Talk:Ashvamedha/Archive 1

Formulas ?
This is religion not math.--71.163.67.245 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go look in a dictionary. Here's one . Paul B 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

.
The "queen copulating with the dead horse" is in the YV. The Ashvamedha is not described in the RV (in 5.27 a person named Ashvamedha is referred to, that's it). I don't know about SP/R/MB, but the "copulating" bit is almost certainly not there. You make it sound like it's in all these texts. It should rather be treated as the exceptional custom that it was, even in Vedic culture. (and compared to Purushamedha, and to archaeological (Kurgan,...) finds). dab (&#5839;) 23:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How does a woman "copulate" with a dead horse???? I've heard of it being done with live horses, but never with dead ones.
 * the sources are silent on this. Allegedly, a hanged man ejaculates before death, so maybe there is a similar effect in a horse? Or maybe they just pretended to copulate? Nobody can tell now. dab (&#5839;) 14:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Take inspiration from the Yajur Veda itself:
 * YADDEVASO LALAMAGU PRA VISHTIMINMAVISHUHU |
 * SAKATHNA DEDISHYATE NARI SATYASYAKSHIBHUVO YATHA ||
 * -(23/29 Yajurveda)
 * When scholars become judges and start seeing the pros and con of each matter, then only can truth be :seen by seeing things directly in the same way as the women can be known by seeing the thighs :)

One should learn to see or experience truth face-to-face and understand the in-depth meaning behind it. We should repose our faith in rumors. The jar of untruth shall break only when we realise the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nshuks7 (talk • contribs).

ashva-medha is neither the name of a man, nor does it mean a horse. As the adage goes, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Vedic texts are technical, not every thinker's cup of tea. Even native scholars in India have difficulty in understanding the Vedas. It is high time that scholars in the West approach the ancient writings of India with a sense of great humility. With their condescending attitude, they have long made fools of themselves.Kanchanamala 07:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * aśvamedha occurs as a name (RV.5.27.4-6), just as Dab noted, and as a patronymic (āśvamedha, RV.8.68.15,16) in the RV. Both passages are dānastutis.  Go look them up.  And humility has nothing to do with it.  The operative word is respect.  As in, respectfully allowing the vedic texts to speak for themselves, rather than having to conform to latter day pieties. rudra 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In both the references, 'ashva' does not mean a horse. Vishnusharman, I am not interested in getting involved in your digressions.Kanchanamala 07:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the one who is digressing. The fact the word is used as a name does not tell us anything about its meaning. Do you have any useful points to make? Paul B 07:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the literal meaning of medha is "meat broth", the literal meaning of ashva is "horse". medha came to mean "animal sacrifice" or "[cooked] sacrificial animal" early on (1.162.10), and "sacrifice" in general (3.58.2, 1.77.3); 1.162.10 has the term connected with an actual horse sacrifice,
 * Food undigested steaming from his belly, and any odour of raw flesh remaining, / This let the immolators set in order and dress the sacrifice with perfect cooking.
 * but it is notable that the compound ashvamedha should not be attested in the Rigveda in the literal sense, but nevertheless as a name (which proves that it already carried great religious importance, you don't name someone "prince horsemeat broth"), the reason is of course, that the ashvamedha is the province of the YV, not the RV. Rudra is spot on, the Vedic texts should be respected in their own right, unmitigated by later pieties. We do discuss such later pieties, in their proper place. It is remarkable, all the same, that the in the BAUp, this is, at the very beginning of Vedantic thought, we have a mythical "cosmic ashvamedha", directly comparable to the "cosmic purushamedha". dab (𒁳) 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Macdonell's dictionary has:
 * médh-a, m. juice of meat, strong draught (V.); essential or most valuable part (of a sacrificial animal; V.); sacrificial victim; animal sacrifice (very frequently -•).
 * He also has two entries for medhas (note the vedic accent):
 * 1. médh-as, n. sacrifice.
 * 2. medh-ás, -• = medhā, intelligence, understanding.
 * (Hoping that a digression on "what medha means" can be nipped in the bud). rudra 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's me-dhā, not medh-ā. it's unrelated to medh-a, I suppose, and rather cognate to mazda. dab (𒁳) 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

recent removals
please don't remove information about the Vedic sacrifice. There is a separate section about contemporary Hinduism, and you may expand that if you want to cite Hindu opinions that the whole thing is to be taken symbolically (a statement that has been in the article all the time, incidentially). Furthermore, I don't know if B. R. Ambedkar read about the sacrifice in an English translation, or in the original Sanskrit, and I don't really see why it matters. If you have a source specifying which particular translation Ambdekar used, feel free to cite it. The present discussion of the sacrifice is based on Griffith, which I'll add now to stall accusation of unsourced statements. Feel free to add further sources. dab (&#5839;) 17:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Griffith was a sincere scholar, but he is in no way an authority on the Vedas. I, for one, am a native scholar of India, and I don't need any translation to study the Vedic texts. If Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said something about the Vedas, one should peruse it with due respect.Kanchanamala 07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
There is a gap of at least a 1000 years between the early Vedic age, and the Gupta empire. Apparently, at some point of time a shift occured in how Ashvamedha was performed. Is there any reference saying that Samudragupta followed the procedure as described in Griffith's translation?

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (from the Vedic period) speaks of the sacrificial horse as the very form of the world:


 * Aum, the dawn, verily, is the head of the sacrificial horse, the sun the eye, the wind the breath, the open mouth the Vaisvanara [universally worshipped] fire; the year is the body of the sacrificial horse, the sky is the back, the atmosphere is the belly, the earth the hoof [or, the earth is his footing], the quarters the sides, the intermediate quarters the ribs, the seasons the limbs, the months and the half-months the joints, days and nights the feet, the stars the bones, the clouds the flesh; the food in the stomach is the sand, the rivers are the blood-vessels, the liver and the lungs are the mountains, the herbs and the trees are the hair. The rising (sun) is the forepart, the setting (sun) the hind part, when he yawns then it lightens, when he shakes himself, it thunders, when he urinates then it rains; voice, indeed, is his voice.

The last anuvaka of the last Kanda (7.5.25) of Taittiriya Samhita (Krishna Yajur Veda) begins with the sentence, “he who knows the summit of the intelligence (medhya) of the horse (ashva) becomes illumined and fit for the sacrifice''.

yo va ashvasya medhyasya shiro veda shirshnavan medhyo bhavatu.

The rest of this anuvaka TS (7.5.25) till the end is mostly identical to the Br.U. (1.1.1) and (1.1.2) quoted earlier and develops the cosmic form of the horse. The end of TS (7.5.25) is same as that Br.U. (1.1.2), ending with the phrase samudra evasya bhandhuh samudro yonih. (The sea (samudra) was his brother and sea his birthplace (yoni).) deeptrivia 20:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have enough information to say what form Samudragupta's sacrifice took. However I think we can be certain that he did not use Griffith's translation! I'm not sure what you intend by including the quotations from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad about the symbolic significance of the horse. Are you suggesting that this passage is evidence that a real horse would not have been used? Paul B 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Griffith's translation is maybe not perfect, but it is fair. If you disagree with a particular passage, we can always go back to the original text of the Yajurveda. And yes, the Upanishad texts belong in the "Vedanta" section, of course, and describe a pov after the reinterpretation of Vedic religion. dab (&#5839;) 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the article gives the impression that Samudragupta's ashvamedha was performed in exactly the same way as described in a book written a thousand years ago, while between the time of Yajurveda and Samudragupta, we have literature showing that symbolic interpretation had already begun. Could we make this more clear in the article? Also, do we have any particular instances of Ashvamedha being performed the Yajurveda (Griffith) way recorded in history preceding Samudragupta? deeptrivia (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep adding Griffith's name, as though the account is dependent on his translation? Unless we can find evidence concerning the specific form that Samudragupta's ceremony took, I doubt there is anything else to say about it. The Br.U. passage elaborates on the symbolic significance ascribed to the sacrifice. It does not appear to say that the sacrifice itself is purely "symbolic" - in the sense that no actual horse would be killed. Paul B 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul B, what you said makes perfect sense, and I agree to it. I somehow missed this piece of logic earlier. However, we do know that at some point of time in that period, it did become purely symbolic. It is inevitable that some things are "lost in translation", and others are "found in translation", especially in texts like these, so I think it's necessary to mention whose translation we are using. deeptrivia (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we need some source for Samudragupta's sacrifice, and maybe need to do a special section about it. dab (&#5839;) 14:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The foregoing debate is an exercise in futility. You guys have once again proven the fact that Vedas are not a fit subject for talking-heads. As the adage goes, fools rush in where the angels fear to tread.Kanchanamala 07:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
I have a Hindi Version of White Yajur Veda with Sanskrit mantras (Pandit Shriram Sharma Acharya, 2004, Sanskrit Sansthan, Bareli). And no nonsense is written about Queen copulating with dead horse and ritual obscenities. Hindi versions are much more authentic translations than English versions by foeigners. Thus, I am going to re-revert it to my own version. Cygnus_hansa 16:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hindi versions are much more authentic translations than English versions by foeigners" -- oh yeah? Any particular reason for this assertion? Why not stick to the original Vedic Sanskrit version? It is freely available, and I assure you, Griffith didn't make this up. If Hindus are so scandalized by the content of this text, I can imagine very good reasons why a Hindi translation would not mention these particulars, on the other hand. You do realize, of course, that Griffith himself does not translate the verses about the copulation? He gives them in the original. dab (&#5839;) 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cygnus_hansa, it would make more sense if you cite the verses and their translation according to your source, and settle your issues here instead of reverting the article again. dab, could you point him out the exact verses relevant to the discussion. Also, do we have any information about how many versions of Yajurveda existed by the 19th century, and which one did Griffith use for his translation? As far as I know, in most Hindu texts as we know them today, insertions were made till as late as 17th century. I know this is not the right place at all for this kind of debate (on whether Griffith's translation is acceptable or not), but we can discuss whether it is the only translation worthy of being mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If incompetent readers keep referring to Griffith, then it is high time that his translation is laid to rest in an archive.Kanchanamala 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

