Talk:Śrauta

untitled comments
this should maybe just be a redirect to yajna, no need to explain the same thing twice. Shrauta is the vrddhi of Shruta and it deals with Yajnas, that doesn't leave much material specific to this article. dab (&#5839;) 07:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Shrauta may be linguistically related to Shruta. But it *is* a distinct tradition of Hindu Dharma requiring a seperate article.Babub 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, but the major part of this is treated at yajna. At the moment, this article contains the term's etymology, a reference to yajna and a reference to patha, as well as a list of Vedic deities. The actual content relevant to the title is restricted to the "present situation" section. dab (&#5839;) 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The shrauta tradition *consists* of all the things you've listed. Shrauta and smarta are the traditions deriving from shruti and smriti respectively. So the article is justifiable.Babub 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you realize, though, how cheesy it is to refer to India as Bharat? This is the English Wikipedia, and India is known as India in English. We don't talk about Nippon and Deutschland in our articles on Japan and Germany, either. Of course the origin of Shrauta relates to Shruti just as Smarta to Smrti. That's etymology. However, Smarta refers to a specific philosophy. Can you explain how Shrauta is distinct from Smarta? You make it sound as if the two are mutually exclusive, but you do not seem to explain how, or who exactly does practice Shrauta but not Smarta: the Nambudiri are Smarta, but they certainly practice Vedic rituals. Indeed, unless I am mistaken, the "recent rituals" of Kerala listed were performed by Nambudiris. For this reason I think it is wrong to imply that Shrauta and Smarta are somehow opposed. dab (&#5839;) 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, India it is :)! Smartas are one of the four sampradayas of Hinduism. Within this, some smartas continue to practise shrauta rituals as prescribed in the vedas. For example, the smartas of Mattur, Holenarsipur and other villages in Karnataka as well as plenty of other places in South India still practise Shrauta as a distinct tradition. Nambudiris are the more famous among Shrautis but they are not the only ones. There are shrautis in Maharashtra too. See works of Frits Staal who has worked a lot in Shrauta field.Babub 07:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I realize that the Nambudiris are simply the best known, not the only ones. I have read stuff by Staal (especially Agni), but I am not an expert. I would very much welcome a discussion of other Shrauta groups to this article. Since we already have a Nambudiri article, they should be discussed. I see the future of this article in this direction, while the discussion of deities and yajnas can be summarized, but in detail belongs on the Deva and Yajna articles. As I said, I am not at home in this field, so I am careful with my edits, but I would suggest we discuss the relation between Smarta and Shrauta along the lines of what you just said instead of presenting them as antipodes. dab (&#5839;) 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC: move page to Śrauta
why move to Śrauta?


 * Suppoert Proper spelling, I guess: shrauta 10,000 hits, śrauta 18,000 hits.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Common name.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Common name, also IAST-correct version; it is the vṛddhi of śruti, which also is spelled using the IAST. Ogress 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support - Oppose - I am opposing basically because the proposal is half-baked. If the page title is formally transliterated, then all the Sanskrit words in the page should also be formally transliterated. Otherwise, the readers would be confused about what is going on. And, all the formally transliterated words should be italicised as well, to indicate that they are not in English spelling. I am sure that all the reliable sources that spell Śrauta in IAST do this. (However, note that IAST has no standing in Wikipedia. The so-called "formal transliteration" is closer to ISO. That would require you to spell Ṛgvēda, not "Rigveda".) - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except the Common Name of the Ṛgveda is not Ṛgveda, and we use the Common Name. And you are wrong, as IAST uses [e], [o]. The long mark is not used for Sanskrit on those vowels in IAST. Ogress 01:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have referred to WP:NCIN, where IAST is not mentioned as a valid transliteration for Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be. That issue should be taken up elsewhere, perhaps at WP:INB. And, I was giving Ṛgvēda as just an example. I am not suggesting that all occurrences of "Rigveda" should be changed. But the occurrence of multiple transliterations on the same page is a serious problem. I find it odd that people only worry about page titles and not the rest of the mess. I would prefer a proposal that says that all Sanskrit words on this page would be in IAST. That is what you need to say to get my support. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would we rename a page and not fix the page's spellings? We can't make those changes until consensus appears that the subject is properly referred to here by its Common Name. Voting for the Common Name is voting for that. I don't understand why you'd think any different. I retired specifically because the Indo community threw fits when I made the changes you demand, then when I tried using this exact format to "gain consensus" and make the changes with everyone okaying routine adherence to Wiki rules, no one voted. And now you are engaging in the same obstructionist behavior. Change is incremental, make the changes one step at a time. Please, for the love of [insert preference], if you support the use of this romanisation support it so we can make the changes you demand. Ogress 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed to Qualified Support. I think fixing the Sanskrit on the page can be done independently of the page title. (Glad that you are back!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Wendy Doniger in On Hinduism, Upinder Singh in A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, Wendy Doniger again in The Hindus: An Alternative History, Roshen Dalal in The Vedas: An Introduction to Hinduism’s Sacred Texts, Brian Hatcher in Hinduism in the Modern World, Encylopaedia Britannica, et al. all prefer to use the more accessible Shrauta spelling in their works targeting a wider audience. Śrauta is, on the other hand, not accessible and leads to editors, some very experienced, simply dropping the diacritics altogether—as it is either difficult to type or they don't care or because the online source they are referring to does not render IAST properly—leading to multiple transliterations on the same page. This issue is compounded further when some "common names" in an article use IAST while others don't, which, along with the fact that there is no visual indicator (mouse-overs aren't helpful) that a word is rendered in IAST, makes for befuddling reading. As currently on this page, I would prefer IAST to be used solely as a pronunciation guide. By that reasoning, Śruti should be Shruti, right?  I was unaware of any vote (or that you had retired!); please link me to the issue. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to all these issues. However, this page is so full of Sanskrit that I think it is best if it is transliterated formally. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This arbitrary practice is why this mess exists in the first place. Just as we can get by fine with Rigveda, we can (as can the authors cited above) also get by fine with Shrauta. The page is apparently full of IAST now only because Ogress has (understandably inconsistently) made it so. I'd also like to note that your stance is also a complete volte-face.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two questions: what vote are you talking about? Śruti has apparently always been named such since it was first created in 2003. I retired in September 2015. It is 2016, how long are we going to continue to throw around this "diacritics on roman letters are hard" argument? There's a million pages with them. Radoševići (Srebrenica) is one I picked out of a hat. Ogress 12:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "no one voted" <— This vote. The point about Śruti is that its common name is Shruti just as it's Smriti and not Smṛti. And I'm talking about diacritics specifically with respect to IAST. We can talk about it until its pedantic use with no concern for the reader or the mangling of spellings everywhere is squashed.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Arbitrary which one is used Britannica uses Shrauta. Oxford Reference uses Śrauta. Unless WP has an overall style preference for transliterated or original terms, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I can see. (Brought here by RFC request.) HGilbert (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shrauta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070309063959/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/apr152006/metrosat1358342006414.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr152006/metrosat1358342006414.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus + common name?
