![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
![]() | On 24 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Yama to Yama in world religions. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Yama ("Twin" or "Death") is the twin and counterpart (or dual) of Yamantaka ("Defeater of Death"). According to tradition, Yama (Death) was overdoing his role, and depopulating the earth. So, the "Compassionate Lord" (Shiva as Avalokiteshvara) assumed a form more terrible than Death; descended to Hell, and defeated and killed Lord Death himself. This Hindu myth is an instance of the worldwide myth of the dying-ressurecting god, of whom Jesus Christ is apparently a further instance. Other well-known instances comprise: Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Tlaloc, Kronus, and so forth.
Anyone else think it needs to be changed? I can't make head or tail of what it's saying... elvenscout742 09:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"He is one of the most ancient mythological beings in the world and in parallel forms or another has also been found all over Eurasia. He is known as Yima by Zoroastrians, Jimmu in Japanese legend, and might be in origin cognate with Ymir of Norse legend."
Surya, why did you pull this? Do you think that Yama is exclusively Hindu? I do not wish an edit war here, but Yama is not exclusive to Hinduism, and the article is already pretty much Hindu POV. You want to accomodate Yama from other traditions, or disambiguate? ( 20040302 12:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))
I'm no expert of mythology, but I'm fairly certain that in Japan he's known as Enma or Emma-o. I'll need to go and check this stuff out and see what else there is. Sweetfreek 00:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yama and Yima seem to have little in common, other than three letters of their name. One is a god of the dead, the other is a mortal king and Noah-analogue. Can anybody provide any evidence that they might refer to the same being? -- Spudtater 03:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yama is also the first mortal man and the first man to die. ( 20040302)
I merged Emma-o into this article. Emma-o was 90% fancruft, anyway, so very little new information has been added. If people want to purge the cruft from "In media", by all means have at it. — Amcaja 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We had three articles extant, Yama, Yanluo, and Yan Luo (Chinese mythology). I have merged the latter two, since they obviously had the exact same referent. There is some difference of opinion about merging Yama and Yanluo. (There is clearly no constituency for merging Yima and Yama, or Yama and Jamshid.) Since there is in any case a divergence between the Hindu Yama and the Buddhist Yama, and this article is mostly about the Hindu Yama, I suggest splitting off the Buddhist sections and merging Yanluo with them, leaving the main Yama article to be about the Hindu deity. RandomCritic 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have executed the move to split Yama and Yama (Hinduism). I corrected most of the links, including those that wanted to refer to Yamas; generic links still point to the central article. As I have made about 60 changes, it's likely to draw some attention. ( 20040302 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
Would it be possible to find a picture of the Hindu Yama for this page instead of a picture of the Tibetan one? RandomCritic 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC) The Picture of Yama in Tibet looks like Mahakala, not Yama. Yama is usually brown and bull-headed - often holding the wheel of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbaillie ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
the main protagonist in ookami was yami not yama. The ultimate samurai ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to re-invent the wheel on this one:
D.P.P.N. by Gunapala_Piyasena_Malalasekera already wrote a concise "encyclopedia" entry on Yama in canonical Theravada Buddhist sources:
http://www.palikanon.com/namen/y/yama.htm
It seems to me slightly odd that the article currently mentions exclusively etymological arguments for Yama being twofold, rather than actual myths/texts that describe him/them as two persons ("twins" or otherwise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.90.89 ( talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yama and Dharma are the same, right? Yama is the lord of death, and for dispensing justice and truth, Yama is also called Dharma.
Then, in the article, why is there NO mention of Yudhishthira from The Mahabharata being the son of Yama?