the "untranslatable"
Albrecht Weber,The Vajasaneyi-Samhita in the Madhyandina and the Kanva-Shakha with the Commentary of Mahidhara, Berlin 1849, reprint Varanasi 1972

VS.23.20.a: taa/ ubha/u catu/ra.h pada/.h sampra/ saarayaava svarge/ loke/ pro/r.nuvaathaa.m v.r/.saa vaajii/ retodhaa/ re/to dadhaatu \\ VS.23.21.a: u/tsakthyaa a/va guda/.m dhehi sa/m a~nji/.m caarayaa v.r.san \ VS.23.21.b: ya/ strii.naa/.m jiivabho/jana.h \\ VS.23.22.a: yakaa/saka/u shakuntikaa/ha/lag i/ti va/~ncati \ VS.23.22.b: aa/ hanti gabhe/ pa/so ni/galgaliiti dhaa/rakaa \\ VS.23.23.a: yako/ saka/u shakuntaka/ aaha/lag i/ti va/~ncati \ VS.23.23.b: vi/vak.sata iva te mu/kham a/dhvaryo maa/ nas tva/m abhi/ bhaa.sathaa.h \\ VS.23.24.a: maataa/ ca te pitaa/ ca te/ gra.m v.rk.sa/sya rohata.h \ VS.23.24.b: pra/tilaamii/ti te pitaa/ gabhe/ mu.s.ti/m ata.Msayat \\ VS.23.25.a: maataa/ ca te pitaa/ ca te/ gre v.rk.sa/sya krii.data.h \ VS.23.25.b: vi/vak.sata iva te mu/kha.m bra/hman maa/ nas tva/.m vado bahu/ \\ VS.23.26.a: uurdhva/m enaam u/c chraapaya gira/u bhaara/.M ha/rann iva \ VS.23.26.b: a/thaasyai ma/dhyam edhataa.M shiite/ vaa/te puna/nn iva \\ VS.23.27.a: uurdhva/m enam u/c chraapaya gira/u bhaara/.M ha/rann iva \ VS.23.27.b: a/thaasya ma/dhyam ejatu shiite/ vaa/te puna/nn iva \\ VS.23.28.a: ya/d asyaa a.Mhu/bhe/dyaa.h k.rdhu/ sthuula/m upaa/tasat \ VS.23.28.b: mu.skaa/v asyaa ejato goshaphe/ shakulaa/v iva \\ VS.23.29.a: ya/d devaa/so lalaa/magu.m pra/ vi.s.tiimi/nam aa/vi.su.h \ VS.23.29.b: sakthnaa/ dedishyate naa/rii satya/syaak.sibhu/vo ya/thaa \\ VS.23.30.a: ya/d dhari.no/ ya/vam a/tti na/ pu.s.ta/.m pashu/ ma/nyate \ VS.23.30.b: shuudraa/ ya/d a/ryajaaraa na/ po/.saaya dhanaayati \\ VS.23.31.a: ya/d dhari.no/ ya/vam a/tti na/ pu.s.ta/.m bahu/ ma/nyate \ VS.23.31.b: shuudro/ ya/d a/ryaayai jaaro/ na/ po/.sam a/nu manyate \\

Griffith omits these verses and summarizes
 * "The three Queens walk nine times around the horse, reciting the formulas. The Chief Queen then begins the performance of the revolting ceremony"

dab (&#5839;) 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll attempt a translation of the first verse:
 * taa/ ubha/u catu/ra.h pada/.h sampra/ saarayaava svarge/ loke/ pro/r.nuvaathaa.m v.r/.saa vaajii/ retodhaa/ re/to dadhaatu \\


 * then they both on four feet are spread out in the heavenly world, veiled, the potent stallion , the semen-giver shall give semen.

This is off the top of my head, so don't quote me on it. Hindu editions circumlocute the "the sperm giver shall give sperm" with things like "the possessor of strength and prowess lends courage to his subjects" :) but of course this is the interpretation to be given in the "modern Hinduism" section. We clearly cannot begin to haggle about the translation and semantic field of individual Sanskrit terms, and it won't do to translate the verses ourselves. This is merely intended as an example to give you an idea how the interpretation takes place. I'll try if I can get a published translation (as opposed to a pious and chaste circumlocution) of the passage in question. It is important to note that the passage is completely censored in almost all literature in India, and that most Hindus honestly have no idea about its content. But then most Hindus don't have an inkling about any of the content of the Vedas, this is just really the prime example where things come to a point. dab (&#5839;) 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cygnus hamsa if you have any other literal translation of these verses, or any questions about the authenticity of these verses, please share with us. deeptrivia (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not very proper to discard the opposing views as "modern Hinduism". It is possible that the acts described in the verse could be metaphorical as is very common in vedic literature. However, I do beleive that the above verse in its entire translation and context could certainly reveal what is being told. Sriwiki
 * Here is where I see a double standard again. Western translations of the Qu'ran, for instance, take the concept of Jihad to mean literal war, even the Arabic can be translated as "literal war". nonetheless, the Piktha;; and Yusuf Ali translations "circumlocute" it to mean "personal inner spiritual quest" and the latter is given credence over the former "because Muslim renditions carry precedence over non-Muslim ones" (Pikthall and Yusuf Ali were both Muslims) yet this doesn't seem to apply to you people here, which is why there is a double standard that leads me to question your objectivity. If you have any objections then shall I take this to a medcab? Rumpelstiltskin223 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Any person who does not have a high level of education in the Vedic texts in the original language would do well to leave the Vedas to the native scholars. Vedas are not some kind of an easy narration like the New Testament.Kanchanamala 07:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you mean, the expert scholars. Being native sadly has nothing to do with it, as Sanskrit isn't transmitted genetically, of which this page and the internet in general are ample proof. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab, don't get me wrong. By native scholars I mean those who have the opportunity to grow up in the native environment of Sanskrit. If you are familiar with the teaching of Sanskrit in modern universities, especially outside India, you just have to walk into that native environment to know how unique it is to have native fluency and native Vedic culture. To this day I have not seen that that fluency and culture among any Western scholar. Having expertise in modern linguistics is not enough competence for one to study the Vedas and become an expert in it. Dab, don't get me wrong.Kanchanamala 09:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no native environment of Sanskrit. It is strictly an acquired language.  Further, there is nothing even remotely approaching "native Vedic culture" anywhere in the world, and that has been the case for at least a millenium, if not two.  Learning Sanskrit in India, if that's supposed to confer some sort of "advantage", generally plunges you into an overwhelmingly post-Vedic environment, and so it's no surprise that many "native" scholars can't even begin to think past their Puranic preconceptions, never mind thoroughly modern revisionist mystifications a la Devi Chand or Surendra Pratap. rudra 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * there may be a very few Shrautin families left that would qualify as "native Vedic environment", but even these will be deeply affected by Vedantic mysticism. And I doubt I've met any of those on Wikipedia so far. People crying "native" on Wikipedia are as a rule referring to the purely BS revisionism spread by recent (19th c.) Hindu reform movements. Comparing these to actual Vedic culture is like identifying 19th c. Celtic Revival and Neo-Druidism with historical Druidism. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A word for the wise is enough. If you wanna miss the point, be my guest. I am not here to convince you. Kanchanamala 09:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sententious pronunciamentos about "native" this and "fluent" that contribute nothing to Wikipedia. Please find some other outlet for your hot air. Thanks. rudra 01:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudrasharman, don't get personal. If you disagree with what I say, let us agree to disagree.Kanchanamala 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "personal" in my observation that all you've contributed so far is hot air. You aren't the only one to have done so, and I assume you're capable of something other than just that. rudra 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No comment.Kanchanamala 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * your attitude of "a word for the wise is enough" is constructive. Don't convince us, drop your "word for the wise" in the "modern" or "Puranic" section and leave it at that. Wikipedia isn't about "Truth", and you don't need Wikipedia to know your Truth. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I only share what I think and what I know. I am not interested in convincing anyone. Sorry dab.Kanchanamala 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of the horse

 * The horse to be sacrificed must be a stallion, more than 24, but less than 100 years old.

