the created from going away". The Sarasvati Rahasyopanishad (one of the minor Upanishads) in 48 says "Maya is the process of becoming" which is very close to the sght of Maya as creating energy.
The point is: all this points out that Maya is not illusion in the sense of non-existence but in the sense of seeming everytime the same while in reallity underlying constant change. Should this not be depicted in the text because now the text leaves the false interpretation of Maya untouched. This also raises the question if Maya should not better be translated with evolution which means constant change but this is not a matter of this article but of translators of Hindu-scriptures.-- 80.133.253.60 ( talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
The nightclub Club Silencio in the film Mulholland Drive alludes to the concept of Maya through the repeated phrase: "No hay banda." (There is no band). Though seemingly real, all the music in the club is illusionary, provided by a tape recording.
Does anyone have a source for that claim? It sounds like someone is throwing out their theory of a movie that was hard to understand to begin with. If you can source it, put it back, but this isn't a place for new theories or unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.184.99 ( talk) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is not complete. 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Would a Matrix referrence be appropriate? It certainly evolved from Maya.-- Scix 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, while interesting, needs sources. Perhaps users should also begin posting possible places to find reliable sources for this article. Bless sins ( talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Maya in Sikhism" section, the relationship between the snake and money should be deleted until further citation is found (I don't edit, but hope someone else will). The "double snake" connection to the dollar symbol must be deleted; the Wikipedia article on the sign cites four sources for an different origin theory (including the U.S. Mint). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.208 ( talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User User:Mitsube second time deleted the section.
What is the goal of this action?
To keep as a secret that an important and popular Buddhist tradition ( Dzogchen) considers the phenomenal world to be an illusion? -- Klimov ( talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.
As I understand the dispute User:Mitsube has removed information that other users believe should remain in the article. I know nothing about this topic so I have no idea whether this piece of information belongs in the article or not. What I would encourage is conversation. Wikipedia encourages consensus and discourages edit wars. The best way to do this is to have a conversation with other editors. If Mitsube truly believes this section does not belong in this article, he/she should visit the talk page and explain. I have left a message for Mitsube to join the talk page.
If the section is continually deleted without explanation, other users can always request temporary page protection to stop an edit war. Hopefully, though, you can talk amongst yourselves and figure it out. Wikipediatoperfection ( talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that there is some progress. This time there was no wholesale deletion.
However, one would expect some work with the sources and participation in the discussion here.-- Klimov ( talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
सन्नप्यसन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो भिन्नप्यभिन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो।
सांगाप्यनंगाप्युभयात्मिका नो महाद्भुताऽनिर्वच्नीयरूपा रूपा॥(विवेकचूडामणि:)
It is not sat [real], not asat [unreal], not both. It is not bhinna [different], not abhinna, [not
non-different], not both. It is not sanga [with parts], not ananga [without parts], not both. It is
very wonderful and of a form which is inexpressible.
