Talk:Maya (religion)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject class rating

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)

Mulholland Drive

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)

Pretty bad

The article is not complete.202.138.120.65 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Matrix

Would a Matrix referrence be appropriate? It certainly evolved from Maya.--Scix 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Star Wars[1] --Ne0Freedom 04:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)

I feel that might be a little difficult to verify, and remain consistant. The Matrix and a great many other films that deal with alternative/simulated reality usually have (as plot devices) "antagonistic forces" that attempt to impose the simulated relality onto the "heroes"/sentient life. To me this seems more in keeping with the ideas expressed within Gnosticism . While there are inevitably crosovers, I haven't found any references to a "Gnosticism#Demiurge" within Maya. It could be that Maya can be understand in Gnostic terms. If that where decided to be so I would suggest posting suggestions on the talk page of Gnosticism to see about improving both pages perhaps via mutual links to the other.

steve10345 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

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)

Maya in Buddhism

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)

Third opinion

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)

New edit by User:Mitsube

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)

Maya (अनिर्वचनीय)(indescribable) (illusion) (section)

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)

Lede

I know it's a weird subject, but the lede seams unnecessarily obscure and idiosyncratic. 1Z (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed too. I restored a previous version that was much clearer and without idiosyncratic elements. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hoverfish. I think it is much better. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No summary?

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)

Mayasura

I'm wondering if the Architect Mayasura is in anyway related he is the architect the trimurti and Patala(Underworld)

Illusion? (Delusion) or EnLighten

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)

Maya in Hindu philosophy

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 should not redirect here

Makyo is a distinct concept from Zen and should not redirect to Maya:

The Zen term makyo, meaning bedevilling illusions, refers to the hallucinations and mental disturbances that arise during the course of intensive meditation and are often mistaken by the practitioner as enlightenment or kensho.

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)

Question, Maya's Son

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)

1) Shankara never used the word Maya, 2) According to Adv. Ved. The world is not an illusion, the World is real.

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

what about the modern term?

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)

Tamil

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)

It's the other way about, Ogress. Please check the two references cited by me. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:48, 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)

Cite 2: "Maya is a Sanskrit word." No mention of Tamil. Cite 1: TED. Does not state Sanskrit borrowed maya. WP:OR. Ogress _smash! 09:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have access to the source cited for the Sanskrit word? If yes, can you quote the text that supports the claim? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the first section of the page is a well-cited etymology section that mentions only PIE origins. You added the cite and now you are upset it says "Sanskrit"? There are about 12 cites, are you challenging them all? Ogress _smash! 09:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can quote it, and I did not add it, and also read Maya (illusion)#Etymology, which cites multiple sources. Ogress _smash! 09:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a quote for the cite that I added, but for the one that remains after you removed them. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Maya is a Sanskrit word." I quoted it above. I'm adding yet another cite as well since you seem to feel six or seven and an entire section on the etymology of the word preexisting within this article are insufficient. Also, there's an Old Iranian cognate, which makes an alleged Tamil origin extremely unlikely. Ogress _smash! 10:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new cite you quoted does not say maya is a Tamil word. It suggests that certain philosophical principles behind the later theory of maya might have a Dravidian origin. Those two things are very, very different. Ogress _smash! 10:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Maya is a Sanskrit word." says nothing about its etymology. I've added Burrow & Emeneau's Dravidian Etymological Dictionary for a cluster of related words including "illusion" in Tamil with cognates in all Dravidian languages, all around the same root. These include Toda and other Nilgiri tribal languages that have zero contact with Sanskrit or Prakrits. That clearly establishes Dravidian origin. Now, the Old Iranian cognate that you've claimed above is the only interesting citation in favour of that word not being borrowed into Sanskrit. Will check the citation for that and comment on it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC) P.S. I don't have access to the book you've cited. Can you share the quote?

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)

Fair enough. It was probably borderline WP:SYNTHESIS, not OR by any stretch, to rely on the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (in conjunction with the other source on the philosophical borrowing) for, what else, etymology. While that's not demonstration for Dravidian -> Sanskrit within the ambit of Wiki policies (of which I know a thing or two), it is demonstration that it IS a word long attested from Proto-Dravidian to nearly all Dravidian languages including Tamil (with more related terms in Tamil). Since there is not reference that has been cited for this word having been borrowed into Tamil and is of "uncertain origins" in Sanskrit itself, I find reason to include Tamil for the same reason Sanskrit is included. But, I rest my case and have little interest in pursuing an argument over this. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

changes

Edits on June 14th seem to have eliminated some previous contributions, without comment or justification. -Tim

Schopenhauer

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)

Archiving

Started. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

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)

@Kashmiri: Jan Gonda's scholarship is well respected. Wikipedia summarizes WP:RS. Don't do your own WP:OR in wikipedia, or cherrypick sources and pick sides, or start challenging WP:RS. If you find a reliable dictionary that hasn't been summarized, we can add that as well for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Many sources agree that māyā might be related to mā-, "to measure" (or "to span"). However, it must be only Prof. Gonda to come up with māyā = mā + yā, or that "mother" is related to "measure". We base Wikipedia on the mainstream view, not on WP:OR, even by a professor. By the way, I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing, must be misinterpretation. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was correct. I checked the referenced book by Jan Gonda (it is available online) and it nowhere says what the article claims. Correcting the text. — kashmiri ^TALK 03:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't access the other text, one with māyā = mā + yā, but I suspect the same problem. I will think how to remove this false etymology over the coming days, or replace it with sthng more mainstream. — kashmiri ^TALK 03:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You can add additional etymology, but don't delete sourced content. There is etymology on Maya in Gonda's book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Why are you reinstating false information? Gonda's book mentions ONLY that maya comes from ma-. Everything else has been invented by an editor here. Specifically, Gonda writes:

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.

(The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, pages 3-4).

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.

(ibid., p. 78).

How could someone suggest that Gonda, linking "maya" with "mother" in the book, meant etymology of the word maya – is beyond my comprehension.

So, please do NOT restore a BADLY sourced version. Wikipedia contains a lot of incorrect or wrongly sourced information that needs cleaning up, and this is one example. I am restoring the improvements - please do not revert them unless you can substantiate your version with a real publication, be it by J Gonda or any other RS. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I also saw it was actually you who has added this pseudo-reference to Gonda's book [2]. Any reason for inventing things? See, Wikipedia is not for WP:OR. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC) (Sorry, it was there before)

Here [3] you have the original text which was rightly removed by Ogress. As you can see, it was not sourced to Gonda's book. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@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)

WP:BRD and revisions

@Kashmiri: Please respect WP:BRD process. I am concerned with your OR, WP:TE, and personal allegations about scholars who have written on Maya (illusion) concept. Please do not remove Pintchman and other reliable sources, as this is inappropriate per wikipedia policies. Let us discuss it on this talk page, and if consensus does not work, we can take it to DRN and other due process. Let us begin with Pintchman which you removed, how is your concern supported by reliable sources and why is Pintchman's WP:RS not a secondary source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ms Sarah Welch, Pintchman is NOT a reliable source on Sanskrit etymology and should not be quoted anywhere in any Sanskrit etymology section. Here [4] you can acquaint yourself with Pintchman's qualifications. Please pay attention to the length of time she admits having studied Sanskrit. Hope you agree that her qualifications do not make her a reliable source on Sanskrit etymology for an encyclopaedia. Yes, a reliable source is one that reviews the etymology as proposed by various primary sources, instead of blindly repeating one version that suits her book. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Pintchman is a professor and a reliable source. Pintchman book is a secondary source, and refers to Gonda (others too, see above section). You can't both be attacking Jan Gonda as primary, then questioning Pintchman's ability to do primary research. Your personal views and OR on Pintchman is irrelevant, as this is not @kashmiri-pedia. As I wrote in the above section, if you find another reliable source that states something different, we can include a summary from it too for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care who attacks or does not attack Gonda or whoever. Enough that Pintchman is NOT A SANSKRIT SCHOLAR, and the book you quoted is NOT ON SANSKRIT ETYMOLOGY. Pitchman only mentions the supposed origins of the word maya just en passant, without even quoting a source, and you make it into a great encyclopaedic source. No, she did NOT do a review of linguistic theories and thus is not a secondary source, and no, being a professor does will not make your work "secondary".

When talking Sanskrit etymology, Indo-European scholars are usually the best place to turn to. Some Indian scholars have this weird tendency of tracing every single word of a language to a verbal root. Ma, mother, mummy, mamma, maman, etc., have the same origins which is first words of a baby, and hope nobody doubts it - except a few Indologists who try to make "mother" come from "measuring". Seen that?