I have no idea about Indikan religions, but horses don't even live 100 years, and 24-year old horse would be a very old one. Are you sure it's supposed to be "years" and not "months" ? Taw 13:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing; this is just quoted after Griffith, we'd have to look at the original text to see what is there, and after all, it's just a text: we are not saying they used actual centenarian horses, we are just saying that this is what the texts as preserved proscribe. dab (&#5839;) 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the translation
apart from notability issues (as a "layman's translation"), there are dab (&#5839;) 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * copyright issues
 * it is too long, this is not wikisource
 * the verse numbering should be aligned with the discussion above, it will not do to use two different verse counts without explanation


 * I'm trying to clarify some of these issues with the editor who added it. It's not clear whether or not this is his own English translation via a Telegu version, or whether it's lifted direct from an Indian publication. If possible I think it's useful to have it - maybe shortened - to counter the repeated assertions that "Western" versions are all designed to undermine Hinduism. Paul B 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing; if it is fair to translate a Telugu text into English ourselves, why shouldn't it be fair to translate the Sanskrit directly? Meaning, we could do our own translation, pointing to and discussing the original terms in cases of disputes (along the lines, is Samudra just the ocean, or may it also be a large lake). Anyway, I have no doubt that there are also published English translations of the passage, but as you say, likely done by westerners. In any case, only the passage omitted by Griffith is of interest enough to be given in full; for the remaining part, we have Griffith's translation to base our discussion on. dab (&#5839;) 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

fwiiw, here is the original TS text:

4.19.1.1: =a |  a/mbe a/mbaaly a/mbike 4.19.1.2: =b |  na/ maa nayati ka/sh cana/ / sasa/sty ashvaka/.h // 4.19.1.3: =c |  su/bhage kaa/mpiilavaasini suvarge/ loke/ sa/m pro/r.nvaathaam / 4.19.1.4: =d |  aa/ha/m ajaani garbhadha/m aa/ tva/m ajaasi garbhadha/m / 4.19.1.5: =e |  ta/u saha/ catu/ra.h pada/.h sa/m pra/ saarayaavahai / 4.19.1.6: =f |  v.r/.saa vaa^? retodhaa/ re/to dadhaatu \ 4.19.1.7: =g |  u/t sakthyo\r g.rda/.m dhehy a~nji/m u/da~njimm a/nv aja / ya/ strii.naa/.m jiivabho/jano ya/ aasaam //

4.19.2.1: biladhaa/vana.h / priya/ strii.naa/m apiicya\.h / ya/ aasaa.m k.r.s.ne/ la/k.sma.ni sa/rdig.rdim paraa/vadhiit // 4.19.2.2: =h |  a/mbe a/mbaaly a/mbike na/ maa yabhati ka/sh cana/ / sasa/sty ashvaka/.h // 4.19.2.3: =i |  uurdhvaa/m enaam u/c chrayataad ve.nubhaara/.m giraa/v iva / a/thaasyaa ma/dhyam edhataa^? shiite/ vaa/te pu/nann iva // 4.19.2.4: =k |  a/mbe a/mbaaly a/mbike na/ maa yabhati ka/sh cana/ / sasa/sty ashvaka/.h // 4.19.2.5: =l |  ya/d dhari.nii/ ya/vam a/tti na/ //

4.19.3.1: pu.s.ta/m pashu/ manyate / shuudraa/ ya/d a/ryajaaraa na/ po/.saaya dhanaayati // 4.19.3.2: =m |  a/mbe a/mbaaly a/mbike na/ maa yabhati ka/sh cana/ / sasa/sty ashvaka/.h // 4.19.3.3: =n |  iya/.m yakaa/ shakuntikaa/ha/lam i/ti sa/rpati / aa/hata.m gabhe/ pa/so ni/ jalguliiti dhaa/.nikaa // 4.19.3.4: =o |  a/mbe a/mbaaly a/mbike na/ maa yabhati ka/sh cana/ / sasa/sty ashvaka/.h // 4.19.3.5: =p |  maataa/ ca te pitaa/ ca te/ 'gra.m v.rk.sa/sya rohata.h //

4.19.4.1: pra/ sulaamii/ti te pitaa/ gabhe/ mu.s.ti/m ata^?sayat // 4.19.4.2: =q |  dadhikraa/v.no akaari.sa.m ji.s.no/r a/shvasya vaaji/na.h / surabhi/ no mu/khaa karat pra/ .na aa/yuu^?.si taari.sat / 4.19.4.3: =r |  aa/po hi/ .s.thaa/ mayobhu/vas taa/ na uurje/ dadhaatana / mahe/ ra/.naaya ca/k.sase // 4.19.4.4: =s |  yo/ va.h shiva/tamo ra/sas ta/sya bhaajayateha/ na.h / ushatii/r iva maata/ra.h // 4.19.4.5: =t |  ta/smaa a/ra.m gamaama vo ya/sya k.sa/yaaya ji/nvatha / aa/po jana/yathaa ca na.h //

I only have the mantra part of TS. from what I can see, the translation we have, while not inhibited, is also not very literal and adds a lot of commentary and interpretation. the repeated ambe ambaaly ambike, na maa yabhati kash cana / sasasty ashvakah (7.4.19k,m,o) literally translates to "mother, o mum, o mummy, nobody is fucking me, the little horsie is asleep". This is the queen taunting the dead horse for being, well, passive; our translation of Shastri's Telugu has "no [other] man has slept with me" and "good-for-nothing horse", both without any basis. dab (&#5839;) 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC) dab
 * we cannot give "laymen's translations" on Wikipedia, particularly for texts as sensitive as this, that's original research. What we can give are literal translations, with justifications of the translating terms chosen on the basis of published dictionaries. dab (&#5839;) 10:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab, ...it is a sensitive text.. But more essential than that are issues like how come  Draupadi had to go through Asvamedha but Sita  escapes that ordeal.The text is of immense value and highly explosive in current times.The dispute is between those who have read and those who have not read the references either in their original Sanskrit or secondary sources like in Hindi,Telugu any other for that matter. In Kerala, where I live now, a large majority of literate Malayalam -speaking Hindu peolple are aware of only one version of Ramayana.In Andhra Pradesh, the telugu'speaking have not less than a hundred (I guess I am not exaggerating)versions- both modern and ancient.Thirty years ago,Muppala Ranganayakkamma wrote 'Ramayana Vishavriksham'(Ramayana- the poisonous tree). Published in three volumes, it has been reprinted regularly. Several versions of ramayana were written by 'pious' people after that.Last forty years may have seen over ten major versions of Ramayana in Telugu. Layman's translation is also original and contemporary. Literal translations are for the scholars.Commentaries are for the commoners.All along, the ancient texts were conveyed through commentaries by bards to the commoners.The literal-text was available through 'shruti' to practioners  of the trade like, who later added a title (Somayaji,one who performed a Soma yagna)as pre-fix or suffix to their names. And they were obviously from the Brahmin-caste. Your insistence on Copyright-related issues, 'Literal Translations'- sound ironical and unfortunate. The Hindu sacred texts were kept out of the reach of commoners all through history.Manu said that molten lead be poured into the ears of those Shudras who listen to the Vedas.Given a chance, there are is a large section in India which is ready to pour molten lead into your and my ears for trespassing into sacred territories, in the name of research.Godspeed.(cleaned on 11082006harappa 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I fail to see how insisting on quality and no original research is "developing cold feet". I also fail to see how this text is "highly explosive in current times". Nobody alleges that such practices are ongoing in current Hinduism. Why would it matter today if some kings performed some rather weird rites 2000 years ago? The interest of the text is as an extraordinary document of religious history, but I think it is very stupid to try to make it into a political tool. That would be a bit like accusing the Swedish of the 10th century human sacrifices of the Volga Vikings. Be that as it may, I insist that we need a published translation, or a literal one. At the moment, we have a home-brewn translation that is only verifiable by people who do not need a translation anyway. dab (&#5839;) 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to use as accurate a translation as possible, to avoid accusations of bias. But it would be most desirable, I think, to contrasting published translations of relevant passages. Harappa, are you saying that South Indian discussion of Ashvamedha has been affected by Dravidianist and Dalit movements? This would certainly be interesting - if Dravidianist writers were using the Ashvamedha as part of anti-Brahmincal polemics, as they have regularly done with the Ramayana. We could include discussion of this is you have details. Paul B 13:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab and Paul, you two are doing a wonderful job. To illustrate why rituals like Asvamedha are sensitive and even explosive in contemporary India, todays the Hindu (www.thehinduonnet.com) carried a news item on the last page...There is bigg money and celebrities chasing rituals .That spells doom to wild life, women and people from lower castes.Dab, these rituals 'are ongoing -money spinning rackets' in contemporary India...pl read the link below: http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/08/stories/2006050802992000.htm(cleaned on 11082006harappa 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid I do not see your point. I have no idea how you could argue that a cricket player performing a puja has anything at all to do with the Ashvamedha. Even if he brought his wife, surely no equine exploits were involved? dab (&#5839;) 12:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab, We ll stick to Y.S.I just pulled out Rangacharya out of my collection of books.He carries most of what you have summerised including the pins and needles part.There is an interesting passage about slaughtering a (10-month) pregnant Cow, and offering the fetus as oblation. A goat is offered to Saraswati. Godspeed. Paul, it was neither dalits nor dravidianists who launched the 'anti-Brahminical 'polemics.At least, In Andhra Pradesh it was the Progressive writers Group and then the Revolutionary writers group behind the debate.90 percent of them were Brahmins or from the upper castes themselves.They were the Nationalist -liberals,Communists and feminists.But as I already said, the debate is between the violent-irrational-superstitious groups and the Non-violent traditions in India that dates back to the Vedas and Buddha.Other labels and tags are transitionary.
 * Are there also people in India who are able to discuss history and religion without the all the gritted teeth and all the paranoia? Of course there should be articles on Indian sociology and politics, it's just not something I am terribly interested in, but if we had a good suite of articles on that, maybe our other articles wouldn't be burdened with so much fundamentalist cruft (I am thinking of Aryan Invasion Theory, Bias in South Asian Studies, Rajputs and all that, topics that are almost impossible to edit because of the never-ending stream of anonymous immature rants). dab (&#5839;) 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangacharya narrates a curious story behind the split between Shukla and Krishna Y.S: 'The actual name of this 'Shukla Yajurveda Samhita' is 'Vaajasaneyi- Maadhyandhina Shukla Y.S.' Mahidhara explains the reason why it is called so:"Tatraadau Brahma Paramparayaa Praptam Vedam..." Veda emanated from Brahma. Veda -Vyasa contemplated about how to make the vedas available to the slow-witted.He then divided the Vedas into four: Rg,Yajur,Sama and Atharvana.He then thaught them gradually to his disciples:Paila, Vaishampayana,Jaimini and Sumantha .They in turn taught the Four vedas to their disciples. Yagnavalkya was a student of Vaishampayana.Once, in a fit of anger, Vaishampayan expelled Yagnavalkya form his ashram. At which time, Yagnavalkya vomitted out all the Yajurveda that he had just learnt from his teacher.

