Talk:Maya (religion)

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)

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

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[1], 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 [2] - 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)