Where in the above move request do you see consensus or Śrauta being demonstrated as WP:COMMONNAME? If anything, it's been demonstrated that it is the opposite. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Google search numbers show clearly that Śrauta is much more common. Google Books search returns slightly more results for "Śrauta" than for "Shrauta". Google Scholar search retunrs more than 3 times more results for "Śrauta" than for "Shrauta". I did not give much weight to your cherry-picking of sources that use "Shrauta" since there are obviously equally reliable sources that use "Śrauta".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So it wasn't consensus as much as it was your own research. Thanks. I hope that someone will go ahead and correct all the instances of srauta on Wikipedia to śrauta (including some misspellings which have been introduced by the very editors who have supported the move to śrauta).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Probably, google parses one as a subset of other. Few type "Ś". If you search "Srauta", you get more hits on google, and on google scholar, than you get for "Śrauta". So, I urge we avoid changing "srauta" to "śrauta" all over wikipedia, or inside this article. FWIW, I have no particular preference in this case, and the title spelling script is a minor issue. The major issue with this article is the quality of the content of the main and the lead. It is weak, unencyclopedic, with much that is unsourced/incomplete. The current lead makes it read as if this is Brahmins-thing. In reality, Srauta is an adjective applied to a text, ritual practice or person in the context of Sruti. See 1, 2, 3, etc. The Classification section is unsourced and amazing OR. Would one of you have time to improve this article? what are your thoughts on the content? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I came here because I saw the WP:request for closure. My knowledge on this subject is very weak, I am certainly not the right person to work on this article.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Vanjagenije: Thanks for the note., any thoughts on the main/lead of the article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I prefer śrauta over srauta. As long as there is a redirect, that shouldn't be a problem. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave my reasoning when I commented on Captain Haddock's vote. This page is full of Sanskrit words. So all of them should be transliterated formally (i.e., using IAST). Correspondingly, it makes sense for the page title also to be in IAST. My principle is that all the words on the same page should be transliterated the same way. Otherwise it would be confusing. I changed my own vote to Qualified support when assured me that it will be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy to copyedit the page, it will only take a minute. I will do so now. Ogress 21:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, What about the content? How about Any objections to the following:
 * 1. Etymology and meaning
 * 2. Texts (to include Srauta sutras, their link to the Brahmanas/Aranyakas, also a few sentences on the appendix embedded in the Srauta sutras)
 * 3. Rituals
 * 4. Other usage (to include Srauta Brahmins)
 * 5. Influence (to include Mimamsa, current practices as documented by Staal, Knipe etc)
 * Any other sections? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Setting the quality of the current article aside, I think spellings are fundamentally important. Encyclopaedias need to be accurate and it's distressing to see you and even editors who have supported this page move simply ignoring the diacritics and misrepresenting the term to the reader. WP is full of Krsnas, Saktisms, Srautas, etc. thanks to this practice. Kautilya3's qualified support matters for naught as even this page will be inaccurate once another editor who either does not know how to type a ś, is too lazy to do so, or just does not care, deigns to edit this page. Then again, IAST is itself inaccessible to lay readers particularly with its use of c for ch. (You can find videos on Youtube where people pronounce Charvaka as Karvaka …)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I admire your passion and desire for accuracy. I am not clear though what you mean. Yes, encyclopedias need to be accurate, yet what is "accurate"? Is one convention that uses diacritics really more 'encyclopedically accurate' than the common spellings found in WP:RS? Isn't this 'desire for diacritics', nothing but "right great wrongs in wikipedia' particularly if and when the reliable sources are predominantly using a spelling without diacritics?
 * Now, we all know English is a strange language, unlike Sanskrit or many other languages, because the English spelling is not phonetic. For example, the same spelling "ough" can be pronounced in many different ways: [1] cough (like 'off' in offer), [2] rough (like 'uff' in suffer), [3] though (like o in go), [4] through (like oo in too), [5] plough (like ow in slower), and [6] ought (like aw in raw). Thus "S" in "Srauta" can be pronounced as "Śrauta", or "Shrauta", just like "sugar" is actually pronounced "shugar", and "sure" is pronounced "shure".