His other disciples, at the behest of their teacher, turned themselves into Francoline patridges( Francoline Vulgaris (lat.) Tittiri ( sanskrit) and swallowed the vomit. Obviously , the vomit (yajus) was soiled . Hence it is called the Krishna yujuss. The Black Yajurveda Samhita! Yagnavalkya felt sorry at the turn of events.He prayed to the Sun and received Shukla Yajus -The White Yajurveda Samhita. He taught the Shukla YS to Jaabaali, Baudheya,Kaanva,Maadhyandinaadi...etc a total of 15 disciples.

Yagnavalkya was the son of Vajasani.Hence, his Shukla YS is also called Vaajasaneyi...Shukla YS. Similarly, Maadhyandina's version became the 'Maadhyandina Shukla YS. Over a time the Shukla YS came to be known as Vaajasaneyi- Maadhyandhina Shukla Y.S.harappa 07:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Harappa

A note on Brahmamedha
is withdrawn. you may visit the wikipedia page on Sati for the same.harappa 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The recovery of the essential power of life (embodied in the “pilars” of the earthly establishment) and its return into the divine realm must be regarded as the main feature of the Brahmamedha."

User:Nshuks7
Nshuks7 has recently misleadingly altered the talk page and inserted this paragraph into the section "recent deletions" (retitled as "recent updates"), deleting existing content. Paul B 12:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC):

Please cite the exact version of YajurVeda you used and all the other texts. Sorry, but Telegu translations are inaccurate and unavailable in the rest of the world, and will not suffice especially interpreted as if a poem and not like a KarmKand text. For example, the cited text YV 7.4.19.l says

"When the deer eateth grain, He deemeth not his flock fat. When the Çadra woman is the loved of the Aryan, She seeketh not wealth for prosperity"

and not "O Queen, grieve not. You may not be aware that you have been..."

Either your book's cover has been switched and you are reading the wrong text, or you are intentionally misreading texts. I am a Sanskrit literate person. Please direct me to your sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user (talk • contribs).


 * reply: Why are Telegu translations inaccurate? All of them? Just because they are in Telegu? Apparently you think that Griffith's translation is just perfect, since you quote it word for word. The relevant passages are given above in the original. Paul B 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We did cite the exact version we are using: TS and VS. There is no such thing as "YV 7.4.19", you need to say TS (or MS, KS, VS or whatever). I agree the English translations from the Telugu are questionable; we would do better to translate literally from Sanskrit directly, as I began with "[TS 7.4.19b] O mother, no-one has taken me. The little horsie is asleep". I couldn't be bothered to complete it, but if you like you can propose your literal translation here, and we'll see if there are issues with it. dab (&#5839;) 12:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul Barlow has repeatedly not heeded to the fact that his Telugu (not TelEgu as he suggests) translations are perhaps only available to himself. Besides that the fact that the Yagna under question has been practiced and still is being practiced in the same form except for the violence involved hsa now been reduced to a symbolic form. Mr. Dbachmann I request you to consider alternative translations as well: why the insistence that there be only one translation cited? Why cannot Keith be cited as well? Besides, it is Keith's translation which is credible not Griffith's since the former is the one available in the public domain. Neither the Telugu version nor the Griffith translation of the text is available on the internet.


 * I am in the process of procuring original Telugu as well as Arya Samaj versions of the Yajur Veda. Until such a point that the procurement has been made I humbly request that the offending portions of the article be kept aside since more harm than good will come of it. And in any case you must agree that the constant reversion of the text to the original without citing both Griffith and Keith is the most unfair thing that Mr. Barlow is engaging in. Nshuks7 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Nshuks7
 * The Telugu translation is not available to me. It was available to another contributor - user:Harappa, whose comments can be seen above. He produced a translation inro English via the Telugu version, adding comments about the Telugu translation (sorry about my spelling. It's always been dreadful, as is my typing). After some discussion of the usefulness of this procedure, Dab produced a translation directly from the Sanskrit. Please read the whole talk page. By the way I have rearranged your additions. Please add new points to the bottom of the page. If you are adding comments to a discussion in a sub-section, add them under the comment to which you are replying. Otherwise Talk pages become impossible to decipher. They are, among other things, a record of debates. They should be readable for new editors to get a sense of previous discussions. Whether something is availible on the internet or not is irrelevant. There are such things as libraries after all. No-one is objecting to more than one translation being used. What is objectionable is the attempt to obliterate information. The more discussion of the text, of interpretations of it and of translations of it, the better. Paul B 10:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Keith Translation
I am taking the initiative of including the Keith translation which no one seems to have paid heed to. I am also wondering as to why Dbachmann abandoned his pursuit of alternative translations. And yes, there is a YV VII.4.19. The fact is that The Yajur Veda consists of 7 Kaands (can be anglicized to Kandas) just as the Ramayana is. Each Kaand consists of Cantos which in turn consist of Shlokas.

b No one leadest me. The wicked horse is sleeping. There is no taketh me according to Keith you see.

1 When the deer eateth grain, He deemeth not his flock fat. When the Çadra woman is the loved of the Aryan, She seeketh not wealth for prosperity. There is no elaborate and juicy description of any kind of copulation.


 * I don't know what you mean when you say that Griffith "followed Max Müller's traslation". Do you mean he follwed Müller's published version of the text? It's not a translation, but an edition in Sanskrit. I see no reason why Keith's translation should not be discussed, but I note that you have not been entiresly straightforward about Keith's version of the relevant passages, which are as follows. Note that "several verses are omitted". These are the very passages thst are at issue:

a O Amba! O Ambali! O Ambika! b No one leadest me. The wicked horse is sleeping. c O fair one, clad in fair raiment in the world of heaven be ye two covered.... {...several verses omitted from original translation...} 1 When the deer eateth grain, He deemeth not his flock fat. When the Çadra woman is the loved of the Aryan, She seeketh not wealth for prosperity.... {...several verses omitted from original translation...} q Dadhikravan have I sung, The swift strong horse. May he make our mouths fragrant; May he lengthen our days. r Ye waters are healing; Further us to strength, To see great joy. s The most auspicious flavour that is yours Accord to us here Like eager mothers. t To him may we come with satisfaction, To whose dwelling ye quicken us, O waters, and propagate us. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv07.htm)


 * Bear in mind that this translation was published in 1914. We should not expect "earthy" language to be used, to adopt your term. Similar circumlocutons are found in Victorian/Edwardian translations of classical European literature and other ancient texts. Paul B 10:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You must tell me the correct manner in which to indent the replies I make here. Atleast direct me to the page where I can find that out.