In the world, reality of what is never sublated and the unreality of what is sublated are wellknown as is the case with truth and falsehood. What is never experienced at any time by anybody is unreal as in the case of the horns of a hare or of a skyflower etc. By shruti and smrti texts like bhUyashcAnte vishvamAyAnivrttih [svet.]; taratyavidyam vitatAm hrdi yasminniveshite! YogI mAyAmameyAya tasmai vidyAtmane namah !! mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAm taranti te [B.G.]; “again at the end, i.e., after sravana, manana, nididhyasana, there is the cessation of cosmic mAyA”; “I bow to that vidyAtman namely Brahman, who dispels may when he is lodged in the heart”, and “those who seek refuge in me cross this mAyA”, its [mAyA’s] being annulled by jnana is understood. Therefore, it is not possible to associate reality with it like the reality of the atman. According to the Gita statement: nAbhAvo vidyate satah: “there is no non-existence for what is real”, it is clear that it cannot be real as it ceases to exist after the dawn of jnana. Before jnana arises, as it is seen in the form of its effects and of their transformations, as it is also the subject of inference, it cannot be said to be unreal like the horns of a hare. It is not of the nature of both i.e., it is not both existent and non-existent as existence and non-existence being opposed to each other, it is not proper to predicate them in one and the same place. As it cannot be each of these separately, its being of the nature of both is absolutely impossible. In respect of objects seen in a dream and of those produced in jugglery, they are said to be of the nature of mithya as they disappear even as they are seen. Hence they are said to be different from the sat and asat, the real and the unreal. So too is it with mAyA. For it is said in the Gita: nAsato vidyate bhAvah nabhAvo vidyate satah! Ubhayorapi drSTo’ntastvanayostattvadarshibhih!! “Of the unreal there is no being; of the real there is no non-being. Of both these the truth is seen by the seers of the essence”. If to origination and non-existence by destruction of what has come to the absolute sat and asat has been declared by Lord himself who said that the fact of these, that the superlatively real cannot be non-existent, and the absolutely unreal cannot become existent and that has been determined by the seers of Truth. Thus also, this mAyA is not a sadvastu [real], it is not an asadvastu [unreal] and it is not both [real and unreal]. As it is not possible to determine if it is real or unreal, it is indescribable [anirvacanIya]. As it is not capable of being stated to be real or unreal and so is called anirvacanIya, so too it is said to be anirvacanIya also for the reason that it cannot be said to be different or non-different from Brahman. If it is said to be entirely different from Brahman, that will conflict with the shruti-texts intimating non-difference. In the world there is absence of difference between a power and the possessor of that power. But if it is said to be non-different from Brahman, difficulty will arise as it [maya] is liable to destruction while Brahman cannot be sublated in any of the three periods of time. If it is said to be both different and non-different, that will be to indulge in a contradiction. The real and the unreal are opposed to each other, relate to different periods of time and it is not right to predicate them together in the same place. Therefore, it isnot of the nature of both what is real and what is not real. Hence it means it is not different, it is not non-different; it is not both. Similarly, it is beginningless. So, it is without parts. For, if it is with parts, it must be said to have originated. But if it is said to be without parts, its evolution [into things of the world] cannot be asserted. Hence, it is not without parts. It cannot be both as both cannot be affirmed of a thing in the same context. Hence, as between reality and unreality, difference and non-difference, being with parts and being without parts, nothing can be predicated of mAyA. Hence it is anirvacanIya, indescribable. It is of a very amazing nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeevothama ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I know it's a weird subject, but the lede seams unnecessarily obscure and idiosyncratic. 1Z ( talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The summary section contains no information about the subject, and the next words found in the article mention how many times the subject is discussed in certain texts. A summary section for the less-devoted reader should be made a top priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB31:93E9:D878:D2DD:2F68:CF19 ( talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Architect Mayasura is in anyway related he is the architect the trimurti and Patala(Underworld)
I feel Maya as illusion, has three pargamtics within its semantics. Maya (illusion) as used in Philosphy, The Vedantic Maya and the Buddhist Maya. These three concepts are similar yet has subtle diffrences. - unknown
(I read everything as if it has a Bible Genesis origin.) And I see things here that I would perceive and agree with what i already know. It seems Maya is being indicated as a spirit light. It is VishNu's return in Manu. Hindu flood story Manu (Man Nu) is known to be Noah. And at Mount Ararat Turkey the Khurds told me, We call him Nu. Alexander Hislop said Vish Nu is the ascension of Man Nu (ish Nu, the man Noah); though Hindu belief reverses this claim as Vishnu came down at the Flood and reincarnated as Manu (Noah). In Chinese, the Maya is the mother who gives birth to Buddha who the Hindu say has been here once before the Flood (as Enoch exempt from death). Likewise, six Menu existed as forefathers to the Flood's Manu. The sothic world (1460 years as 365 leap days to The Return) of the winter solstice is regarded as the return of Noah's spirit, return of Manu, return of Vishnu inside Manu,return of preFlood king Xisuthros (or Greek Christos) all are the same person to save the world again. Thus the Persian regard the coronation of Cyrus as return of VishNu in ManNu, but in China this return is Buddha the birth from Maya. So the existence of Maya as an actual woman (like Mary mother of Jesus) is vague. It is the light giving birth to a christ, a reincarnation of the former savior returning to save again. (in 560bc) So the dispute of enlighten or illusion both exist to define Maya as much as Protestants debating Catholics over the god-power of Mother Mary or dillusion of such. Was it Mary who enlightened Jesus? Was it Maya who enlightened Buddha? The making from nothing can be compared to virgin birth without source materials. Thus (Maya) inventions actually have both sides, the real, and the delusions.