In the article, you also added that maya "comes from a XXX root". No, words can be related to roots but they do not come from them, since roots are only theoretical constructs, sort of smallest common denominator in a range of cognate words, and not any kind of "proto-language".

Take a look here for PIE "mother", and then search for "measure" here. Hope this helps. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, there is NO Sanskrit word mā that would mean "mother". Someone confuses Sanskrit with Hindi, which may happen but should not make it to an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As to questioning Pintchman, Wikipedia is not an INDISCRIMINATE collection of views. Wikipedia focuses on mainstream, generally accepted views well reported in specialist literature, not on niche views or original research. When mentioning etymology of a word, a publication from the realm of language studies will be considered a reliable source; whilst a primary study on anthropology, medicine or religion will not. Pintchman's book belongs to the latter. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You are free to believe in whatever you want. You have not offered any reliable sources yet, and wiki articles (2 wikitionary links you have) are not reliable sources. Your arguments on Pintchman are WP:TE. The multiple sources I have cited are mainstream. You need to provide a reliable scholarly source that challenges Pintchman, Gonda, what is in the article. So far, you haven't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend to challenge anything. Just stop adding, to the Etymology section, fringe linguistic theories by anthropologists with little knowledge of Sanskrit. And your being PERSONAL does not help in discussing the article with you. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I have added summary with multiple WP:RS. Multiple implies it is not a fringe theory. Your are free to hold whatever opinions /prejudices /wisdom you want to. To show something is fringe, you need to provide scholarly reliable sources. You haven't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am drafting a RfC here, but wonder why you deleted the hatnote I added and why you restored duplication of Maya as Buddha's mother and Maya as personal name. Just for the fun of reverting? — kashmiri ^TALK 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As to your comments, several scholarly sources starting from MW testify that there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit. Those saying differently express a fringe view. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Once again, you are free to believe "there is no ma mother in Sanskrit" or whatever else you want. Once again, your view is simply not consistent with WP:RS such as Monier-Williams. I have the Monier-Williams on my desk. Which page number are you referring to, under which article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

page 804. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Page 804 confirms the "measure" part, once again. Did you miss the next two entries? See Mata, mother in MW; and look for its etymological roots. MW is old. See other more recent WP:RS, such as August Schleicher's 2014 book on A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages, Volume 2, pages 222-223. Ma is linked to mother (Mā-tar) in Sanskrit, and other Indo-European languages, writes Schleicher. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, mā- is a PIE root with a -tr- agent suffix, as Wiktionary shows anyway, but it is not a Sanskrit verbal root: Sanskrit uses only the form mātr-. Hence, we should be clear on this and also shouldn't use the root symbol (it is used only for Skt roots).

mā- is to measure, sure, and hope you now see that it only is spelled with ā (not short a).

And no, mātr "mother" is not related to mā- "to measure", so māyā, if we claim is related to mā-, cannot be simultaneously "related to mātr". Of course, any relation of maya and mātr is fiction, a fringe view, or simply a nice explanation that comes handy when presenting own theories of the goddess in India: as testified by MW (and things have not changed since!), the earliest, Vedic usage of the word had nothing to do with "mother goddess", nor was even the goddess worshipped at the time (at least not by those professing the Vedic religion).

I can't quote a source at the moment but I am willing to bet that māyā, like thousands other PIE words, is a primary word and it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Please skip WP:FORUM-y lectures, your OR, and implying wiktionary as a reliable source. Wiki articles summarize reliable sources, not your personal opinions. The summary in the etymology section is sourced to WP:RS, and it stays. If you find an RS that says something different or additional, we can summarize it too for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(ps): Neither the article nor the source states that the Vedic usage was about mother goddess. Etymology is a study of the origin of a word and the way in which the meaning of that word has changed, expanded or evolved over history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: One more WP:PERSONAL attack and I am reporting you to ANI, as you show a pattern of disparaging attitude towards fellow editors. I am ending the discussion here as you are clearly unable to have discussions without insulting others. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

etymology

@Ms Sarah Welch: @Kashmiri:

Maya was a personal name and a title in ancient Egypt; where the word today also means water (or denoted ones who came from across the water). There are quite a few books exploring and/or extrapolating similarities in the grammatical forms of Maya and Egyptian languages, noting cultural similarities between them; but that is beside the point here. Would like to bring your attention to a similar context of water with Apam Napat (son of waters) controversially associated with Varuna as can be read from encyclopedia iranica.

In the previous version of this article (see) had mentioned association of asuri-maya with varuna. It is obvious the etymology of the word can be controversial. I agree with Kashmiri that maya is a primary word and "it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots". It is obvious the association of maya with Varuna points to a concept which also involves Varuna's Zoroastrian and pre-Zoroastrian links as with Apam Napat, or as nature / cult god. I fail to understand why Sarah Welch is keen to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" which supposedly means "to measure".

In addition, I strongly oppose the claim that "These roots are also related to the root mā, which means mother and serve as an epithet for goddesses such as Lakshmi.[10]". Does not Gonda know mA in Sanskrit means no or don't? Sarah Welch, please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Thank you. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: This article is on Maya (illusion), not water. Wikipedia articles are not an indiscriminate collection of information per WP:WWIN, and talk pages are not forum for discussing random topics such Encyclopedia Iranica and Apam Napat. "Varuna's supernatural power is called Maya" is still in the current version of the article, in the literature section, so I do not understand what your concern is. The rest of your "it is obvious" is WP:OR. If you have a reliable source, mention it with page number, and we can consider it. On rest, you can oppose whatever you want, hold whatever opinions/wisdom/prejudice you wish, but we need to stick to faithfully summarizing WP:RS such as those in this etymology section. @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse this article is on Maya (illusion). It is apparent you do not get the concept which asuri-maya or maya signifies. Neither can you trivilize Apam Napat / Varuna into 'random topics' when you retain the sentence that Varuna's supernatural power is called Maya. It is obvious what my concern is, unless you do not read well. Let me repeat it for you -- I agree with Kashmiri that maya is a primary word and "it is pointless to attempt to link it to popular roots". It is obvious you need to explain two things:

(1) What is the need to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" which supposedly means "to measure"?

(2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Just because you have a reference (gonda) does not mean your reference (gonda) is correct.

Anyways, please reply to the above 2 points. We shall take it from there.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

replies

(ec) I am not sure what Mayasutra is trying to get at. It seems partly contesting RS with OR (ma means mother? etc.), arguing DUE about etymology (which should always be there, properly sourced) and alluding to some vague connections between Egyptian maya and Sanskrit maya. @Mayasutra: please focus on one issue at a time. If you have reliably sourced information, please add it. No need to discuss unless somebody objects to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Re (1), if sources talk about etymology then we do too. If you have sources that say maya is a primary word that doesn't need etymology, please mention them and we can find a WP:BALANCE.

Re (2), we don't need to know whether Gonda is correct as per WP:TRUTH. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

But we use widely accepted theories published in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and not obscure marginal views not confirmed anywhere else. Moreover, we don't publish theories which are known to be false. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya, prefer to have Sarah Welch and Kashmiri dealing with this. No point having too many people involved in this. Have made myself clear in the second post with points (1) and (2). Let Sarah Welch answer that please. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi Mayasutra, Thanks for drawing my attention to this discussion again. On the points you mentioned, my stance is as follows: (1) There is only one verbal root mā in Sanskrit (per Monier-Williams). It means "to measure". It is unrelated to māyā, not least because Sanskrit does not know a nominal suffix -yā that would add to bare roots; and also because primary suffixes tend to preserve the original meaning whilst meaning of māyā was always "illusion" and not "measuring", "measure", etc. (unless in later reinterpretation). (2) Mā means "mother" in Hindi and a few modern Indic languages. No proof the word existed in this meaning in Vedic times, even less in PIE language. Gonda is plainly wrong. (3) Mā "(do) not" is unrelated to either: connectives are never derived from verbal roots, not in Sanskrit nor in any other language known to me. Historically, how could they be? I can't fathom the noun māyā as related to the connective, either. (4) I am not aware of any academic study that would establish a relation between PIE and ancient Egyptian - will be really surprised if it was true. Would you mind linking one? Thanks, — kashmiri ^TALK 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Spot on. I should not have mentioned the egyptian part - now realize it was not a good idea :( Am keen to have Sarah Welch replying to the points (1) and (2) in my reply to her. So, lets wait to hear about that. Since the article mentions the Sankya view, it would be an injustice to leave the Pancharatra view out. Perhaps we could work on adding the Pancharatra view to the article after the etymology is resolved. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi, google search gives few papers linking PIE with ancient egyptian cognates, like this one. Find a few books on that topic too from google books. Will have a look at all of them, and try to find a good academic paper linking PIE with ancient Egyptian; with something that mentions maya hopefully :) --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra:, @Kashmiri: Please avoid converting this talk page into a forum to discuss your personal opinions/wisdom/prejudice, per WP:TPNO guidelines. The etymology section has multiple sources, and Jan Gonda etc are well accepted, widely cited scholars. If you have a reliable source(s) or publications from equally prominent scholars, then as @Kautilya3 states, we can add that in for WP:BALANCE. I have no objections to additional content if it meets wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. However, your OR or personal opinions cannot be the basis of what gets deleted or added to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but Gonda is wrong. Which is why I need to request you to resolve the 2 points above. Kashmiri has put it in a better way (I was not aware of Monier-Williams meaning of measure for mA, so thanks for it). Have rephrased the first point below. Sarah Welch, please let us know:

(1) What is the need to mention the so-called root (from the Sanskrit view point) of "√ma", or "mā" when it is not related to maya?

(2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Your reference (gonda) is not correct.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: See @Kautilya3's comment above. Quit contesting WP:RS. Quit WP:OR. Quit your WP:Forum-y lecturing. Respect the wikipedia talk page and content policies. Feel free to take this to DRN or ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh my my... Could you follow what you preach please? Instead of asking others to quit, quit, quit; why don't you just answer those 2 points? If you remain stubborn, then, yeah, will take this to DRN or ANI. Let's try what you have to say here first. Am sure you are aware yourself that mA does not mean mother in Sanskrit (but do not want to admit Gonda is wrong for whatever reason), nor is it possible to link the so-called root "√ma", or "mā" to the concept maya. So, please make yourself clear with those 2 points above. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: See you at DRN / ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Please let me know once you are are done with putting up dispute resolution. Not sure ANI applies here. Good luck. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: Well, you threatened, "If you remain stubborn, then, yeah, will take this to DRN or ANI". I remain "stubborn" that you should quit OR, FORUM-y lecturing, and contesting RS. Go ahead, you file. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

ROFL :) This is childish. You first mentioned taking this to DRN/ANI; so asked you to go ahead. Am sure everything sounds threatening to you now. Anyways, stop playing games. Either answer these 2 points or remove them from the article:

(1) There is no need to mention the so-called root of "√ma", or "mā" when it is not related to maya. Kashmiri put it very precisely. So, explain your viewpoint why you want it mentioned in the article.

(2) Please let us know where or how in Sanskrit does mA mean mother? Am sure you too are aware your reference (gonda) is not correct in this.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: It is not my viewpoint. It is the summary sourced from WP:RS such as by Jan Gonda and other scholars. It stays. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad you realized childish behavior cannot help; and have responded sensibly. Nope, it is your viewpoint. Go ahead and explain those 2 points and how Gonda sourced it. How did Gonda link "√ma", or "mā" to maya? Your profile shows you know sanskrit. Do you think mA means mother in sanskrit? It is obvious you want to protect Gonda's falsity for whatever reasons. Which cannot help. So, go ahead and reply to those 2 points. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

monier williams source

@Ms Sarah Welch: Ref to your latest addition here. Does Monier Williams derive the word maya from the root of "√ma", or "mā"? What is the rationale of using this reference? Yet to hear from you about the 2 points above. Why are you bent on Gonda's misrepresentation? Putting the extract from Monier Williams for mA and mAyA; so the difference can be noted (the vedic usage for mA has always been no or don't, or not, a point of negation):

L. indicates Lexicographers, esp. such as अमरसिंह , हलायुध , हेमचन्द्र , &c. मा

Westergaard Dhatupatha links: 24.54, 25.6 Whitney Roots links: mA1, mA2, mA3 (H1) म 4 [p= 771,2] [L=153876.1] m. time L. [L=153877] poison L. [L=153878] a magic formula L. [L=153879] (in music) N. of the 4th note of the scale (abbreviated for मध्यम) [L=153880] the moon L. [L=153881] N. of various gods (of ब्रह्मा , विष्णु , शिव , and यम) L. (H1B) मा a [L=153882] f. a mother L. (H1B) मा [L=153883] f. measure L. (H1B) मा [L=153884] f. authority ( -त्व n. ) Nya1yam. (H1B) मा [L=153885] f. light L. (H1B) मा [L=153886] f. knowledge L. (H1B) मा [L=153887] f. binding , fettering L. (H1B) मा [L=153888] f. death L. (H1B) मा [L=153889] f. a woman's waist L. (H1B) म [L=153890] n. (connected with √ 3. मा) happiness , welfare L. (H1B) म [L=153891] n. water L. (H1) मा 1 [p= 804,1] [L=161686] ind. (causing a following छ् to be changed to च्छ् Pa1n2. 6-1 , 74) not , that not , lest , would that not RV. &c

[L=161686.05] a particle of prohibition or negation = Gk. μή , most commonly joined with the Subjunctive i.e. the augmentless form of a past tense (esp. of the aor. e.g. म्/आ नो वधीर् इन्द्र , do not slay us , O इन्द्र RV. ; मा भैषीः or मा भैः , do not be afraid MBh. ; तपोवन-वासिनाम् उपरोधो मा भूत् , let there not be any disturbance of the inhabitants of the sacred grove S3ak. ; often also with स्म e.g. मा स्म गमः , do not go Bhag. cf. Pa1n2. 3-3, 175 ; 176 in the sense of , " that not , lest " also यथा मा e.g. यथा मा वो मृत्युः परि-व्यत्का इति , that death may not disturb you , Pras3naUp. ; or मायथा e.g. मा भूत् काला*त्ययो यथा , lest there be any loss of time R. ; मा न with aor. Subj. = Ind , without a negative e.g. मा द्विषो न वधीर् मम , do slay my enemies Bhat2t2. cf. Va1m. v, 1, 9; rarely with the augmentless impf. with or without स्म e.g. मई*नम् अभिभाषथाः , do not speak to him R. ; मा स्म करोत् , let him not do it Pa1n2. 6-4, 74 Sch. ; exceptionally also with the Ind. of the aor. e.g., मा , कालस् त्वाम् अत्य्-गात् , may not the season pass by thee MBh.; cf. Pa1n2. 6-4, 75 Sch.)

[L=161686.10] or with the Impv. (in RV. only viii , 103, 6, मा नो हृणीताम् [ SV. हृणीतास्] @agni4H , may अग्नि not be angry with us; but very often in later language e.g. मा क्रन्द do not cry MBh.; गच्छ वा मा आ , you can go or not go ib.; रिपुर् अयम् माजायताम् , may not this foe arise, S3a1ntis3.; also with स्म e.g. मा स्व किं चिद् वचो वद do not speak a word MBh.)
[L=161686.15] or with the Pot. (e.g. मा यमम् पश्येयम् , may l not » यम ; esp. माभुजेम in RV.)
[L=161686.20] or with the Prec. (only once in मा भूयात् , may it not be R. [B.] ii , 75 , 45)
[L=161686.25] or sometimes with the fut. (= that not , lest e.g. मात्वां शप्स्ये , lest I curse thee MBh. cf. Vop. xxv , 27)
[L=161686.30] or with a participle (e.g. माजीवन्यो दुःखदग्धो जीवति , he ought not to live who lives consumed by pain Pan5cat.; गतः स मा , he cannot have gone Katha1s.; मई*वम्प्रा*र्थ्यम् , it must not be so requested BhP.)
[L=161686.35] sometimes for the simple negative न (e.g. कथम् मा भूत् , how may it not be Katha1s. ; मा गन्तुम् अर्हसि , thou oughtest not to go, R; मा भूद् आगतः , can he not i.e. surely he must have arrived Amar.)
[p= 804,2] [L=161686.40] occasionally without a verb (e. g. मा शब्दः or शब्दम् , do not make a noise Hariv.; मा नाम रक्षिणः , may it not be the watchmen Mr2icch. ; मा भवन्तम् अनलः पवनो वा , may not fire or wind harm thee Va1m. v, 1, 14; esp. = not so e.g. मा प्रातृद , not so, O प्रातृद S3Br.; in this meaning also मा मा , मा मै*वम् , मा तावत्)
[L=161686.45] in the वेद often with उ (म्/ओ*) = and not , nor (e.g. म्/आ मघ्/ओनः प्/अरि ख्यतम् मो॑* अस्म्/आकम् /ऋष्णाम् , do not forget the rich lords nor us the poets RV. v, 65, 6 ; and then usually followed by ष्/उ = स्/उ e.g. मो* ष्/उ णः न्/इरृतिर् वधीत् , let not निरृतिर् on any account destroy us, i, 38, 6)
[L=161686.50] in S3Br. स्म मा - म्/ओ स्म = neither - nor (in a prohibitive sense). (H1) मा 2 [L=161693] cl.3 P. म्/इमाति (accord. to Dha1tup. xxv , 6 A1. मिमीते SV. मिमेति ; Pot. मिमीयत् Ka1t2h. ; pf. , मिमाय ; aor. /अमीमेत् Subj. मीमयत् ; inf. म्/आतव्/ऐ) , to sound, bellow, roar, bleat (esp. said of cows, calves, goats &c ) RV. AV. Br. : Intens., only pr. p. म्/एम्यत् , bleating (as a goat) RV. i, 162, 2.
(H1) मा 3 [L=161697]