In the meanwhile let me clarify that the point I make is that either there should be a consolidation of the two translations or that there is to be a comparison or side-by-side entry of the two interpretations so that Griffith does not get undue importance.

It is clear from the few verses that are given of the Keith translations that the Griffith lines aren't the absolute versions and readers of the article are entitled to know that there exist other, alternative interpretations. Constant reversion to what has been the status quo for this article, without any effort towards clearing the bias should be, by Wikipedia etiquettes and aims, untenable.

I hereby formally request an updation of the page to reflect the two available sources. In fact there was a previous version of this wiki-entry that finds no mention in the one currently published by Paul B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nshuks7 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your additions by adding four tildes ~ . Your name will then automatically appear with the time and date. You can inset text by adding a colon before the first word. More colons inset the text further. Inseting helps to indicate that a given passage is a reply to the one above it. Yes we can add a section discussing the contrasts between the Keith and Griffith translations. Of course Griffith's version is not absolute. No translation ever is, and his one is now a century old. Where does the article grant authority to Griffith's version? Paul B 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for promptly addressing this issue. The authority was granted to Griffith by letting him be the only source. The other sources were not directly quoted. I have ordered Telugu as well as Arya Samaj editions of Yajur Veda; the latter is also available on the internet, I suggest Dbachmann try translating that. Not only shall I look over the same but also try to put the relevant passages in public domain. I still have no source for either Griffith or texts citing him. Note that I have updated the page on our friend Griffith himself after texts found on Google Book Search.


 * "No one leadest me. The wicked horse is sleeping." -- "no one leadest me" isn't even English. There is no "wicked" in the text. Aand. you may want to read up Yajurveda for a basic introduction. There are 7 Kandas to the Taittiriya Samhita of the Black Yajurveda. The verse count is not identical for the other samhitas. Therefore, use TS, not generic "YV". Who is this Keith? And what use is his translation if like Griffith he is omitting verses? If notable, we can refer to him, but his translation is nonsense, which, if you are as Sanskrit literate as you claim, you should recognize. Again, I invite you to present your literal translation here, on which I will comment, and we'll see if we can reach an agreement. What, in your esteemed opinion, is the literal translation of nayati? dab (&#5839;) 17:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Arthur Berriedale Keith (1879-1941) was a barrister, author of that invaluable work "Responsible Government in the Dominions". He became acting Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford and was later Regius Professor of Sanskrit at Edinburgh. He divided his interests between Sanskrit and constitutional law, with particular reference to India. He's certainly notable. The pseudo-Jacobethan Ye Olde English is, as you know, typical of translations of "serious" literature at this time.Paul B 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * well, then I retract my claim that his translation is "useless". But it is clearly "free" and far from literal. Plus he is omitting verses too. It is still beyond me how he arrives at "No one leadest me": leadest may be "Ye Olde English", but it is Olde English second person singular, not 3rd person. "no one leadest" is nonsense, and I suspect an error in transcription. Correct Olde English would be leadeth. To answer my own question, nayati is 3rd sg. indicative from nii, with a meaning "to lead, to govern, to carry off", especially of the husband wrt the wife, and in a context of "leading home" of marriage (mostly atmanepada, but also parasmaipada). In the queen under the blanket with the dead stallion complaining to her mother that the horse is asleep instead of nii-ing her, we should translate "no one is governing me", or "no one is marrying me" or some such. I opted for "no one is taking me" to express the ambiguity, as in "take away", "take a wife", and "take" in sexual contexts. dab (&#5839;) 09:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My local academic library has a number of Keith's publications, but not this one, so I can't check the transcription at the moment. My own knowledge of Sanskrit is primitive to say the least, so I make no claim to judge the value of your translation, but respect your integrity. Paul B 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting if this text should turn out to be what dab has described. But allow me to answer your question (sorry for the delay, probably because of difference in time zones, please excuse me.)


 * Nayati -- according to dictionaries as well as usage in shlokas -- is "saves", "leads them to" or "brings". Consult . To translate it to "take me" especially in a sexual way, would be artistic license, not translation. I respect your (dab's) knowledge of Sanskrit, but I cannot agree with this translation. To be led to a sacrificial animal is a world of difference from being taken by it in a sexual pose. Apart from that, there is still a practice of covering two people with the same piece of cloth during Hindu ceremonies. This is not indicative of any immediate sexual activity between the two. It just means that they receive their blessings as equals or equally.


 * I would be much indebted if you (dab) could provide me a softcopy of your source's Devanagari manuscript? It is a tedious process to translate from the anglicized sanskrit above (I want to work from the same Griffith source.) If possible please mail me at nshuks7[at]yahoo[dot]com. Nshuks7 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Nshuks7


 * I agree that nii has no sexual connotation beyond "to lead home a bride", i.e. "to marry", which is the applicable context here. That's why, after all, I didn't translate "no one is screwing me", but rather "no one is taking me", "take" being a term that is not strongly associated with sexuality and might just as well be used in a bridal or dancefloor context. "no one is leading me", the truly literal translation would need a footnote pointing out why there is talk of "leading" at all (which is of course a possibility) . Again, I did not complete the translation, and I'm inviting you to roll your own. My etexts are from TITUS, both VS and TS being based on the editions by A. Weber (1849 and 1872, respectively). dab (&#5839;) 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 9.20.22
 * reto-dhāḥ putro nayati
 * naradeva yama-kṣayāt
 * Word-meanings: retaḥ-dhāḥ — a person who discharges semen; putraḥ — the son; nayati — saves; nara-deva — O King (Mahārāja Duṣmanta); yama-kṣayāt — from punishment by Yamarāja, or from the custody of Yamarāja;
 * Translation: O King Duṣmanta, he who discharges semen is the actual father, and his son saves him from the custody of Yamarāja.


 * Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.3.50
 * ātma-bhāvaḿ nayaty ańga
 * sarvātmā sarva-saḿśrayaḥ
 * Word-meanings: ātma-bhāvam — their own true identity; nayati — leads them to; ańga — my dear King; sarva-ātmā — the Supreme Soul; sarva-saḿśrayaḥ — the shelter of all beings.
 * Translation: He is the Supreme Soul and the supreme shelter of all beings. When meditated upon by those about to die, He reveals to them their own eternal spiritual identity.


 * Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 1.169
 * daśāḿ kaṣṭām aṣṭāpadam api nayaty āńgika-rucir
 * vicitraḿ rādhāyāḥ kim api kila rūpaḿ vilasati
 * Word-meanings: daśām — to a situation; kaṣṭām — painful; aṣṭā-padam — gold; api — even; nayati — brings; āńgika-ruciḥ — the luster of the body; vicitram — wonderful; rādhāyāḥ — of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī; kim api — some; kila — certainly; rūpam — the beauty; vilasati — manifests.
 * Translation: Her bodily luster seems to place even gold into a painful situation. Thus the wonderful, unprecedented beauty of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is awakening in Vṛndāvana.


 * Note: You can also notice the usage of retaḥ-dhāḥ. In this context it is taken to mean the father of the person who is saving. If this were to be translated literally, it would mean: "The son saves the person who discharges semen from Yamaraja." This is what I meant when I had said "earthy language". Instead of father they refer to the man who discharges semen. Kindly check out . Seeing as none of the vedic meanings of Nayati come close to suggesting a sexual connotation, connubial or animal, I request you to re-think your interpretation of the relevant passage.
 * I am rolling my own, I hope you light it :)


 * "None of the vedic meanings"?? What on earth makes you think that (late) medieval texts like the Shrimad Bhagavatam or the ShriChaitanya Caritamrita establish vedic meanings?  You should have cited Vedic passages for parallel texts.  Dab is completely correct that nii has connotations involving marriage.  As for retodhaa (lit. "semen-placing"), the Vedic meaning is "impregnating (=> one who impregnates)". While this clearly implies a notion of "biological father", attention needs to be paid to the context.  retodhaa does not appear in isolation, but as part of retodhaa reto dadhaatu.  What do you think that means? rudra 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree: nii means "to lead". Now, I am not sure, since any translation needs to take into account the text's context, are you trying to establish a case that we are not looking at a ritual mock-copulation between a queen and a horse (I agree there is no actual copulation; the horse is dead, and the queen is simply lying under a cover with the horse, there is no actual bestiality involved, only strong allusion to bestiality), or are you simply enjoying the exploration of semantic fields of verbal roots? dab (&#5839;) 14:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored part of the Keith translation. Whether it's "garbled" or not, Keith is notable and the passage neatly illustrates the elisions that were thought necessary at the time. It also makes more vivid the contrast with the modern translation. In order to avoid constant deletions I think we should seek semi-protected status. The best way to address pov issues is surely to be open about them. We need to include examples of Hindu commentators who have denied that this passage is mock-sexual. Perhaps Nshuks7 can provide examples. I guess the use by Dalit-movement figures of the passage as evidence of Brahaminical degeneracy partly explains the denials. It would be desirable to footnote examples of Dalit/Dravidianist use of the passage, and maybe Islamic and Christian use (a quick web trawl produces some instances). The would put in context some of the accusations of western mistranslation. Paul B 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a hilarious edition of Griffith's translation printed in India (Nag Publishers, 1990): They have Griffith's text up to his "the Chief Queen begins the performance of the revolting ceremony", and then continue to give their own "translation" with a footnote mentioning Griffith's opinion that they are "not reproducible". The author of this translation is not indicated (probably the editor of the reprint, one Surendra Pratap). For example, the verse I have translated as
 * "then they both on four feet are spread out in the heavenly world, veiled, the potent stallion, the semen-giver shall give semen"

is translated as
 * "The King and his subjects in unison, magnify the four stages of Dharma, Arth, Kama, Moksha, wherewith they reside happily in their country. The King, the chastiser of the wicked, full of knowledge, the possessor of strength and prowess, lends valour to his subjects".