Thanks 59.184.183.47 ( talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"God of sound and version"? This makes no sense. "Version" is not a noun which can stand on its own; it is not a "thing" the way sound is a "thing". You have "a" version "of" something else. The author of this phrase was likely a non-native English speaker. Can someone translate? 152.130.14.7 ( talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section at the end that stipulates Yama was taken into Finno-Ugric and Hungarian mythologies. This is terrible, old-fashioned research of the type that tries to connect completely different deities and cultures just because they sound alike. Yama has nothing to do with the Juma/Jumala of the Finno-Ugric peoples, for whom that's just the generic name of the highest deity (in modern Finnish, "Jumala" still means "God"). These languages are not related to Sanskrit and the name/deity has nothing whatsoever to do with Yama. Whoever wrote the book cited knows nothing about these mythologies; it's as ridiculous as the old Kalma=Kali error (another connection that doesn't exist).-- Snowgrouse ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So when I call it ridiculous, I stand by that, and I am also calling it belittling and ignorant of the cultures in question, in a way that'd be unacceptable and considered racist when discussing any "bigger" nations and mythologies today. But you know what? I'm not even an expert on Finnish mythology the same way someone else here might be, so I'm not armed with the kinds of books that'd be the best thing to cite here. Because if we get into the point where this gets made into an argument--and I really hope it won't get into that--where the Finno-Ugric side would have to try and *disprove* the Yama fringe theory--of course, this side would lose because the theory is so fringe there's probably very little even being written about it. What do you actually want as proof that this is a wacky and dated theory? What would convince you? Because I know my saying "look, I'm Finnish and we learned about this stuff in school and even by schoolkid-level knowledge I know this is bizarre and absurd and bugger-all to do with what we know of Juma(la)" isn't a reliable source. Of course it's not, but I doubt we'll find an academic willing to write an book refuting the Yama theory because someone's dug an old theory up on Wikipedia. Personally I'm baffled that anyone's even taken issue with me having removed a theory as far off as that--even the material you can find on Juma(la) in general (which, admittedly, still has bizarre theories clinging to it as well because it's not been studied enough) should be enough to show why. Will that be enough proof? Just looking up Jumala or Juma?
Because right now, that section does nothing except disseminate a wildly inaccurate theory with no knowledge of Finno-Ugric mythology as truth, and as such, should be removed. Just as my adding the above example of "hey, Zeus is really Yama" into the Zeus article would be deleted, even if I found one old book sharing the crackpot theory.
And if you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and read some medieval Hindu poems where the poet claps his hands at Death because his devotion has saved him from Death, while simultaneously visualising Death as an old Odin-type guy on a cloud who likes bonfires and people getting drunk as skunks in his name. Snowgrouse ( talk) 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@ RandomCritic: A very long time ago, you relativised the claim that Yama and Ymir were cognates, here. Now, I have no complaint about this in itself (quite apart from the reasonable prescription time for wp edits:-). However, I wonder if you still have access to the source you refer to, namely, Meid, W., 1992, Die Germanische Religion im Zeugnis der Sprache. In Beck et al., Germanische Religionsgeschichte – Quellen und Quellenprobleme, pp. 486-507. New York, de Gruyter, and if you could check one point there.
The point is this: You formulated your change as if the hypothesis of common etymological roots of Yama and Ymir had been first formulated in that work by Meid. However, I hear this being mentioned as a fact in my childhood, and I was born in 1950. In fact my mother had studied history of religion in her youth, and when I as early teenager showed an interest of this subject, she told me a lot of interesting stuff - some of which even may have been correct:-). My mother was quite inspired by the theories of Dumézil, which I think were quite dominant in the times of her studies. She claimed that there very often were close relationships between mythological "protohumans" and underworld kings; I believe she also was thinking about the Osiris myths, but do not remember her mentioning it at the time. I have later read more modern books about Indoeuropean languages and Protoindoeuropean reconstructions, which are much more restrictive in recognising cognates and inferring facts about the Protoindoeuropean society and beliefs from them.
(On the other hand, I do not recall that my mother ever referred to Protoindoeuropean twin myths. I have seen some mention of this in more recent literature - including one which also considers the twin pair Romulus and Remus, and actually implicitly seems to consider Remus as originating from a cognate to Yama, but with a changed initial consonant, in order to alliterate with the ethnonymic Romulus.)