• cl.2 P. ( Dha1tup. xxiv , 54) माति  ;
• cl.3 A1. (xxv , 6) म्/इमीते  ;
• cl.4. A1. (xxvi , 33) मायते (Ved. and ep. also मिमाति Pot. मिमीयात् Impv. , मिमीहि ; Pot. मिमेत् Br. ; pf. मम्/औ , ममे , ममिर्/ए RV. ; aor. /अमासि Subj. म्/आसातै AV. ; अमासीत् Gr. ; Prec. मासीष्ट , मेयात् ib. ; fut. माता ; मास्यति,मास्यते ib. ; inf. म्/ए -म्/ऐ RV. ; मातुम् Br. ; ind.p. मित्व्/आ , -म्/आय RV. &c ) , to measure , mete out , mark off RV. &c;
• to measure across = traverse RV. ;
• to measure (by any standard), compare with (instr.) Kum.;
• (माति) to correspond in measure (either with gen., " to be large or long enough for " BhP. ; or with loc. , " to find room or be contained in " Inscr. Ka1v. ; or with न and instr., " to be beside one's self with " Vcar. Katha1s.) ;
• to measure out, apportion, grant RV.;
• to help any one (acc.) to anything (dat.) ib., i, 120, 9;
• to prepare, arrange, fashion, form, build, make RV.;
• to show, display, exhibit (अमिमीत, "he displayed or developed himself " , iii, 29, 11) ib.  ;
• (in phil.) to infer, conclude ;
• to pray (याच्ञा-कर्मणि) Naigh. iii, 59: Pass. मीय्/अते (aor. अमायि) ;
• to be measured &c RV. &c &c Caus., मापयति , °ते (aor. अमीमपत् Pa1n2. 7-4 , 93 Va1rtt. 2 Pat. ), to cause to be measured or built, measure, build, erect Up. Gr2S. MBh. &c: Desid. मित्सति , °ते Pa1n2. 7-4, 54; 58 (cf. निर्- √मा): Intens. मेमीयते Pa1n2. 6-4 , 66. [cf. Zd. ma1; Gk. μέτρον , μετρέω ; Lat. me1tior , mensus , mensura; Slav. me8ra; Lith. me3ra4.]

(H2) मा 4 [L=161698] f. » under 4. म , [p= 771,2].

Kindly compare with mAyA below:

माया

(H1) माय [p= 811,1] [L=163076] mfn. ( √3. मा) measuring (» धान्य-म्°) [L=163077] creating illusions (said of विष्णु) MBh. (H1B) माया a [L=163078] f. » below. (H2) माया b [L=163081] f. art , wisdom , extraordinary or supernatural power (only in the earlier language) [L=163082] illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , witchcraft magic RV. &c [L=163083] an unreal or illusory image , phantom , apparition ib. (esp. ibc. = false , unreal , illusory ; cf. comp.) [L=163084] duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 minor evil passions) Dharmas. 69 (in phil.) Illusion (identified in the सांख्य with प्रकृति or प्रधान and in that system , as well as in the वेदा*न्त , regarded as the source of the visible universe) IW. 83 ; 108 [L=163085] (with शैवs) one of the 4 पाशs or snares which entangle the soul Sarvad. MW. [L=163086] (with वैष्णवs) one of the 9 शक्तिs or energies of विष्णु L. [L=163087] Illusion personified (sometimes identified with दुर्गा , sometimes regarded as a daughter of अनृत and निरृति or निकृति and mother of मृत्यु , or as a daughter of अधर्म) Pur. [L=163088] compassion , sympathy L. [L=163089] Convolvulus Turpethum L. [L=163090] N. of the mother of गौतम बुद्ध MWB. 24 [L=163091] of लक्ष्मी W. [L=163092] of a city Cat. [L=163093] of 2 metres Col. [L=163094] du. (माये इन्द्रस्य) N. of 2 सामन्s A1rshBr.

@Kashmiri: I suggest removing the so-called root "ma" and replacing the phrase with meaning for mAyA from Monier Williams (as above). Your thoughts please? If at all Gonda's version must be mentioned (though erroneous) let it be mentioned as Gonda's view alone -- "According to Gonda, the word is....."

Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: A summary on Maya from Monier-Williams is already in the article, and has been. As @Kautilya3 explained above, you can't battle WP:RS with WP:OR, and for WP:BALANCE we must include different views from various WP:RS. The summary about the root "√mā" is from multiple reliable sources, and it will stay in this article. FWIW, @Mayasutra, you don't need to cut and paste from some website/source such a wall of post, just a link is enough. See the hard copy of Monier-Williams, where there is more on mā including it as root of māta, mātri as mother, on Lakshmi etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a hard copy of Monnier Williams. Does Monier Williams link "ma" to maya also? Can you post on it? Which are the multiple reliable sources linking "ma" to maya? Yet to get your reply to those 2 points. I disagree with Kautilya, which I shall handle with him. From your part, it will be good if you reply to the points concerned. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: I have and will ignore your two points, and rest of your WP:FORUM-y stuff, per WP:TPNO. You don't run wikipedia, or make rules here. If you are looking for a forum, try another website, wikipedia is not for you. If you don't have a hard copy of Monnier Williams, go to a library. Read the first line of the Etymology section, for the root "√mā". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse you have no choice but to ignore. Because you know they are wrong. Funny that you got personal; and now are talking rules. You do not run wiki either (again childish silly statements cannot help you). Sure, I can walk down few mins to the library. But you have a job to do. In addition to the above 2 points, prove how Monier Williams links "ma" to "maya". --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Primary and secondary sources

@Kashmiri: In response to this to @Kautilya3 above, please explain why Gonda and Zimmer are not a secondary source? They are not writing the primary texts in Sanskrit, their publications are "an author's own thinking based on primary sources", per WP:SECONDARY. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARY sources can be used with in-line attribution, which seems to have been done in this case. People can't keep battling RS with OR. They need to bring other RS to ask for BALANCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya, I disagree with this stand - it is incredulous that "we don't need to know whether Gonda is correct as per WP:TRUTH" - which means any book can be used as a reference, irrespective of whether it is correct or not. Such an approach does not behoove well for wiki. If that be the case anyone can extrapolate sitting in an academic chair and peddle POVs. I have a suggestion. Why not rephrase to say "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology." Then go on to provide individual views as is done with William Mahony, Franklin Southworth, etc. You could say, "According to so and so, maya probably comes from the root ""√mā"", which means to measure". When you say that, it would be helpful to have a verse from the Rigveda to show that ma (to measure) is the 'way and context in which maya is used in the rigvedic tradition' (to support Donald Braue's reference or Tracy Pintchman's stance). So, please provide a verse from Rig (similar to the maya-bheda verse provided in the article). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: If you find it incredible that any reliable source can be used as a reference then I am afraid you have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. That is why I referred you to WP:TRUTH. If you want to question the policies of Wikipedia, you need to do so at the Village Pump, not here. Some of the valid reasons to exclude particular sources include other reliable sources contradicting them (WP:WEIGHT), the author lacking expertise for the subject at hand (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), etc. But nothing in Wikipedia policies says you can exclude them because you disagree with them.