I can guess that "shall give semen" is here translated as "lends valour to his subjects", and "on four feet" is 'translated' as "the four stages of Dharma, Arth, Kama, Moksha"; "they both" is 'translated' as "The King and his subjects in unison"; "the potent stallion" is 'translated' as " The King, the chastiser of the wicked, full of knowledge, the possessor of strength and prowess" -- no comment necessary :) To the uninitiated reader, it must appear a mystery why Griffith would have thought such lofty statements "not reproducible". dab (&#5839;) 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't let your thought processes wallow in some male secretion. Vedic texts are not trivial.Kanchanamala 08:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That's why one might wonder about the "thought process" that led to a "translation" like this:
 * mātā ca te pitā ca te gram. vr.ks.asya rohatah. |
 * pratilāmīti te pitā gabhe mus.t.im atam.sayat || (23.24) ||
 * "O king, thy forbearing and loving mother, and thy father brilliant and nourishing like the sun, rule over the prosperity and riches of the sovereignty of this mundane universe. Thy father has beautified his rule for his subjects.  I, as his subject, do love him dearly!"
 * Aurobindoesque fantasies are one thing, but this particular effort is well and truly bizarre. The only relatively rare word is pratilāmi (the TS version has prasulāmi instead, even rarer, but arguably more apposite).  Not to mention that Mahīdhara in his commentary didn't think mus.t.i meant "fist", the word chosen by Eggeling (cf. 13.2.9.7).  So, tell us, do you agree with this rendering, and if so, why?  What references would you cite? rudra 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't use or rely on translations which have ceased to be relevant. If you quote Sayana, Uvata, and Mahidhara, firsthand in the original Sanskrit, we shall see.Kanchanamala 10:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the English section of Wikipedia, which necessarily has to deal with translations in this matter. Reams of Sanskrit from the Commentators would add nothing significant, except perhaps to show even more clearly that it's only Arya Samaj revisionists who have their langots in a bunch over this.  Here, for comparison with the effort I quoted, is the Shatapatha Brahmana's take:
 * mātā ca te pitā ca ta iti iyam. vai mātāsau pitābhyāmevainam. svargam. lokam. gamayatyagram. vr.ks.asya rohata iti shrīrvai rās.t.rasyāgram. shriyamevainam. rās.t.rasyāgram. gamayati pratilāmīti te pitā gabhe mus.t.imatam.sayaditi vid.vai gabho rās.t.ram mus.t.ī rās.t.rameva vishyāhanti tasmādrās.t.rī vis.am. ghātukah. (13.2.9.7).
 * You've ducked the questions, that's fine. As Dab said, this is not about "Truth". rudra 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudrasharman, my friend, I am not a follower of the Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Also, I shall not get involved in every topic that is broached here. My submission is that 'ashva' in 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' does not refer to a horse. That's all. Nothing that I say, or do not say, should prevent you or Dab from seeking the truth of any matter. Please don't get me wrong.Kanchanamala 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lacking credible references, your submission is without merit. Yes, the claim has been made (not just by you), but so also has it been claimed that the moon is made of green cheese.  'ashva' in 'ashva-medha' clearly refers to an 'ashva'.  For this compound, the only relevant questions, to be answered with vedic references, are (a) what is this referent 'ashva', and (b) what is the relation in the compound.  If the claim is that this compound is exocentric (a bahuvrhi), then again the relevant vedic passages should be produced -- with verifiable indications of accents.  Failing that, the claim is bogus in relation to fact, regardless of what some may want to believe.  rudra 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Those who claim that 'ashva' in 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' means a horse have not adduced any evidence to that effect, and I am not talking about references to translations. The burden is on them. Just bacause you want to believe that 'ashva' here means a horse does not make it a fact.Kanchanamala 09:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * how silly is that? "ashvamedha means horse-sacrifice" is a translation, so how are you suggesting we "adduce evidence" other than academic translations? You are "not talking about references"? Well, too bad, that's how Wikipedia works, we rely on "references" exclusively, not on gut feelings and nightly visions. If rudra's statement was just his private deduction, it would be as worthless as yours, but as it happens he is simply summarizing the obvious, as expounded in the academic references already cited in the article. If you have a problem, it is your job to cite an academic reference that challenges this mainstream. dab (𒁳) 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you are absolutely correct. You are in a mainstream. Unfortunately, it is a stream in which the blind leads the blind. It seems you can't see it. Not your fault. An alcoholic thinks that he is quite sober. I don't mind your ignorance. But when people like you rely on your lack of knowledge to malign Hinduism and the Vedas in the name of seeking the truth, someone has to pull you over. I don't think an article in Wikipedia is so trivial that any person with superficial knowledge should be tolerated to dabble in a technical text like the Vedas or in a sensitive subject like Hinduism. If you need to give vent to your enthusiasm, go try your expertise in an article on a subject like Islam or the Qur'an or Muhammad ['sal-al-laahu alaihi vassalam']. I dare you.Kanchanamala 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mythological Significance of the Yagna
A new section should be added to the article for the mythological and historical significance of this Yagna. Ashwamedha was carried out in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata as well as in other myths and tales. It was vital to the narrative of the Ramayana while in the Mahabharata it had both, narrative and symbolic importance.

The reason so much significance is attached to this particular Yagna is that it was supposed to be the ultimate of all Yagnas as far as a king is concerned. To have performed Ashwamedha meant that there would be no more wars and all the kingdoms so conquered would adhere to the judgements of the king to have performed it. Therefore it was a tool for ushering peace just as it was a sign of violent dominance. Historically, Samudragupta was the last to have consolidated his powers through this Yagna.

There are other mentions of the Ashwamedha in Hindu mythology, usually as precursors to conflicts between the Devas and Asuras. It was usually the latter that performed it and sent the Devas running to one of the greater Gods (Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh) who would then remedy the ails of the Devas. I believe this Yagna was involved in the myths of Trishanku and Tripura as well. Again, the latter tale is important as Indian state of Tripura derives its name from this myth. Nshuks7 11:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith / "leadest"
This may be a pedantic concern, but I cannot believe that Keith's translation actually had "no one leadest me". It's not grammatical, and if actually so printed, that must have been by oversight. Can anybody verify? dab (&#5839;) 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the original edition of Keith's translation. It does say "leadest". The translation is heavily footnoted. Given the debate about thye meaning of "nayati", it mght be worth transcribing Keith's comment. He discusses the meaning of "amby ambike ambalike", suggesting that these words may refer to subordinate queens. "The next words may then refer to the queen as willing to go, 'no one leads me (against my will)', and this is in harmony with the common view that the victim should offer herself willingly. But the later verses with yabhati suggest that it really means 'no one is taking me' (as a bride)." Paul B 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My two cents
I was responsible for writing a significant portion of the original article, including pointing out that it involved necrophilia, bestiality and other acts; that Ambedkar had refered to it; that Samudrgupta conducted it and that modern tv versions do not discuss it. I returned recently to find that it has been fairly controversial. I have difficulty following the discussion since people donot seem to indent or sign, and some older postings have been deleted However I would like to say

Paul-B---There is no Dravidianist reading of the Ashvamedha. The Shastri translation is published by the Tirupati shrine, and that is as high-Brahmin as you can get. Both the names are Brahmin names, and further none of the significant Dravidian movement figures mention the sacrifice. .

2) There seem to be issues regarding bias and translation. I read Telugu and can look up the books. The existing translation on the page is not very eloquent, even if it might be true..

3) There is a genuine problem with using any Western translations published before 1960.

Dab---I'm sure your translation from Sanskrit is great, and I am not doubting your qualifications. However, translations in Indian languages by competent religious scholars do exist, as do translations issued in English by various temple shrines in India. I can procure one, and see if the verses are translated or not. I think they are usually reliable--I remember reading a copy of the Kalikapurana that I picked up at the Kamakhya shrine that mentioned passages other translations omitted. .

4) As I had pointed out earlier, the ritual continued into pre-modern times, and even this century in an attenuated form. Samudragupta's might have been the last true to scripture sacrifice but other Ashvamedhas happened. This is common with several Vedic rituals where pratices incompatible with modernity are rendered symbolic, ex using bread flour as a substitute for goats in the Agnistoma, stuffed human shaped food offerings instead of human sacrifice at Kalighat etc. It would be interesting to learn what precisely was used in place of copulation.