 * The wikipedia project is to inform, not to change the world, which means it must follow the WP:RS curve. I didn't vote for this reason, and I have no "either-or, use one spelling consistently" view. If our goal is to summarize information, make wikipedia accessible to widest range of readers, and acknowledge with NPOV the spellings that are in the WP:RS, we should do so explicitly by [a] using the spelling most commonly found in WP:RS, and [b] acknowledging in a sentence the significant alternate English spellings of the same word in WP:RS, in this article and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to address one of your observations in your original reply to me. Yes, Google by default does parse one as a subset of the other. However, when the search term is bounded by quotes, it attempts to look for the exact term (as in the case of Vanjagenije's searches above). As for reliable sources and diacritics, it should be remembered that scanned and digitised books often do not handle diacritics well (particularly the more exotic ones used by IAST) and tend to approximate the match by choosing the closest glyph—usually the letter sans diacritic. Similarly, Amazon, Google, etc. also don't handle IAST correctly in titles and previews which is why so many book titles are incorrectly cited on WP. (For example, just about every citation for Thapar's Aśoka and Decline of the Mauryas used to read, Asoka and Decline of the Mauryas.) Some older books handled by budget publishers did not/could not pay attention to diacritics either due to printing limitations or lack of diligence; this is however, not the case with newer printed publications. In other words, there is no "convention" in reliable sources by reliable authors to drop diacritics. There is, however, a convention among books targeting lay readers to not employ IAST at all and rely on more accessible and less confusing transliterations; cf. the "cherry-picked" books in the move request above.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. A relevant case in point is the Knipe book cited in this article. The digitised versions on Amazon, Google, etc. do not contain any diacritics at all. Yet it is clear that Knipe is using IAST everywhere as he spells Chalukya as Calukya, Chandragupta as Candragupta, etc. It is probably safe to assume that the print edition does not have this issue. Here, however, is a PDF scan of a Knipe paper (albeit from 44 years ago) where he is very careful with his spellings. There is no way that this scholar is intentionally spelling aśvamedha as asvamedha. Or śrauta as srauta, for that matter.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Cpt.a.haddock: It is sometimes the specs of the publisher that drives this, not the scholar. Unlike the JSTOR article you linked and which does use diacritics, the Knipe book has "asvamedha", not aśvamedha, etc, unless my eyes are fooling me! No, my eyes are fine, because on page 297 (randomly picked) he writes Osnabrück 1981, a Ü with diaeresis (diacritic). You are right indeed, scanners and digitized google search do mess diacritics all the time. Returning to this article, and other Sanskrit articles, the best we can probably do is to verify printed copies of WP:RS, stick with the sources, and include a sentence with different spellings for NPOV (with sources cited). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's my point … The digitised book seemingly uses asvamedha when the author has very likely used aśvamedha. And no, I don't think the publisher, OUP, is driving this and it's more likely a font-related issue. Umlaut-ed Us are commonplace; IAST diacritics, less so. The best we can do is to use the correct spellings consistently across articles and the entire site. Printing/scanning/digitisation errors/limitations are not correct spellings and dropping diacritics is not a convention. Srauta is not correct spelling and using it is both inaccurate and lowers the quality of the article. Same with Krsna, Visnu, Yudhistira, Arthasastra, Ksatriya, Silabhadra, Pusyamitra, etc. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Vishnu is very common, Krishna too in printed books. I am looking at print version, not digitized version. I see Asvamedha in the printed hardcopy version, not Aśvamedha. In another printed WP:RS volumes of Encyclopedia of Hinduism, I see Shrauta, not Śrauta (it dedicates a separate section which lists both spellings of each significant term: one with and one without diacritics). There is no consistency in the "printed hardcopy versions" of WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I haven't made my position on this clear. I would prefer to see IAST relegated to the role of pronunciation guide; i.e. (a) "The Ashvamedha (IAST: ) is a …". If this is not possible, then the article should begin (b) "The ' is a …" What it should NOT be is (c)' "The Asvamedha'' is a …". Option (a) is the best of both worlds; it provides the reader with the most accurate spelling in the form of IAST, but uses a simpler romanisation which is both accessible to the reader, easier to type, and often the common spelling. Reliable authors, when catering to a mainstream audience, do not use IAST and prefer the simpler romanisation (which is what I would like WP articles to do as well). I believe the use of (b) invariably leads to (c). I'm arguing against the use of Krsna and Visnu, not Krishna/Kṛṣṇa and Vishnu/Viṣṇu although I believe that the use of Kṛṣṇa/Viṣṇu is confusing and encourages the Krsna/Visnu misspelling; please see Vaishnavism for multiple examples …--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we agree. Let us work towards it. Go ahead, fix the Vaishnavism article. further thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't follow most of this discussion. I agree that, in the terminology of WP:NCIN, the "simplified transliteration" should be the norm, and "formal transliteration" should be the exception. This page is one of the exceptions because of the heavy Sanskrit content in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Grihyasutras are Smarta, not Srauta