The second part of your post where you say "why not rephrase" etc. is fine. You can do it as long as you develop consensus for it on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Re to Kautilya

@Kautilya3: You misunderstood the context. Whatever be the case, you could have said it in a better way. You chose not to. So, now it seems the lines have been drawn? It is apparent how some editors use wiki policies. Here's why you should be at the village pump:
(1) Monier Williams gives no case to link ma (to measure) with maya. So, how does Ms.Sarah Welch use this reference?
(2) Ms.Sarah Welch provides 2 citations, besides Gonda; that is, Tracy Pintchman and Donald Braue. From page 2-4, Tracy Pitchman makes a case for maya linking shakti with prakriti; wherein she says "The term māyā comes from √ma, "to measure," and can denote Brahman's creative yet delusive power...." - this is the only book which states emphatically that maya comes from √ma "to measure" and can be represented in the article as stated above, "According to so and so (Tracy Pintchman), maya comes from the root...." It is necessary to mention so because it is indeed 'according to Tracy Pitchman' who provides no reference for her statement.
(3) Donald Braue says this in p.101:

Etymologically the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā which means: (1) measure; (2) measure with, compare; (3) mete out; (4) arrange form; build; make.¹ Therefore, the literal meaning of māyā is "that which measures, arranges, forms, builds, makes." Whitney says the primary meaning of √ma is "to measure." ² L.Thomas O'Neil agrees ³ in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition. Radhakrishnan writes: "Maya is that which measure out, moulds forms in the formless."⁴ Unfortunately, the etymological meaning of māyā is only the tip of the proverbian iceberg. Most meanings of māyā in Radhakrishnan do not meet the etymological eye. Radhakrishnan summarizes the meaning of māyā five times:......It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Radhakrishnan thinks the term māyā has six meanings.

The author then goes on to explain each of those, as (1) Maya as inexplicable mystery (2) Maya as power of self-becoming, (3) Maya as duality of consciousness and matter (4) Maya as primal matter (5) Maya as concealment (6) Maya: community, need and affection. It is apparent Ms.Sarah Welch has chosen to take a part of Braue's statement. Secondly, Braue's own reference does not mention the root mā: ¹ Charles Rockwell Lanman, A Sanskrit Reader, p.215, says

-maya). "1. measure; " 2. measure manavaka, m. manikin, dwarf, [man- with, compare; " 3. mete out; " 4. arrange, form; build; make, 72 2. [for 1, matarigvan, m. Matarivan, mystic...

It does not say the root is mā. Subsequently in p.216 (which is not part of the reference Sarah Welch provided, Lanman says

maya, f. -1. (a working, and so) a power; esp,. in Veda, supernatural or wonderful power; wile; -2. later, trick; illusion. [of √1 mā , 'make, i.e, have effect, work,; 1149, cf.258.]

Here, he uses the context of mā for 'make, have effect, work'. There is no 'measure'. It is also apparent there are many ways and contexts in which maya is used in the Rigvedic tradition. If this source must be used, the author's view in bold must be mentioned.

(4) FINALLY, if ma must be mentioned as the sanskrit root word, why would you ignore the distribution of nostratic pronoun stems of *mi-/*me- and *ma-/*mə in PIE, PAA, Sumerian, Afroasiatic; as per the book "The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship, by Allan R Bomhard and John C Kerns, p.3-4"? In any case, there are enough books that will suffice WP:TRUTH and reliable source to represent ma for water; including monier-williams. So, why is Sarah Welch keen to represent the view of Gonda and Tracy Pintchman with ma for measure? If you are going to use context of modern lexicographers of ma for mother; why not mention other meanings of ma too? Why not have a consensus in representing the multiple meanings of ma?
--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

If I am a typical reader, I think constructing Sanskrit etymologies is a huge industry, most of which are far-fetched and don't make a whole lot of sense. But that is not a problem that Wikipedia can fix. We just report what the scholars say. Sine in-line attribution is being used, our requirements are satisfied.

In today's version, two facts that catch my attention are (1) That Monier Williams thought that, in the older language, maya meant great power, nothing to do with magic. This is presumably connected to how asuras were originally great powerful gods whereas, later, they became magical demons, at least in India. (2) That in Avestan maya meant magical power. These ideas pose a question to historians as to when maya turned magical and how the Iranian asuras escaped the magical turn.

If you have other sources that give better explanations, please feel free to add them. I don't see MSW objecting to such. It is only when you say you want to exclude RS because you disagree with them that problems arise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember also that "etymology" is only a study of where the word comes from. It is not an analysis of where the meaing comes from. The meaning can evolve even after a word has formed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is that you agree to point (4) above. Can you confirm? so that I can proceed to list out the multiple meanings of ma in PIE root; including the context of water as has been used in vedic sanskrit (have listed some sources below). For the sources I provide, I expect and request Kashmiri to work on it; to represent in the article. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Kautilya3: Based on what you said, have edited the etymology section to reflect other meanings of ma and listed each author's view separately. Though insignificant, have included -- root ""√mā"" or "mā" -- to reflect representation in Donald Braue's reference. Let me know if changes are required. The explanation of maya as per siddha/nath and pancharatra will go into the literature section which is best left to Kashmiri to do so. @Kashmiri: Please let me know if the etymology section is acceptable to you. By separating out Gonda's and Pintchman's views out as their own (as is represented for other authors, Shastri, Zimmer, Mahony, Southworth); we reach a compromise wherein the author's view is mentioned, but is also left to the discretion of the reader based on multiple meanings. I do agree with you that maya has no root word; however this is the best way we have, to work on wiki. If this is settled, I request you to include maya from siddha and pancharatra in the literature section. I have no academic background in these topics (it is a long persistent interest at best); am verbose and afraid I cannot do justice to representation of maya from various schools of thought as wiki would require in brief. The only thing I would insist on is a few lines to represent Varuna as the sole custodian of maya before Indra took it on (in vedic literature), and a few lines on Apam-Napat/Varuna from the Zoroastrian school. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

re

• I will let @Kautilya3 review the section and reply to any comments above, if appropriate. FWIW, the section already acknowledges "unclear etymology" and equivalent. On [4] and Allan Bomhard source, I am fine with adding something from page 661 and 674 where 'maya' is mentioned, such as *maya (earth, land), Finnish maa (...). I do not see support for adding Iran, Egypt and water, as @Mayasutra mentioned earlier, based on what is in Bomhard. Some WP:RS needs to link Maya to water, just like Zimmer links Maya to mother. We can not do WP:OR-synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya certainly needs to review and reply to this. It is appropriate. You do not have to say that (unless you want to make wiki policies). Did I say Iran, Egypt? What's the matter with you? Monier-williams mentions water and poison. If you have Zimmer for mother, Pintchman for measure; and includ Monier-Williams to represent your case; let the case be represented in its entirety; not selectively with a handful of authors as you have done so. In any case, let's have Kautilya reply to this first. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

replies

@Ms Sarah Welch: Secondary sources are those that summarise or review primary sources. To give a prime example, a paper that proposes a new treatment for cancer will be a primary source (such papers are usually labelled as "Original research articles" in academic journals). But A Review of Available Therapies for Cancer will be a secondary source (note "Review" in title). Neither Gonda's not Zimmer's publications are summaries/reviews of other publications - rather, they present authors' original interpretation of Sanskrit texts.