5) 'no one leadest me' is perfectly sound gramatically. It tries to imitate the kind of language the KJV Bible and Book of Common Prayer employed. I have a copy of George Fox's journal that uses the word leadest in a very similiar fashion..

Finally, I intend to edit the article significantly over the next few weeks. Since my Sanskrit is poor, it will not deal with the translation (except the Telugu part). A more detailed modern, Hindu view of the Ashvamedha is required. Literature discussing the semiotics, symbolism, modern understandings of it, Dalit and communist readings ( M.N Roy for instance) exists. Allegations of ethnocentric bias are very real, and cannot be dismissed as 'fundamentalist cruft.' Perhaps, incorporating the Hindu (vs. Vedic)take on Ashvamedha will make it less 'biased.' --Notquiteauden 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  'no one leadest me' is perfectly sound gramatically -- oh yeah? KJV has leadest in one instance, Psalms 1:80, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. Note the thou: leadest is perfectly grammatical of course, it is the 2nd person singular present indicative of to lead. Now I may be dense, but I can see no possibility to turn 'no one leadest me' into a grammatical sentence with a 2nd person finite verb. You cannot say "leadest", omitting the subject. You need to say "thou leadest". And even "No one thou leadest me" would be extremely strange: what is no one?? an object (lead is not doubly transitive as e.g. give)? an adverbial?? Can somebody just answer this instead of reiterating that the "sentence is grammatical" (it is not!). Apart from that, what, do you suggest is the "problem with western translations before 1960"? What happened in 1960? You are not making any sense. Your "competent religious scholars" do not as much translate the texts as interpret them, as can be seen in the passage I discuss above. We can certainly present such interpretations, but not as "translations". Your poing 4) is granted, of course. dab (&#5839;) 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Either the published version says "leadest" or it doesn't. The only way to find out is to get hold of a copy. I can do that in a few weeks, but not now. Paul B 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * my point is that if it does, it's just an obvious misprint. dab (&#5839;) 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If the subject is 'no one', the verb should be conjugated in the 3rd Pers. Sing., i.e. 'leadeth'. If 'leadest' appears in the original, it is most likely either a typographical error or a misprint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.73.57.166 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * "There is no Dravidianist reading of the Ashvamedha. The Shastri translation is published by the Tirupati shrine, and that is as high-Brahmin as you can get. Both the names are Brahmin names, and further none of the significant Dravidian movement figures mention the sacrifice." I don't know what you are getting at here. I'm not suggesting that there are specifically "Dravidian" interpretations or translations, just that some of the more excitable Dravidianist writers may have referred to the sacrifice as evidence of the barbarism of Aryan culture. There is considerable overlap between the arguments used by Dalit-movement figures and populist Dravidianists. Extremists like Rajeshekar never miss an opportunity to denigrate Indo-Aryan culture.Paul B 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us not bring Dalit politics into a reading and let us establish context rather than making readings of the text. Notquiteauden mentioned communist and Dalit, and I can add feminist and Dravidian, readings which are quite frivolous and will not last. Instead, better to focus on what the original text and the epics have to say on the subject.

Telugu Translations
Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi Sastri was born in 1912 at Amritalur, in Guntur dt of Andhra Pradesh.He worked as Sanskrit teacher at various institutions. He was proficient in Tarka-Vyakarana- Poorvottara Meemamsa-etc Sastras. He was a Theatre-artist too.When Gandhian-Nationalist Gollapudi Seetharama Sastri of Vinayaashramam, published Vedas in Telugu(Andhra Vedamulu) between 1938-40, it was Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi Sastri who translated KrishnaYajurveda. Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) embarked upon publishing the sacred texts into Telugu in 1984 under Acharya Diwakarla Venkatavadhani as the chief editor. Sastri assisted in the transliteration of translation of Krishna Yajurveda into Telugu.Following the sudden demise of Acharya Diwakarla Venkatavadhani, Sastri single-handedly completed the voluminous work.The Krishna Yajurveda spans seven volumes. He also translated the Aranyakopanishads in four volumes.Sastri is the receipient of Raja-Laksmi Foundation Award in 1990 for his lifetime contributrion to Sanskrit studies. You will note that Dasarathi Rangacharya(b.1934) published his Shukla Yajurveda in 1999 four years ahead of TTD's Krishna Yajurveda(2003).He notes in his 72-page foreword to Shukla YS that, when he embarked on this solo -mission at the age of 65 years, he was discouraged and even threatened ( by those who study vedas for a living, some advaita followers as well as some Visistha-advaita followers) with grave consequences.He is a sworn 'vishistadvaita-follower'. Not inclined favourably towards vedic rituals, as a matter of principle.In his quest for the Sanskrit source of Shukla YS, Rangacharya referred 'Rgveda Smhita' by Veda Prathisthan, New Delhi, 'Andhra Vedamulu-RgVedamu' by Vinayaashramam(cited above under Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi sastri), Bhuvanavani Trust, Luknow and Rgveda Samhita by Chaukhamba  Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi(Benares)-1. He bitterly notes that TTD scholars and administration refused him any help in his venture.Despite the grief of losing his son and failing health,Dasarathi Rangacharya published Shukla Yajurveda in Telugu Language (1999). In 1960 he translated the works of Kalidasa into Telugu.The Ramayana (1963), The MahaBhagavatam(1970) and The Mahabharata (1994) followed. C.P.Brown(1798-1884) in his Telugu English Dictionary (pl visit www.asianeds.com for info on Reprint) describes Yagna (Yagnyamu in telugu)' as " The rite of offering ; a sacrifice or offering. The sacrifice in which a goat is smothered and the inside fat is dressed and eaten by Brahmins.( The person who celebrates this sacrifice assumes the honorary title of somayajulu). p.1058 of the 22nd reprint AES,Chennai 2003." The 1903 (second) edition of this book was 'thoroughly revised and brought upto date by Messrs. MVenkata Ratnam, W.H.Campbell and K.Veeresalingam(1848-1919). This book has been included in the approved list of books under citation No 1996/000/21 of XII of Telugu Books to be purchased by the District Library Institutions and Govt Libraries. harappa 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page seems to be inviting tons of vandalism and POV edits by anon/new users. Do we need semi-protection? deeptrivia (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * we can try a rangeblock. If the vandal tires and goes away, that's enough. If the vandal persists, we might try temporary semi-protection. So far, has not even be warned. I'll warn them, and block them if they persist. dab (&#5839;) 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not want to turn this page into biographies of translators. That's not what it is supposed to be about. And labels like "high-brahmins, mlecchas (westerners), dalits, dravidanists, extremists" etc do make sense. The fact is that ideological dispute is rather more important than scholarship as an explantaion of the edit warring over this article. Paul B 10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * well, yes, our task is just to keep the two cleanly separate:
 * scholarly opinions on the text and the historical sacrifice
 * ideological disputes, political and sociological issues surrounding it
 * both can and should be treated here, but they should not be conflated. dab (&#5839;) 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you please wait until I learn to transfer the bio-s of telugu translators to the Telugu Lit. section.In the meantime, I am told that Trans of YV is available in Malayalam as well. I am trying to get a copy of the same. harappa 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This page has highly condemnable material targetted against Hinduism... Whoever is taking these excerpts from books written by anti Brahmin fundamentalists are doing a great harm by abusing wikipedia by outrright vandalism.
 * If there eas an iota of truth in these passages, I request them to furnish the Sanskrit text and the word by word translation of the related parts. If such concrete evidence is furnished, then wikipedia may protect the article from further editing and keep it. For the time being until further evidence is provided I am deleting the controversial parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.108.129 (talk • contribs)


 * None of this article derives from "anti-Brahmin fundamentalists" and none of it could be construed as "targeted against Hinduism" except in the mind of people who would themselves deserve the appelation "fundamentalists". The Sanskrit text is provided above. Paul B 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Dear Harappa As you have described above Rangacharya is not really fond of the Vedas and is highly biased against them. The fact that many established religious establishment have expressed opposition against his work implies that his work is not a factual or neutral translation.We must look for authentic translators free of bias. Mr.Rangacharya seems to have lost his faith in the vedas after the demise of his son and has begun a slander campaign against vedas. The opposition to his ideas is a reflection of the fact that his work is not a commonly accepted by Hindu scholars who as mentioned by you 'study vedas for a living' and hence such biased works should not be included in a public encyclopedia as the most authentic expanation one can provide on the subject.This kind of misinformation although sounds revolutionary is detrimental as truth is the casuality. So rather than finding more on Mr.Rangacharya lets try to provide the Sanskrit text with word by word translation of these passages from the Yajur Veda. Also it would be good to obtain translations from other sources too and give all possible interpretations to the above verses thus freeing this article of all bias.