Grihyasutras are Smarta, not Srauta They are about domestic (Smarta) rites.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MSW, your own sources distinguish between Srauta and Grhya. For example, page 21 of Burde says "The Vedic ritual can again be divided into srauta and grhya rituals."VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: That is what the article states. Vedic (Brahmana) were divided into Srauta and Grihya. Which sentence is confusing you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Lubin
Lubin is tracing the homa tradition to the Vedic religion, not the other way around. He says "All of these homas ultimately descend from those of the Vedic religion...."<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: Indeed. Feel free to reword it further, or just quote Lubin. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: See Richard Payne's introductory discussion too, on history in the same Witzel edited book. May be worth summarizing it in a few sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages 152-153 of Lubin are about Gryhya, not Srauta. Lubin says "Vedic Rudra was especially associated with household affairs and the well-being of people and herds, but he was not a recipient of offerings in the srauta cult." In fact Lubin specifically says "Such a radical substitution is not condoned in the srauta ritual texts, even later ones....."  Lubin says "the fact that it has been accepted as belonging to the Grhyasutra proper".   So its part of Gryhya, not Srauta.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See Agnicayana and Rudra part. The Agnicayana is a Srauta ritual. Pages 151-152. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He says Rudra comes to be associated with Agni in the Svetasvatara Upanishad. That is all.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: No. He writes quite a bit on Rudra. Both Taittiriya Samhita and Aitareya Brahmana mention Rudra in significant Sruti rituals, he is mentioned in later Srauta literature, so Rudra and srauta need to summarized in this article. I will give you a few days to improve this article in any way you feel fit. While you do so, I will check the other sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete large sections, without discussion and with absurd edit comments such as "see talk". Your action must match what you are actually discussing on the talk page, not your personal misunderstanding/wisdom/prejudices. For instance, why did you delete text sourced to Witzel in Flood edited book? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does Witzel say anything about substitutions in Blackwell Companion?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: I will embed quotes with sources to make WP:V easier. BTW, some of your other changes look okay, but some don't. Perhaps, you too should embed quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First please quote where Witzel says anything about dough etc. substitutions here on this talk page. Or atleast give a page number.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: Will you practice what you lecture others to do? Or do the rules don't apply to you for this article, just everyone else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already quoted Lubin above, which you simply dismissed. Should I quote more Lubin? "It is probably not possible to say how ancient this prescription is, but the fact that it has been accepted as belonging to the Grhyasutra proper and not relegated at least to the Paribhasa or Parisista-Sutra suggests that it may be a relatively early "vegetarian" option prefiguring the substitution by certain Maharasthrian Madhvas of animal forms shaped from dough (pistapasu) or pots of ghee (ajyapasu) for the animal victims in srauta rituals in recent centuries (a practice going back at least 6oo years) and the Kerala innovation of using rice folded into banana leaves for the same purpose. Such a radical substitution is not condoned in srauta ritual texts, even later ones such as the Trikandamandana of Bhaskara Misra (eleventh or twelfth centuries), with its long chapter on substitutions (pratinidhi), which does however condone the replacement of certain missing parts of the animal by ladles of ghee pg. 153"

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We are discussing Witzel in Gavin Flood edited book. It is a different book than the one where Lubin's chapter is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll ask for a third time. Can you please give the page number where Witzel talks about substitution of animals with dough in "Gavin Flood edited book"?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 00:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I attributed "substitution of animals with dough" to Lubin, not to Witzel. See here. Since you have "cast an aspersion", can you please give a diff where I added "Witzel talks about substitution of animals with dough"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at your own link. You wrote in the article "Such developments and the evidence in Vedic texts, states Michael Witzel, suggest that Srauta rituals underwent historic reforms in the post-Rigvedic era (about and after 1000 BCE)."  "Such developments" refers to the previous sentence.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, "such developments" refers to the paragraph. Witzel does start a section on page 77, in bold, "The Post-Rigvedic reform of the Srauta Ritual". Witzel also mentions many Vedic texts in the pages that follow. We can reword it, if you want. If that bothered you, can you explain the misrepresentation of sources by you in this article. Here is the diff of your edit. On which page does Witzel state, "Suffocation of animals, rather than decapitation, is part of the reforms in the post-Rigvedic (about and after 1000 BCE) Srauta rituals"? I see support for suffocation, but not the rest. Perhaps you can point me to the page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 74 says "decapitated".