Now, of course, I do not consider my memories of what my mother told me half a century ago as a reliable Wikipedia source. However, if you have access to Meid's article, could you then please check whether the author claims to have discovered these cognates, or more seems to be referring to an hypothesis which has been around for a while? I also think that this reference should be re-added to the article; your in-line reference to Meid remains since your edits in protowikipedian times:-), but not the information about the actual source. JoergenB ( talk) 19:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yama (Hinduism) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
![]() | On 24 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Yama to Yama in world religions. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Yama ("Twin" or "Death") is the twin and counterpart (or dual) of Yamantaka ("Defeater of Death"). According to tradition, Yama (Death) was overdoing his role, and depopulating the earth. So, the "Compassionate Lord" (Shiva as Avalokiteshvara) assumed a form more terrible than Death; descended to Hell, and defeated and killed Lord Death himself. This Hindu myth is an instance of the worldwide myth of the dying-ressurecting god, of whom Jesus Christ is apparently a further instance. Other well-known instances comprise: Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Tlaloc, Kronus, and so forth.
Anyone else think it needs to be changed? I can't make head or tail of what it's saying... elvenscout742 09:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"He is one of the most ancient mythological beings in the world and in parallel forms or another has also been found all over Eurasia. He is known as Yima by Zoroastrians, Jimmu in Japanese legend, and might be in origin cognate with Ymir of Norse legend."
Surya, why did you pull this? Do you think that Yama is exclusively Hindu? I do not wish an edit war here, but Yama is not exclusive to Hinduism, and the article is already pretty much Hindu POV. You want to accomodate Yama from other traditions, or disambiguate? ( 20040302 12:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))
I'm no expert of mythology, but I'm fairly certain that in Japan he's known as Enma or Emma-o. I'll need to go and check this stuff out and see what else there is. Sweetfreek 00:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yama and Yima seem to have little in common, other than three letters of their name. One is a god of the dead, the other is a mortal king and Noah-analogue. Can anybody provide any evidence that they might refer to the same being? -- Spudtater 03:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yama is also the first mortal man and the first man to die. ( 20040302)
I merged Emma-o into this article. Emma-o was 90% fancruft, anyway, so very little new information has been added. If people want to purge the cruft from "In media", by all means have at it. — Amcaja 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We had three articles extant, Yama, Yanluo, and Yan Luo (Chinese mythology). I have merged the latter two, since they obviously had the exact same referent. There is some difference of opinion about merging Yama and Yanluo. (There is clearly no constituency for merging Yima and Yama, or Yama and Jamshid.) Since there is in any case a divergence between the Hindu Yama and the Buddhist Yama, and this article is mostly about the Hindu Yama, I suggest splitting off the Buddhist sections and merging Yanluo with them, leaving the main Yama article to be about the Hindu deity. RandomCritic 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have executed the move to split Yama and Yama (Hinduism). I corrected most of the links, including those that wanted to refer to Yamas; generic links still point to the central article. As I have made about 60 changes, it's likely to draw some attention. ( 20040302 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
Would it be possible to find a picture of the Hindu Yama for this page instead of a picture of the Tibetan one? RandomCritic 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC) The Picture of Yama in Tibet looks like Mahakala, not Yama. Yama is usually brown and bull-headed - often holding the wheel of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbaillie ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
the main protagonist in ookami was yami not yama. The ultimate samurai ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to re-invent the wheel on this one:
D.P.P.N. by Gunapala_Piyasena_Malalasekera already wrote a concise "encyclopedia" entry on Yama in canonical Theravada Buddhist sources:
http://www.palikanon.com/namen/y/yama.htm
It seems to me slightly odd that the article currently mentions exclusively etymological arguments for Yama being twofold, rather than actual myths/texts that describe him/them as two persons ("twins" or otherwise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.90.89 ( talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yama and Dharma are the same, right? Yama is the lord of death, and for dispensing justice and truth, Yama is also called Dharma.
Then, in the article, why is there NO mention of Yudhishthira from The Mahabharata being the son of Yama?
