Hi, thanks for your edits to the article on Panini. However, could you mention a few sources (books etc.) that contain references to the changes you made? Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
To Mr Srivastava
I am new to editing contents in Wikipedia. First , I want to know why you write about Panini as if he is a person about whom nothing is known. Also I would like to know why all the sections in wikipedia contain references about things Indian in the light of the opinions of Europeans ?
My questions are 1. Is there anything in puranas or itihasas that distinguishes between Vedic Sanskrit and Bhasha sanskrit ? If there is anything, does it say whether there was a vyakarana for Vedic Sanskrit ? Is there any firm evidence that Bhasha was not spoken in Vedic period ? Or in other words, is there evidence that Vedic sanskrit was spoken during Vedic period ? If Vedic people spoke Vedic sanskrit, then why Upanishads are in Bhasha ?
2. As Panini himself says that he is one in a line of many grammarians, what is the common speculation of time elapsed between two successive vyakaranas ? If end of Vedic period is attributed to some period according to Europeans (though our Puranas do not mention any Vedic period or its decline), then what would have been the logical time of birth of Panini as per the 'supposed' and ' calculated' time frame ?
- Hi, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth -- we on Wikipedia are constrained by what is published in reliable books. So we can't use our "common sense" to correct articles, we have to find books that contain the ideas we'd like to insert. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
And what constitutes a 'reliable' book ? Do you mean to say they can be only written by Europeans with only a borrowed knowledge on India ? On what count our Puranas and accounts by various writers over an immense period of time are not being taken into account by you ?
A simple glance at the original books that you refer to as 'citations' will reveal that they are all partial in their coverage, poor in analysis and immature in conclusions. For example, you have not answered a simple question "why upanishads are in Bhasha when supposedly they were Vedic ?
And, by your comment, do you infer that reliable books are not necessarily born of common sense ?
I believe, you should not have reversed my corrections without having verified my questions against 'all' available sources. Instead, you have opted to hide behind 'guidelines'
- Hi, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for what constitutes a reliable source. It doesn't have to be written by Europeans; it can be written by Indians too — but it can't be a primary source (e.g. interpreting the purāṇas and upaniṣads directly is not allowed); it can be any modern Indian author in any Indian language or English. I too have an interest in improving the article to reflect the truth, just like you, but if it's without a source then someone else will come along and revert it. I'd be happy if you find a book by anyone that contains whatever it is you want the article to reflect: if it's the obvious truth, it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one author who has said so in a book. Good luck, Shreevatsa (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)