One of the key reasons Wikipedia insists on secondary sources is in order to exclude fringe opinions. Like, treating cancer with carrot juice. Anyone is free to publish such a fringe opinion - primary research is hard to verify - but of course such method will not be included in a scholarly review of cancer therapies.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with adding primary sources provided they are clearly marked as the author's own opinion. Gonda's suggestion of a linguistic link between "maya" and "mother" is such a minority opinion, his original research - no one else supports this IMHO. Hence my reservation whether such a marginal view should at all be included in this short Wikipedia article. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: A research paper on a new treatment of cancer is indeed primary, but a paper or book on ancient texts is secondary. The ancient texts are primary. Any modern scholarship on historical texts is secondary, because it is by a secondary author and one step removed from the primary authors. See WP:PSTS. Regardless, as @Kautilya explains, attribution is adequate for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No no no, Sanskrit texts for Gonda are like the disease for a medical writer; they are the object of study. Gonda is not reviewing the texts: he offers his own original deconstruction of certain concepts in those texts :) — kashmiri ^TALK 16:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The texts used by Gonda do not state that maya is related to ma "mother" - not least because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit. It's Gonda's own theory :) — kashmiri ^TALK 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: As soon as a published scholar offers their interpretation or opinion of an issue, they are creating - by definition - a secondary source. The very essence of a secondary source is that is an analysis of prior sources. We need secondary sources to create Wikipedia content because we need expert analysis and opinion to provide that content. We are not capable of carrying out that analysis ourselves. Our job is to identify all of the relevant reliable sources. These are the sources that are published in media which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: for example, peer-reviewed journals with a high impact factor, books from a respected publisher with editorial oversight. This is how we are assured of the quality of what is written. You are not qualified to judge the accuracy of a source based on your own amateur opinion. We can judge accuracy only by comparison with other equally reliable sources. Where they agree, we summarise them. Where they disagree, we attribute them and state their conclusions neutrally. If you want to claim that Gonda's view has little currency in the mainstream, then you're going to have to either supply an overwhelming number of equally reliable sources that contradict him, or a reliable source that clearly states the Gonda's view is not mainstream. Your own opinion is not sufficient to do that. I hope I've been clear here. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Happy to see that you know how we use sources on Wikipedia. See, the problem was, Gonda's book is a primary source (as are the majority if not all of his books), but the etymology he proposed was mentioned in this article as if it was a generally accepted truth. As you might see, it has now been correctly attributed. As to whether my opinion is "amateur" or not, you will forgive me but I will not disclose my real name and academic credentials. But I am warning you that this sort of personal attacks is unwelcome on Wikipedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sad to see that you don't understand how we use sources on Wikipedia. In addition, don't patronise me, especially when it's clear that you don't know what you're pontificating about. The actual problem is that you don't understand that Gonda's book is a reliable secondary source. Jan Gonda was a professor of Sanskrit and a published expert in the field and I don't give a rat's ass who you are. You're just an editor and your opinion on Gonda's work is worthless here. Any opinion you put forward on Wikipedia is by definition amateur and you need to get a grip on your tendentious editing. That's your warning. If you want to argue the toss about the reliability of a source, the Reliable sources noticeboard is that-a-way. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Indeed, spot on. @Kashmiri: Monier Williams traces "mother to mā in Sanskrit" on page 764, along with other meanings/etymology. It is strange, and not constructive, that you keep FORUM-y repeating your own OR, such as 'because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit', regardless of what WP:RS such as Monier Williams are stating. As @Kautilya3 and @RexxS explained above, if you have other WP:RS, instead of your personal opinion/wisdom/prejudice, we can consider it and add it for WP:BALANCE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Check your references please - MW 764 contains words from bhūri to bhṛtya. If you had in mind 4. ma (MW 771), "L." signals that the meaning has never been encountered in Sanskrit usage/text and has only been listed by modern lexicographers.

I am also surprised such an intelligent person as you certainly are keeps slapping FORUM on whoever contradicts you, even though WP:FORUM relates specifically to article space and not to Talk pages. Ever bothered reading? — kashmiri ^TALK 21:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you capable of reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines? WP:FORUM states quite clearly "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". Which bit of that didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You are not looking at the identified edition. See MW Page 764. Regarding FORUM, click on WP:TPNO, and read the last bullet; also its opening line about repeated violations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure we are not discussing the concept of Maya but how to source the article. Didn't notice that? BTW, this is a guideline, not a policy, see hatnote. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Perhaps you missed the following line, that I requested you to read, "Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Wikipedia guidelines enjoy general project-wide consensus. Although there may be more exceptions to guidelines that to policies, you risk losing your editing privileges just as quickly by flouting guidelines without good reason. You may take that as a warning as well. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about my editing privileges, they are precisely one of the topics that should NOT to be discussed on an article's Talk page in the light of rules you mentioned. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Falsifying sources

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) This [5] edit of yours seems to be deliberate attempt to falsify the sources so that they suit the theory you are pushing. You have prepared your "quote" from Monier-Williams dictionary to look as if mata "mother" was listed in the dictionary under ma "measure". You have made what Monier-Williams listed under three separate entries look as if they were under ma "measure". That's a blatant attempt at falsifying sources.

I will disappoint you: Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary is available online for anyone to verify. [6]

• Page 771 col 2: म 4. ma m. time, L.; poison, L.; a magic formula, L.; a music note, L.; the moon, L.; name of various gods (...), L.; mā, f. a mother, L.; measure, L.; authority, Nyayam.; a light, L.; knowledge, L.; .... — note the "L.", which means "meaning only found in lexicons".
• Page 804 col 2: मा 3. mā (...) to measure; ...
  • 1. mātri m. a measurer, Nir. XI, 15; one who measures across or traverses, RV. VIII, 41, 4 (cf. 10); a knower, one who has true knowledge, Cat.; ...
• I am unable to find what dictionary entry you took your "ja-mātri", etc., part from - it's none of the above.

So, in your edit, you misleadingly combined all of these separate meanings from different dictionary entries to appear as if they all were listed undr ma "to measure".

Additionally, please note that Monier-Williams, a TERTIARY SOURCE, expressly states (page 807 col. 1):

mātri 3. f. (derivation from 3. mā ["to measure"] very doubtful; ...) a mother, any mother; (...)

A single Gonda going against an established and respected tertiary source in a footnote of his book is not sufficient to overturn the consensus that the tertiary source expresses.

As to your intentional falsification of sources, I am left with no choice but referring the matter to appropriate boards. I am also removing the entire reference you added since it is fake. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: MW Page 764, column 3, starting 1/3 from the top, particularly the last 20 lines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the first edition (1872). The corrected 2nd edition (1899) is normally used. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Here is another by Hatley, a scholarly source published in 2012, on mā, mātṛ, and mother. So we now have three sources, versus your personal view / OR. All this is merely related to a mention of Jan Gonda versus your FORUM-y repetition such as 'because there is no ma "mother" in Sanskrit'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Jeez, how people read what they want to read. Where does Hatley say that mā or amman are in Sanskrit? FYI, the former is Hindi, the latter is Telugu and Tamil, boy, not Sanskrit. Try to improve your viśiṣṭa-dṛṣṭi, it is indispensable if you want to be an academic! — kashmiri ^TALK 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The word Sanskrit is on that page of Hatley source. The expanded 2008 version of Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary original, hosted by Universität zu Köln, too has 'mā and mother'; Adding a sentence each from Gonda and Zimmer expands the diversity of views in the section, which is WP:NPOV. @Kashmiri: your behavior since January 2016, attacking multiple professors and Indologists such as Gonda and Pintchman as "wrong" and questioning their competence, because your opinion is "right", not doing what @Kautilya3 and @RexxS have suggested, deleting sources and content, etc, is disruptive, WP:TE and not helpful in improving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What you are doing is POV pushing. Which is why you get personal when there is no need to. Please see my reply to Kautilya above. Let there be common consensus on representing multiple meanings of 'ma'. Let each author's view be mentioned seperately as is already done in the article with authors like William Mahony and Franklin Southworth. Do you agree (1) to have common consensus and (2) to represent each author's view seperately? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: The etymology section already represents each author's view separately, because almost all sentences start with "According to X..." or equivalent. Don't cast aspersions such as of "What you are doing is POV pushing". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If I had to cast aspersions, I would say other things. Do not assume. I cud care a rat's ass for who you are because you too are just an editor here, getting support from places in ways that are not constructive. If what you are doing is not POV pushing you should have replied to my 2 points above. You chose not to; and instead got personal. Anyways, now (1) let me know if you are willing for common consensus in representing multiple meanings of 'ma'. (2) And nope, your claim (of already representing each author's view separately) is convoluted. Currently the page reads "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root ""√mā"",[10][11] which means "to measure".[12][13]". I suggested (to Kautilya) to break the sentence into ""Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology." Then proceed to add "According to so and so, maya is....". So that way you will be representing Pintchman and Gonda's view separately; just as you have done so with other authors William Mahony and Franklin Southworth. Do you agree to these 2 points now? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Yes, @Ms Sarah Welch, it represents now, because I managed to add this despite your constant attacks and reverts.[7]. You still keep refusing to follow the most up-to-date edition of Monier-Williams's Great Sanskrit English Dictionary and the consensus on the Proto-Indo-European roots expressed in the Wictionary. Instead, you derided Wiktionary; keep pushing fringe views from cherrypicked non-linguistic publications (which basically propose, in true spirit of Hinduism, that everything is the same and all words can be related to each other; does "theory of matrika" sounds a bell?); and manipulate dictionary entries. All this is accompanied by personal attacks.