Though there are books that point out similar Egyptian to American Mayans, there are more that equate Mayan words with Chinese. Hindu Indians who study American Mayans do write and claim Maya comes from India. Is it not a direct path from India to China to Copan? 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The term Maya occurs in many Bhagavad Gita verses, moreover the term Avidyā (which has the same connotation as Maya) is frequently mentioned in the principal Upanishads, so it is childish to say that the concept of Maya was introduced by Adi Shankara.
Makyo is a distinct concept from Zen and should not redirect to Maya:
Based on this information from you, I feel Makyo should be directed here then to Maya because it contrasts the fact that man does not (and cannot) distinguish between his enlightenment by God and delusions illusions of the devils. It is fitting to show the issue between magic and miracle. 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Who ever this Maya or spirit gives birth to, I am wondering the son of Chinese Maya and of Hindu Maya in connection to Persian Magi. The kingship stolen by Magi in Persia by Smerdis also uses the name Gaumata, while under Mayan Mother of Buddha in WikiPedia the Buddha son is called Gautama. I dont dispute meanings such as Chinese Maya means love, and Hindu Maya means enLight or Illusion because cuneiform writing at Hattusa Ararat was a mystery due to bias bigotry that cunieform must be Shemetic. It wasnt, it was Latin-German-English. The words agua watar meant to drink water. Agua did not mean a drink, but to drink. Just like American English do you drink, or yes i drink means alcohol, so too in Russia the wadar or wadka is alcohol vodka. We change words. So i see a YES this Maya means all three enlighten, illusion, delusion, and love, even infactuation the illusion of love. So please inform me is there connection between Persian Gaumata as a name and Chinese Gautama, the christ-king saviors who are sons of Maya each in their own religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to edit this as Shankara never used the word Maya. See: The Advaita worldview by Rambachan p. 73. Check the footnote to get the reference from which it is demonstrated that Shankara never used the word Maya.
BTW: Advaita Vedanta does not say that the world is an illusion; rather, the experience of the world as dual, namely separate from Brahman, is an illusion and it is Maya. The world is Brahman; the experience of the world without the experience/recognition of Brahman is Maya/illusion/duality. The experience of the world (books, chairs, tables, people, houses ...) WITH the experience of Brahman is the true experience of the world, which is Brahman. Therefore, the perception of the world is a real perception as long as one is experiencing Brahman when he or she is perceiving the world. The moment the perception of Brahman is obscured, the world is experienced as dual. THAT is Maya--ignorance. So, the part on Advaita Vedanta perpetuates the misunderstanding about Advaita that the world is an illusion. The world is Brahman. The world IS. The world is a true/objective perception of reality when experienced as/with Brahman
in Lila (Hinduism) the following related words appear: "The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian philosophy—has changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the divine actor and magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the spell of the magic play. As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, without perceiving the unity of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya. (...) In the Hindu view of nature, then, all forms are relative, fluid and ever-changing maya, conjured up by the great magician of the divine play. The world of maya changes continuously, because the divine lila is a rhythmic, dynamic play. The dynamic force of the play is karma, important concept of Indian thought. Karma means "action". It is the active principle of the play, the total universe in action, where everything is dynamically connected with everything else. In the words of the Gita Karma is the force of creation, wherefrom all things have their life."
—Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (1975)
could be used to refer to the subject as well as connect it to the term Lila and also to Maya (Buddhist mental factor). my English aint good enough for the job so I leave my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.102.189 ( talk) 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like an issue that should be covered under Fritjof Capra. There are many notable people who have their own (modern) views on Maya, Karma, Brahman, etc. IMO, it would be trivia to include their views in each of these articles. Hoverfish Talk 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to add Tamil to the introduction. The word is identical to the Sanskrit because it is a borrowing from Sanskrit. Shall we list all the identical borrowings? This is the reason WP:INDICSCRIPTS became policy: the endless listing of identical words in various Indian languages. Ogress smash! 07:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Your alleged cite is OR and does not state the origin of Sanskrit as being from Tamil, please use the talk page. Ogress smash! 09:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You are engaging in OR by deciding that the DED information means the word is not a borrowing. That's the definition of WP:OR. Unless DED says "Sanskrit borrowed this word from proto-Dravidian", you are engaging in improper behavior as a Wikipedia editors. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - even if you were correct (and, incidentally, Tamil is not proto-Dravidian), you'd need a reliable source to state it. Meanwhile, there are a ton of reliable cites demonstrating clearly it is a Sanskrit word with a Sanskrit root-form and cousins as well as cousins in non-Indic languages. The closest thing you have to any kind of claim is Southworth's "origin uncertain" in a highly speculative section of his Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia. There is clearly scholarly consensus that maya is a Sanskrit word that appears in the Vedas and in Iranian languages, and pretty much zero mention of Dravidian in multiple cites. Even your paper suggesting the philosophical expansion of Sanskrit terms makes no claims that maya is a Dravidian word: his argument is that the words show Dravidian influence in their evolution as ideas, not that the words are themselves Dravidian. Ogress smash! 18:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Edits on June 14th seem to have eliminated some previous contributions, without comment or justification. -Tim
Schopenhauer's philosophy of WORLD AS WILL AND IDEA also evolved from the same concept of Maya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 ( talk) 20:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Started. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone please remove this from the Etymology section:
Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) ... probably comes from two roots, mā (or may-) which means "measure", and "yā" which means "vanish, to go, undertake".[8] These roots are also related to the root mā, which means mother and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[8][9]
It is sourced, but it is Prof. Gonda's own speculation. It's more than certain that the mā- root for "measure" is UNRELATED to mā (mother). Of course also Sanskrit never forms nouns by a combination of two roots, as is his other suggestion. With due respect to Prof. Gonda, but please the etymology section be sourced to reliable dictionaries. — kashmiri TALK 02:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The term maya comes from √ma, "to measure," and can denote Brahman's creative yet delusive power or the material form that results from the activation of such a power. As the first, maya is often equated with sakti; as the second, with prakrti. Like the other two, maya is often understood to be a cosmic feminine principle, and the use of the term tends to stress the illusory, impermanent, and/or changeable nature of creation in relation to the fully real, eternal, and unchanging nature of the Absolute.
Many scholars have noted the associations between some or all of these principles and female gender in Hindu thought in different contexts.
It is notable also that the mother of the Buddha in early Buddhist accounts of the life of Gautama the Buddha is called Mahamaya ("great maya"), indicating a connection in this literature of the term maya with maternal femininity.
@Kashmiri: The "ma" part does verify. Have you really read Gonda's chapter on Maya etymology? Or did you read Pintchman and misattribute a quote from pages 3-4 to Gonda? Once you were able to verify at least part of it, the √ma part, why delete that part as well? I see three more sources that verify "ma" part of the old etymology. Give me a day to check the remaining. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: I see the "yā" part in Gonda's book. I also see the "yā" part of Māyā in Nirukta explanation as referenced on page 205 of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Volume 24, but it is different from Gonda. The Nirukta one is closer to folk etymology in some cases. I will look into this further, and add "yā" part if there is mainstream support. The "mā" root part of the etymology is same in these two as recent WP:RS such as Mahony, Pintchman, Zimmer, Goudriaan, etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@ 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)
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: 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)
@ 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:, @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)
@Mayasutra: See you at DRN / ANI. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@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)
@ 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. μÎÏÏον , μεÏÏÎÏ ; 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)
@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)
@
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
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)
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]
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)
References
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)
@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)
"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)
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
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. — Spaceman Spiff 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mayasutra: I have reverted this edit, per WP:BRD, because "√mā" which means "measure", is not just according to Gonda and Pintchman, it is the most accepted etymology by numerous scholars, and the article already cited those additional scholars such as Whitney etc. Further, this is not an article on what "mā" means, it is an article on Maya (illusion). So your changes to WP:Coatrack and emphasize "time, death, water" etc is undue and unconstructive. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is distracting and misleading to mention other meanings of ma that are not related to maya (as determined by scholars). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Which means again, you did not read well. I used the same scholars which Sarah Welch did (except one additional Singh who captures Zimmer's stance very succinctly). Try
reading again. You will find stuff highlighted in bold below:
Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology.