Thanks 59.184.183.47 ( talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"God of sound and version"? This makes no sense. "Version" is not a noun which can stand on its own; it is not a "thing" the way sound is a "thing". You have "a" version "of" something else. The author of this phrase was likely a non-native English speaker. Can someone translate? 152.130.14.7 ( talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section at the end that stipulates Yama was taken into Finno-Ugric and Hungarian mythologies. This is terrible, old-fashioned research of the type that tries to connect completely different deities and cultures just because they sound alike. Yama has nothing to do with the Juma/Jumala of the Finno-Ugric peoples, for whom that's just the generic name of the highest deity (in modern Finnish, "Jumala" still means "God"). These languages are not related to Sanskrit and the name/deity has nothing whatsoever to do with Yama. Whoever wrote the book cited knows nothing about these mythologies; it's as ridiculous as the old Kalma=Kali error (another connection that doesn't exist).-- Snowgrouse ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So when I call it ridiculous, I stand by that, and I am also calling it belittling and ignorant of the cultures in question, in a way that'd be unacceptable and considered racist when discussing any "bigger" nations and mythologies today. But you know what? I'm not even an expert on Finnish mythology the same way someone else here might be, so I'm not armed with the kinds of books that'd be the best thing to cite here. Because if we get into the point where this gets made into an argument--and I really hope it won't get into that--where the Finno-Ugric side would have to try and *disprove* the Yama fringe theory--of course, this side would lose because the theory is so fringe there's probably very little even being written about it. What do you actually want as proof that this is a wacky and dated theory? What would convince you? Because I know my saying "look, I'm Finnish and we learned about this stuff in school and even by schoolkid-level knowledge I know this is bizarre and absurd and bugger-all to do with what we know of Juma(la)" isn't a reliable source. Of course it's not, but I doubt we'll find an academic willing to write an book refuting the Yama theory because someone's dug an old theory up on Wikipedia. Personally I'm baffled that anyone's even taken issue with me having removed a theory as far off as that--even the material you can find on Juma(la) in general (which, admittedly, still has bizarre theories clinging to it as well because it's not been studied enough) should be enough to show why. Will that be enough proof? Just looking up Jumala or Juma?
Because right now, that section does nothing except disseminate a wildly inaccurate theory with no knowledge of Finno-Ugric mythology as truth, and as such, should be removed. Just as my adding the above example of "hey, Zeus is really Yama" into the Zeus article would be deleted, even if I found one old book sharing the crackpot theory.
And if you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and read some medieval Hindu poems where the poet claps his hands at Death because his devotion has saved him from Death, while simultaneously visualising Death as an old Odin-type guy on a cloud who likes bonfires and people getting drunk as skunks in his name. Snowgrouse ( talk) 21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@ RandomCritic: A very long time ago, you relativised the claim that Yama and Ymir were cognates, here. Now, I have no complaint about this in itself (quite apart from the reasonable prescription time for wp edits:-). However, I wonder if you still have access to the source you refer to, namely, Meid, W., 1992, Die Germanische Religion im Zeugnis der Sprache. In Beck et al., Germanische Religionsgeschichte – Quellen und Quellenprobleme, pp. 486-507. New York, de Gruyter, and if you could check one point there.
The point is this: You formulated your change as if the hypothesis of common etymological roots of Yama and Ymir had been first formulated in that work by Meid. However, I hear this being mentioned as a fact in my childhood, and I was born in 1950. In fact my mother had studied history of religion in her youth, and when I as early teenager showed an interest of this subject, she told me a lot of interesting stuff - some of which even may have been correct:-). My mother was quite inspired by the theories of Dumézil, which I think were quite dominant in the times of her studies. She claimed that there very often were close relationships between mythological "protohumans" and underworld kings; I believe she also was thinking about the Osiris myths, but do not remember her mentioning it at the time. I have later read more modern books about Indoeuropean languages and Protoindoeuropean reconstructions, which are much more restrictive in recognising cognates and inferring facts about the Protoindoeuropean society and beliefs from them.
(On the other hand, I do not recall that my mother ever referred to Protoindoeuropean twin myths. I have seen some mention of this in more recent literature - including one which also considers the twin pair Romulus and Remus, and actually implicitly seems to consider Remus as originating from a cognate to Yama, but with a changed initial consonant, in order to alliterate with the ethnonymic Romulus.)
Now, of course, I do not consider my memories of what my mother told me half a century ago as a reliable Wikipedia source. However, if you have access to Meid's article, could you then please check whether the author claims to have discovered these cognates, or more seems to be referring to an hypothesis which has been around for a while? I also think that this reference should be re-added to the article; your in-line reference to Meid remains since your edits in protowikipedian times:-), but not the information about the actual source. JoergenB ( talk) 19:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yama (Hinduism) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)