Look, I have translated numerous Sanskrit texts, much more complex than Hitopadeśa or Gita, at the time you perhaps were learning your mother tongue; and conducted studies of PIE language. I did not mention this earlier here because I wanted to focus exclusively on sources and show you the difference between linguists and anthropologists. Nevertheless, if someone tries to push a view that the the noun maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma and ya, as you did [8], then I will block adding such nonsense to Wikipedia; even if someone managed to get this printed.

I insist that in all etymology discussions, we stick to Monier-Williams Dictionary, 1899, a widely respected tertiary source, unless newer linguistic research has proposed a different etymology which is attested in a secondary or tertiary source. Publications by anthropologists, philosophers, poets, religious scholars, gurus, etc., should be removed from Etymology sections. Hope I can ask for this. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course you've translated numerous Sanskrit texts, just like I got a Nobel Prize for Literature. Anybody can claim anything in a medium where editing is anonymous, so your preening and posturing cuts no ice here. Now you look, I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather, sonny, so you can save that supercilious attitude for elsewhere. You can insist all you want, but editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus and you don't have any consensus to insist on just using one source that suits your fancy. Read WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's all of the significant views, not just the one that fits your POV. Attempting to remove reliable sources simply because you don't like them personally is a sure-fire route to the end of your editing career. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

the case for vedic maya and thirumular's maya

I agree with Kashmiri that we stick to Monier Williams. Would like to hear from Kautilya on it.

In addition I suggest the following sources be included in the article. Pasting the text. Request Kashmiri to put in his own words in the article, since am not sure I can get it right (in the way it is represented):

(1) Keith A.B., The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads (chapter Maya and Prakrti Illusion and Nature), p.529-532. Would esp bring to your attention this from p.531: " The precise character of the nature of the external world is summed up finally in the doctrine of the Cvetasvatara upanishad which sees in the world other than the absolute---which it conceives in a theistic way--an illusion, Māyā, a term thus first introduced into the philosophy of the Upanishads, to become, through the adoption of this theory of the universe by Gaudapada and Cankara, the basis of the orthodox Vedanta system. It would, however, it is clear be a mistake to regard the new term as being a mere individual innovation of the Cvetacvatara school without previous preparation in the literary tradition. The idea of the concealment of the divine nature by illusion is seen in the Atharvaveda,8 where it is said that the flower of the water, who is Hiranyagarbha, the personal Brahman, in whom are fixed gods and men as spokes in a nave, is concealed by illusion, and the illusion of Indra in his many shapes are mentioned in the Rigveda".

(2) Heinrich Zimmer, Joseph Campbell, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization p.34-35: "Waters are understood as a primary materialization of Vishnu's Māyā-energy....Therefore, in the symbolism of the myths to dive into water means to delve into the mystery of māyā, to quest after the ultimate secret of life".

(3) F. Max Müller (ed)., Vedic hymns, Part 2, p.224: "Verse 3: Note 1. The meaning seems to be that Agni won vigour (máyah) by dwelling in the waters (see Pada 3); comp the well-known words ápah hí sthá mayah-bhúvah (X.9.1), 'for you, O waters, give vigour.' "

(4) Tirumūlar, Iraianban, Vedas: An Extract Of The Universal Values - the verses speak of maya in following ways: (1) as an outcome of Shakti but conjoined with Shakti, (2) as prakriti maya (material) sphere, (3) as the origin of space, (4) as the sphere in which Shiva tattvas reside, (5) as an impurity of ignorance to be surpassed, along with mamaya, in order to see the cosmic dance of Lord Shiva. Am pasting Thirumular's verses on your talk page. Since I do not want to crowd it here.
--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

I disagree that we artificially restrict our sourcing, just on your say-so. WP:NPOV requires us to represent all significant viewpoints and you're going to have to supply a very good reason to prefer a century-old tertiary source over publications from eminent academics such as Jan Gonda. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you read go thru my replies to Kautilya, before you say things? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Gonda's book is a primary source by a non-linguist. Judging from your question about MW Dictionary, you don't seem familiar with Sanskrit studies - but this is the only comprehensive dictionary of Sanskrit language. No, Sanskrit has not changed significantly since 1899, nor since 5th century B.C. for this matter - on Sanskrit etymologies we can safely quote even Panini if I am concerned. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonda's book is a secondary source by one of the most eminent Professors of Sanskrit of the last century, who published articles on the language for over 60 years. It's interesting that you don't know about his credentials. Although Vedic Sanskrit certainly has not changed for more than two-and-a-half millennia, scholarly research and analysis continues. It precisely that analysis that Wikipedia makes use of, because we can't trust self-proclaimed experts to do that job. A dictionary is a useful resource, but it is by no means the only source. Gonda was a philologist of considerable repute and his published works are equally authoritative. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Mayasutra:, the other books you listed can certainly be used but not in the Etymology section please. Neither author appears to be a linguist. I also need to note that the opinions of Keith and Mueller are only of historic value. I would be cautious with Zimmer - "water as primary materialization of Vishnu's Maya" only belongs to Pancaratra and should not be generalised beyond that school of thought ("primary materialization" is also Zimmer's understanding; even though Karana-sagara in Pancaratra is not exactly "matter"). I haven't read Zimmer's book but will prefer that his ideas are clearly marked as such. As to Thirumular, I have no opinion. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The few papers and content (due to lack of translation into english) for Pancharatra are woefully insufficient. Zimmer's thoughts are summarized in this book from p.131-133; more so in a single phrase: "Water is regarded as the primary materialization of Vishnu's maya-energy; and therefore known as a visible manifestation of the divine essence" Yes, of-course I agree it should be in the content section; not the etymology one. For the etymology one, I prefer to have each author's view represented separately. Because Gonda's and Pintchman's views are theirs alone. So, let it be "According to so and so, maya is....". Your thoughts please? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Kashmiri: Jan Gonda has been, as @RexxS notes, an eminent academic, and more importantly widely cited Sanskrit professor on a wide range of concepts in Indian religions, including Maya, the subject of this article. The Monier Williams source is primarily a dictionary that is etymologically and philologically arranged, but not an exhaustive work on etymology. Jan Gonda's work on Maya topic is far more recent than Monier Williams. The etymology and terminology section of this article already cites both, as well as numerous other professors/scholars who are WP:RS. Your snipe at @RexxS, with "you don't seem familiar with Sanskrit studies", is inappropriate. And no Pāṇini, or more appropriately Yāska's work on ancient etymology, is not appropriate, because they are WP:Primary and the meaning of Sanskrit words/concepts did evolve. @Kautilya3, @RexxS and I have already asked you to bring new WP:RS related to Maya (illusion), that are not included in the article, and we delightfully would help you add it to this article, regardless of whether it about Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Siberia, Mongolia or Polynesia. But you don't listen, you are not bringing WP:RS, you just snipe at @RexxS or me, you attack RS/professors with your own OR, and you want WP:RS deleted because they differ from your personal opinion/wisdom/prejudice. Let me invite an admin here. @SpacemanSpiff: could you please clarify the article talk page behavioral policies? Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you get personal. You look for snipes when there are none. Perhaps you want to edge on people to retaliate so you can use that, as an excuse, for your POV pushing. Instead of complaining to SpacemanSpiff, why did you not answer to the 2 points raised earlier? If you did, then it would not be POV pushing. Again, you chose not to; and instead got personal. As for your stance of "delightfully help add", I don't think you speak for Kautilya or anyone else. Since you are the editor here you speak for yourself. Is there a need to say such things? By putting your sentences in such way; what do you want to show? Sorry, but am making it clear that for content Kashmiri and I work on in the talk page; I expect and request Kashmiri to add them to the article (not you please). You have not answered if you agree (1) to have common consensus for multiple meanings of ma and (2) to represent each author's view separately. Yet again, you did not want to reply to that, hence, typically got personal to avoid answering. Neat tactic but it does not help. You need to answer that in order to move ahead. So, answer that please. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Ms Sarah Welch: Since you prefer getting personal and complain; refuse to respond to 2 points raised earlier (and again did not respond to 2 points mentioned above), I take it that you are disinclined to respond to issues, to move ahead constructively. In view of that, I have edited the etymology section; which have explained to Kautilya above. Before you go into an edit war or change content therein; please seek consensus here. You had ample time to respond to the 2 points and come to common consensus; but you did not do so. Now, its your turn to respect content in the etymology section and if possible, try to stick to the topic instead of getting personal. You cud be a noble winner, or janitor or whatever else you please; but getting personal, bringing in people to get personal, just because you refuse to address issues, does not help you one bit. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Notice