According to Jan Gonda and Tracy Pintchman, the word probably comes from the root ""√mā"" or "mā",[10][11] which means "to measure".[12][13] Monier Williams list multiple meanings for the root "mā"; including time, death, and water;[14] and states māyā meant "wisdom and extraordinary power" in an earlier older language, but from the Vedic period onwards, the word came to mean "illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick, sorcery, witchcraft and magic".[4][7]
According to P. D. Shastri, the Monier Williams' list is a "loose definition, misleading generalization", and not accurate in interpreting ancient Vedic and medieval era Sanskrit texts; instead, he suggests a more accurate meaning of māyā is "appearance, not mere illusion".[15]
According to Jan Gonda, the word is related to mā, which means "mother", and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[10][16] To Zimmer, maya here implies art, is the maker’s power, "a mother in all three worlds", a creatrix, her magic is the activity in the Will-spirit.[17] However, in Vedic Sanskrit, the word mā has also been used as a point of negation, to represent 'not' and 'do not'; with māyā representing an illusory image or phantom,[14] which is subsequently represented in mahabharata as creating illusions (said of Vishnu), with samkhya identifying māyā with prakriti or pradhana, and vedanta regarding māyā as the source of the visible universe.[14] Zimmer equates water as the primary materialization of Vishnu's māyā-energy; and hence, a visible manifestation of the divine essence.[18][19]
According to William Mahony, the root of the word may be man- or "to think", implying the role of imagination in the creation of the world. In early Vedic usage, the term implies, states Mahony, "the wondrous and mysterious and wondrous power to turn an idea into a physical reality".[12][20]
Franklin Southworth states the word's origin is uncertain, and other possible roots of māyā include may- meaning mystify, confuse, intoxicate, delude, as well as māy- which means "disappear, be lost".[21]
A similar word is also found in the Avestan māyā with the meaning of "magic power".[22]
BTW, no matter how many times you strikeout; what Sarah Welch is doing is POV pushing. Ms.Sarah Welch chose not to reply to requests of common consensus; something which you and SpacemanSpiff overlook. The above is for your clarity only. Your group can keep wiki the way you want to. Good luck. Addition -- if you can read thru well, you will find the additional meanings of ma represented in each of the schools (vedic literature, mahabharat, samkhya, vedanta). I suppose this is what Ms.Sarah Welch lacks despite her copious contributions to wiki (the very basic in understanding sanskrit which even people like me can figure out easily enough; and for which I respect experts like Kashmiri (bow to you sir for putting up with these)). It all boils down to the way you treat others; for which I am entitled to my personal opinions on Ms.Sarah Welch. --
Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (
talk)
10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Addition -- mA has multiple meanings. In vedic sanskrit it just means don't or negation (not, do not, ought not). It does NOT mean mother. But in classical sanskrit, mA acquired other meanings. Which is why modern lexicographers (who include works from classical sanskrit and list them in dictionaries) pose a problem. This is what Kashmiri asks, how can mA of vedic sanskrit be linked to maya and mother? Just because Jan Gonda (the greatest western sanskrit professor), did it, does it become correct? Now that you asked exactly what Kashmiri did, hope you can appreciate Kashmiri's bearing on this topic. Since you said wiki does not bother to know truth as long as source is reliable, I chose to add other meanings of ma and maya. Hope you understand what I tried. Also, hope you understand, this is the reason why Ms.Sarah Welch cannot explain, chooses to get personal, cannot work on consensus, complains, and gets aggressive. (BTW, I believe Kashmiri is a published expert. Certainly deserves more respect than the roadside language of rat's ass and personal nonsense thrown by Ms.Sarah Welch and RexxS). Thank you. -- Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] ( talk) 13:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra
I am not sure where we are at. You wondered why your edit was reverted. I have explained. You wondered why the same reasons don't apply to MSW's content. I have explained. What next?