<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 74 is not discussing reform, is it? It is a Vedic ritual, variously interpreted. We can't (mis)represent it as a reform, if Witzel explicitly doesn't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Page 82 uses the word reform which I bolded: "This wish – and not the avoidance of violence as such (Heesterman 1985), which always remains involved in the classical ritual – is one of the important driving forces behind the Kuru time Srauta reform. The little studied and less understood myth of Indra cutting off the head of Dadhyañc is the “charter myth” of the main priests acting in ritual, the Adhvaryus, who want to avoid direct involvement in the evil and pollution caused by killing necessary in ritual. They delegate these actions to helpers, working outside the sacriﬁcial ground, and killing is not even referred to overtly: the animal is “paciﬁed” (sam) (Witzel 1987a: n. 103); similarly, evil and illnesses are sent off in all directions (Witzel 1980)." <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 02:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. But that discussion about Brahmanas layer of the Vedic text, and history, is not accurately summarized by your sentence. Witzel is merely explaining the intent behind reforms that can be attributed to late/post-RV political, social and religious changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are saying.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Read that reply and Witzel again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pasubandha
Pasubandha is merely the Sanskrit term for animal sacrifice. It is not a Srauta ritual.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Sanskrit word means animal sacrifice. But what has that to do with naming/classifying a Srauta ritual as Pashubandha? I will add a source and reword where necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Homa is not the same as Srauta yajna.
Lubin traces homa to Vedic religion, but homa is not the same thing as Srauta yajna. Ganesha homa, Vajrakilaya homa etc. have very little to do with Srauta yajna.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of Witzel's extraneous opinion
I was of the opinion that Witzel's statement here doesn't serve any purpose and is of no use in this article. opines differently and reverted my edits with. Anyone likes to chip in?

BTW, I know who Witzel is, and that's why I said that this statement of his is not relevant on this page because it serves no purpose whatsoever in informing the reader of the topic of this article. Crawford88 (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your exact edit-summary was: "extraneous information without any relevant. subjective opinion of 'a' person." You removed the following info:
 * "The Śrauta rituals, states Michael Witzel, are an active area of study and are incompletely understood."

I don't see how this is not relevant, or doesn't serve a purpose. I also don't see why this info is not relevant because it's written by Witzel ("I know who Witzel is, and that's why I said that this statement of his is not relevant"). Maybe you can explain why it is not informative or relevant, instead of repeating this statement? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * because, it's a subjective opinion of 'a' Indologist. Doniger could have a different POV so does Pollock or even Wujastyk. Are we in wikipedia allowing every such statements by every prominent Indologists? Crawford88 (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. Qualifying scholarship as "a subjective opinion of 'a' Indologist" is a typical rhetorical "strategy" to discard insights one doesn't like. Not the kind of argument one expects from people who appreciate the value of scholarship. NB: if those other authors have relevant "opinions," then you can include them, of course.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Crawford88: I concur with @Ogress and @JJ. That note from Witzel is indeed relevant. If you have a reliable source that states, "The Śrauta rituals are completely understood", we can add it. Do you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify (since I've been away from Wikipedia) that my edit summary was "Let's discuss this, because Michael Witzel isn't a rando layperson." In fact, this is taken from The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, an edited work.


 * I can't imagine why the comment that śrauta rituals are not completely understood would be irrelevant because it's pretty pertinent information. In fact, the page in question is an entire section of the book that begins:

We need a new, detailed survey of Śrauta rituals and their contents ... A thorough interpretation of the Śrauta ritual that uses the wealth of Vedic descriptions and contemporaneous native interpretation is a desideratum. Though begun a hundred years ago ... a comprehensive interpretation still is outstanding[.] In addition, the structure(s) of the ritual, the interrelations of particular rituals, and their internal development ... still deserve more study. This kind of ratchets up the generic "we don't understand them entirely". Ogress 20:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Source says arose in India
Your source says it arose in India, and then had extensions and offsprings throughout Asia: "have become a part of most of the religions that arose in India as well as their extensions and offsprings from Samarqand to Japan." <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: India is in Asia. Further, the first line of page 143 does mention Asia. There is no need to delete everything, just because of this Asia versus India point. You can change the wording instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)