Please discuss and gain consensus on article content citing reliable sources and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Content and evaluation of those should reflect scholarly work, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Also, please do not personalize any disputes, and no personal attacks or motive attribution. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff, Please note I used reliable reputable references (the ones Sarah Welch uses, Monier Williams and Zimmer). Please see what had included for content in the etymology section -- kindly note, I did not remove Sarah Welch's content. Can you explain the rationale of Sarah Welch in reverting without common consensus?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@SpacemanSpiff, I do not know if you asked Kautilya to strike out comments (seems he did it on his own, based on your notice). Am I entitled to strike out name-calling offensives by Kautilya, Sarah Welch and RexxS? Just want to know how this works. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

We use the striking-out device, only very rarely, to help focus the discussion on content. I didn't bother doing it for any of the earlier posts even though there has been a lot of finger-pointing here over the last week. Even though there is no bar on any editor striking off-topic remarks, you would be better off leaving it to uninvolved editors. We don't want yet another debate on what should be struck and what should not be. Let us just focus on content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Should have expected that from you. Yeah, you can assume am casting aspersions - because anyways, there is nothing to focus on content here (should be a joke considering Ms.Sarah Welch is not willing for common consensus). That's been made clear on my talk page. You get to hear from me only if RexxS, Ms.Sarah Welch, you, or anyone else gets personal here again. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

BTW, I don't think you get the right to strike out my appreciation for Kashmiri. Am removing that portion. What a shame.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Revert of @Mayasutra edit

@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)

This is precisely what I expected of you. Before I could post the message above (which did not go thru since you were posting and I was getting message for edit conflict); you have done what I had expected of you. What you are doing is POV pushing in this case; without earlier responding to seek common consensus. Hence, am reporting this issue as you have done.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

WRT your latest reference, you can have as many references as you please. It does not take away the fact that the word maya is used, represented, interpreted differently in multiple ways; with or without √mā or mā (the latter, mā is how your reference Donald Braue uses. it is insignificant I know yet no harm in saying √mā or mā for clarity). It is best to represent view of all authors in the manner they see it, "According to so and so author, maya is....". You consistently refuse to respond to common consensus, yet you revert without common consensus. Sorry, but what you are doing is POV Pushing. The admins need to take a call here. Without that, this article is not moving ahead; because you refuse to do so.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayaustra

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)

re to kautilya

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

Thanks for bolding the pertinent portions.

• For "time, death and water" you have cited a dictionary, which is not discussing etymology, as far as I can see. So this is WP:SYNTHESIS (a form of WP:OR).
• Going from ma (negation) to maya (illusion) is similar WP:SYNTHESIS. You haven't cited a source for the etymology. Even though I agree that this is a plausible derivation, it is not our job to decide that here on Wikipedia.
• Zimmer equating water as the materialization of the maya-energy, again no etymological connection is given by the source. This discussion does belong in the article, but the source doesn't warrant putting it in the etymology section.

In summary, it looks like you are still engaging in the same kind of WP:OR I pointed out a few days ago. Tracy Pintchman's explanation of the etymology, which you promised you wanted to include, hasn't been included. It doesn't seem like your edit has any relation to the earlier discussion. I am quite perplexed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The bold parts are what I added (which Sarah Welch reverted). If MW dictionary does not discuss etymology, why is Sarah Welch using it? What Sarah Welch is doing is also synthesis, precisely that is the point Kashmiri raised. Now you know what Kashmiri has been asking all along. Already Sarah Welch used Zimmer's stance in her references. I used the same book to mention what else Zimmer said. You should be asking all of these exactly to Sarah Welch. When did I promise anything about Tracy Pintchman?? Yes, you are confused (coz I said no such thing about explanation of etymology); and hence perplexed. The only thing I said was representing each author's view ("According to so and so author, maya is..." - see above, have done it for Tracy Pintchman ("According to Jan Gonda and Tracy Pintchman, the word probably...").

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

BTW, if you are leaving me notes, please ping. If had seen this earlier wud have responded earlier.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: There is no need to reply in a hurry, but replying after careful thought and analysis would be appreciated.

• Ms Sarah Welch had cited two reliable sources for the etymology from ma (to measure), viz., Jan Gonda and Tracy Pintchman, and now she has added Adrian Snodgrass.
• She used Zimmer to elaborate on a connection with ma (mother) suggested by the same three authors. She didn't invent the connection on her own.
• If any of these (or other) authors state a connection with ma (water), you are welcome to state it. But you haven't said anything of the sort. Saying that Vishnu's maya is represented by water does not mean, on its own, that a derivation of words is implied.
• As to when you promised anything about Tracy Pintchaman, you did it here: "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," In response to this, I said there is no problem adding additional sources. Perhaps you were saying that it needs to be attributed to her. I don't think so. A google book search for "maya Sanskrit to measure" brings up enough hits to suggest that there is a scholarly consensus on this etymology. No attribution necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ofcourse I added (retained) what Tracy Pintchman said (in my edit). If you do not want Tracy Pintchman to be attributed to what she says, you can say so. You do not have to use my post which was not about that point (you are confusing). I changed my reply to you above with an addition in bold. Read it carefully. What you ask about ma for water, is the same way ma is used for maya. Yeah, Sarah Welch did not invent it. But some like Jan Gonda and Tracy Pintchman or few others did. Your search with enough hits is valid but you will not find more than a handful of writers who use ma measure for maya (even if it be the way some vedic verses are interpreted). Am aware how wiki works. Which is why it is useless to try anything otherwise. Any number of western or eastern sanskrit professors can conjure up synthesis as they want. But obviously they cannot be right, just because they managed to have it published. Anyways, am not inclined to contest Gonda's or anyone's interpretation. All I asked is for each author's view to be represented individually. Again, Ms.Sarah Welch can produce as many reference as she wants. It will never take away the fact that maya has always been used and interpreted variously, with multiple meanings. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:28, 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)

Am sure you know what we are at. Have already made it clear am aware how wiki works (and that am done with this). Your explanation why my edit was reverted does not stand your own questioning which applies to Ms.Sarah Welch equally well. Just because there are few references that conjured up synthesis and managed to have them published does not make them correct. The latest from Ms.Sarah Welch using the reference of Adrian Snodgrass, claiming ma measure of maya linked up to Latin materia; perfectly sums that up. There is a problem in the way some western historians approach non-native concepts from their own cultural moorings; with additional dependence on lexicographers who include everything in dictionaries. My intention was to show Kashmiri was not wrong - in fact, more right than anyone here could have been on this topic. Etymology; when contentious; is best handled by allowing representations of multiple meanings with or without supposed root word ma. But that was not to be. Thank you.

BTW, if Ms.Sarah Welch says the word's etymology is unknown (in the opening sentence of etymology section); she might as well change that and say maya comes from ma for measure and means mother, because that is what she is stuck on to represent as mainstream (with gonda, pintchman and snodgrass to her claim; which is obviously what you support because you know very well Ms.Welch cannot come to consensus on it. You would rather strike off sentences, downplay Ms.Sarah Welch's obnoxiously personal and aggressive statements, and simply function the way admin does here, as is obvious).Thank you. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

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: Quit attacking scholars, secondary sources and doing OR, just like you did in the past. We have been through this before, and you have been cautioned by multiple editors (@Kautilya3, @RexxS for example). See the archive (1 and 2) and discussion above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:: It is puzzling why removal of an irrelevant source would equal to "an attack on a scholar". Is that person your guru or what? Me, and some other editors, are tired of your blind promotion of irrelevant sources. It already took a lot of effort to make you understand that Gonda did not claim maya as coming from ma + ya [10] - only when I demonstrated that I actually have access to the source you gave up your blind fight. Now you keep pushing in some Pintchman who, by the way, herself declared that she had studied Sanskrit for only 2.5 years. Sorry, this is below any sane bar set by WP:RS.

I have not been cautioned by anyone. Please now stop pushing your guru's theory (linking maya to measure or mother, or materia, or materialist, or anything of these sorts) and, if you can't understand the difference between etymology and deconstruction, just stay away from this article for a while. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:54, 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)

ANI is not the right venue but will certainly take this up. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:50, 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)

We also have WP:PRIMARY that you conveniently omitted, whilst the discussion is about basing a statement on Wikipedia on a primary source. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to have noticed that PRIMARY is part of NOR. Modern books written by modern authors analysing ancient texts are secondary sources. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources published by lulu.com

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191240/http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf to http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Though the text is very good it is not absolutely clear

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)