Wikipedia is not a research journal that can accept your original contributions and evaluate them. Wikipedia only summarises what the scholars say. Whether you agree with the scholars or not has no bearing on what goes into Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for digging up the topic after so many months. I saw Gonda was still heavily promoted by Ms Sarah Welch, and Pintchman made into some sort of authority on Sanskrit etymology. I sincerely hope she doesn't propose next a 3rd year student of French as an authority on the French language! So, I have now (1) entirely removed any references to Pintchman from the Etymology section; (2) rearranged etymology ideas in chronological order; (3) removed Zimmer as a non-linguist, too - the quote is far from what we expect from a linguistic publication; (4) combined Gonda's propositions in one paragraph; (5) brought consistency in the way we present verbal roots; (6) made minor edits to keep a neutral Wikipedia style. Here is the edit [9], thank you for any comments. — kashmiri TALK 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Kashmiri: Please stop WP:TE and edit warring. Attacking scholars such as Gonda and Pintchman (both professors, both well cited), and your attacking their competence and scholarly publications is inappropriate. You are repeating your behavior and arguments. In January 2016, you argued that Gonda is primary, while Pintchman is somehow unqualified for primary research, in your opinions/ wisdom/ prejudice. In April 2016, you were back at this again, repeating the same arguments and questions. In August 2016, above you allege "I am still heavily promoting Gonda" etc, and with the edit summary here you are re-attacking Pintchman. You and @Mayasutra have been cautioned and reasoned with by @ Kautilya3, @ RexxS and admin @ SpacemanSpiff in previous discussions on this very topic. This is going on for too long. Please take this to ANI etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Kashmiri: You have been warned multiple times for disruptive editing and edit warring, most recently for removing properly sourced content from this article. Let me make this clear: you are not qualified to take on yourself the decision about which sources are acceptable in Wikipedia. We have three policies that govern that decision: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Reliable sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - WP:V. "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers." - WP:NOR. "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." - WP:NPOV. Pincher's and Halbfass' books are published by State University of New York Press; Braue's and Snodgrass' books are published by Motilal Banarsidass. They meet our criteria for reliable sources on the issue and their viewpoints are properly included in this article. If you disagree that they are reliable sources in this context, you can ask for third-party opinions at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If I see you remove properly sourced content from this Wikipedia article again, I'll ask for you to be topic-banned from this entire topic area. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has multiple cases of sources being rejected because they are published by lulu.com - so much so that urls containing lulu.com are on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and you can't save an edit if it has such a url in it. The reason is that Lulu Press is a " vanity press" where anybody can pay to have a book published. As a self-published source, it will almost never meet our criteria for reliable sources. There's a fairly comprehensive explanation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24 #Lulu.com published books. As far as I know, the only exceptions that have been discussed are at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80 #Lulu.com and Academic Associations where Lulu Press are the printers of some books published by the Society for Historical Archaeology. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maya (illusion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The normal interpretation of Maya is that of non-existense just seeming to exist but the Taittiriya Upanishad 2, 1 clearly states "Brahma satyam" Brahma (the universe) is truth. The Universe is seen as unreal because it was dreamed or meditated on by Brahman (Vayu Purana 1.24.81 and 2.10.50 f.). But Brahma said AUM to his dream or meditation to make it steady, see Jaiminiya Brahmana 1, 88: "By means of the AUM-sound he prevented the created from going away". The Sarasvati Rahasyopanishad (one of the minor Upanishads) in 48 says "Maya is the process of becoming" which is very close to the sght of Maya as creating energy.
The point is: all this points out that Maya is not illusion in the sense of non-existence but in the sense of seeming everytime the same while in reallity underlying constant change. Should this not be depicted in the text because now the text leaves the false interpretation of Maya untouched. This also raises the question if Maya should not better be translated with evolution which means constant change but this is not a matter of this article but of translators of Hindu-scriptures.-- 80.133.253.60 ( talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)