India has had a lot of social reformers who have been critical of many social customs in India often associated with Hinduism but none have been critical of the Vedas. Vishishtadvaita and Vedas are not antagonistic and involves a lot of vedic rituals as an integral part of its traditions. Therefore despite all the litrary achievements of Dasarati Rangacharya his interpretation of the Vedas cannot be taken to be perfect owing to the obvious bias he has towards the Vedic teachings. The best thing to do is to provide explanations from main stream scholars like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,Rajaji,Vivekananda,Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and the like instead of searching for foreign or random translators and then scrambing to establish their knowledge in the matter. However in a free source like this the mainstream explanation could be supplemented with the controversial explanation as an alternative viewpoint. This would be in the best interest for all. Hari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.108.129 (talk • contribs)

Dear Anon(Hari?) Please listen to the lyrics of Saint Tyagaraja on Vedanta- (the end of vedas).One song goes like this:'Yagnadulu sukhamanuvariki sama-magnaanulu galare...Sugnana-daridra paramparulu, asurachittulu ..Jeevatmahimsagala....?'Are there any more ignormuses than those who believe in Cruel(Jeevatmahimsa gala) Yagna-based rituals?They lack in Sugnana(worse, they belong to the parampara of Sugnana-deprived).They are Violent-Asurachittulu !.Now,would you call Tyagaraja anti-brahmin/veda/hinduism ?Tyagaraja was not the first one to denounce violent vedic rituals.It was the Buddha. Even Krishna said before the 'Govardhanagiri-deluge' episode, 'donot worship false gods, worship the cows and the hills.Have peace in mind. why are u afraid of the truth? godspeed harappa 09:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * guys, can we stay on topic a little bit? it's a historic animal sacrifice, and the "bestiality" wasn't even real, just symbolic. it's not the end of the world. I know my ancestors were burning people in wicker baskets at the time, or dumping them in bogs, and I don't feel guilty about it, in fact I think these things are quaint, from a safe distance of 2,000 years. dab (&#5839;) 09:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ram didnt had his wife when he performed Ashwamedha
It is well known that Ram didnt had his wife living with him when he performed the Ashwamedha. If these ridiculous translations are to be believed he couldnt have performed the Yagya. either give satisfactory answer or i shall be removing everything that includes the head queen or any queen in this sacrifice.

simply because it is well known that Ram performed the ashwamedha, and at that time, he didnt had any wife. Sita was living in the ashram of Valmiki at that time. waitin for ur replies nids 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

also, treating any words of Ambedkar true is just like assuming Jesus Christ to be married and having his descendants in the world today, on the basis of Da Vinci code. see, i am not saying that jesus was not married or he doesnt have his children living in the world today, all i want to say is that we dont assume that he was married in Wikipedia.

similarly, Ambedkar renounced Hinduism well in 1930s, and worked all his life to defame hinduism and hindus. Moreover all this rubbish in his books could have only come from English texts, as he never learnt Sanskrit (he hated everything that is brahmin), and no Hindi translations of Yajurveda mentions this ridiculous facts. nids 10:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

i shall be waitin for two more days before reverting those stupid translations. waitin for any criticism nids 11:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are within your rights to remove the unsourced translation, I suppose, although it is quite literal. But I see no reason to remove the "modern anxieties" part. explaining the sensitive nature of text. dab (&#5839;) 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

listen, i studied sanskrit as a major till my higher secondary level. and believe me for a thing, vedic sanskrit is as different from classical sanskrit as mandarin is from polish. and no person in this modern world, barring Sir William Jones can claim to understand even a bit of it. all these translations that are written here are mostly written from already translated work to classical sanskrit. as a matter of fact, classical sanskrit is an engineered language with well defined rules by panini and vedic sanskrit doesnt even have any rules. buy a copy of original vedas and everything written there will just seem symbols to u or any other person. as a fact, we still havent been able to decode the scripts and languages used in Indus valley civilization.

just as i pointed out that u dont put on the findings of dan brown on christs page, u cannot put translations of griffith and ambedkar on any hindu page. u can have a separate page for that, wherein u can have all these ridiculous translations, but they cannot be official part of hinduism. (see christ page and dan brown page for reference).

and most important event in the history of hinduism wherein the ashwamedha yagya was performed was in Ramayana. it is infact even central part of that epic. and it is well known that Ram had only one wife and even she wasnt living with him when he performed the yagya. how can u then put any translation referring to the wifes of kings on ashwamedha yagya, when u know that ram performed this yagya when his wife wasnt living with him. i can clarify each and every part u want to. and i m going to clean things in this article, which have any reference to involvement of wife or wives of the king in the yagya.

see i dont believe that even the horse was sacrificed. but i m not going to remove that because i cannot give u historical facts which would have rendered it impossible. it is a possibility so i m not goint to straightaway remove it. when i will give u a proper reference, i shall even remove the account of horse been sacrificed. nids 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it is nice that you studied some Sanskrit, but I assure you Vedic Sanskrit is well understood. It is about as different from Classical Sanskrit as, say, Shakespeare from Dan Brown. I would ask you not to remove sourced content, this is considered vandalism, and you may be blocked from editing. I would also ask of you the minimal courtesy of spelling out pronouns in discussion, I will not enter a debate in 'leet'. dab (&#5839;) 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

how are u saying that i m vandalizing, when i m properly giving out my plans in the talk page and reverting only after waitin for some time. i m not reverting the changes that u made (continuing with the policy of 1RR), but i hope u read above post.

and for vedic sanskrit, u can easily find out that it is similar to the scripts used in Indus valley civilizations and the scripts of the latter havent been decoded yet. the difference that u r sayin between shakespeare from dan brown english is evident in every language but they dont qualify for being diff. language. i think only william jones said that he could decipher vedic sanskrit.

there are almost over 500 views for every verse of rig vedas. i think, either we can put translations of proper hindus or we can restrict ourselves to not putting any translations at all and writing just that it is a vedic ritual described in detail in rig veda.

i m emphasising this as u can find that in Purushamedha, the wikipedia page says that everyone was sacrificed while performing it. i dont know any person on earth who believes that. if u believe it, please tell me. these are all controvertial translations and dont have place in wikipedia.

also, u would like to have a look at this link http://www.gaurang.org/indian_phil/prasad_gokhale_indian_history.html this is an informative link, and i havent made any changes on any page of wikipedia refering to them, but as you will find out, they are true.

and i m just asking u, are u putting the da vinci code in references for the christs life, or the books on templar revelations.

nids 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend you do some background reading. Begin with this article, and read Vedic Sanskrit after that. The Ashvamedha is not described in the Rigveda, it is described in the Black Yajurveda. Our Purushamedha article states that the sacrifice is generally assumed to have been purely symbolic. If you cannot even refer correctly to the content right under your nose, I have little hope you can grasp the concept of WP:CITE, but again, I am happy to debate with you as soon as you condescend to spell properly, and to consult some references backing up your ideas. dab (&#5839;) 10:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

when i wrote rigveda, it was a spelling mistake. i knew that Ashwamedha was described in Yajurveda, u can refer to my 1st August remark to find that out. i think that should explain for the content on right under my nose. moreover, i read vedic sanskrit article too. it is a small article which just mentions about the works on vedic sanskrit and bit about phonology. it does not mention about the extent to which it has been deciphered. as u can easily find out, there can be almost over 100 opposite views to every verse on vedas. At wikipedia, we can restrict ourselves to not pronounce any of the translations as they are too ambiguous. as for u, u can buy a copy of original vedas in vedic sanskrit. u know sanskrit but u will still find out that u cant understand an iota of what it is written. My mom is a Ph.D. in Sanskrit and in a related subject only, but even she says that vedic sanskrit is altogether a different language, and she cant even understand a bit of it. u dont expect a doctorate holder in english to not understand even a para of shakespeare english.

moreover, u will agree that ashwamedha has been described in Ramayana and Mahabharata in detail. they have been written in classical sanskrit and are far easier to understand. they dont even hint at these ridiculous translations. if u agree, we can have those translations here and not the ones by griffith and ambedkar. if i can humbly request u, please read a few works of ambedkar. and then answer the simple question, how can any of ambedkars works be present in official hindu articles.

and as for the tolerances of hinduism, there are sects like Aghori which are controvertial in the western world, but i m proud of diversity in hinduism. they were banned by britishers only, no hindu kings had the narrow mindedness to condemn them or ban them. if it (translations of griffith) is true, i dont have any objections to them, but since it is false propoganda i have to talk about it.

and i even raised a modest objection to these translations. according to these translations, Ram could not have performed the vedic sacrifice. and his was the most important occasion in our history to perform ashwamedha, even more important than mahabharata. and u will accept, or rather should accept, that at the time of Ramayana, Valmiki could understand vedic sanskrit.

i also find that my edits have been reverted by someone, who didnt even had the courtesy to spell out the reason. i have been unofficially warned by u, and also i dont want to resort to edit wars, so i m not reverting those edits now. but please, can i have these ridiculous translations out of here. i know u r an admin, but i think if u keep reverting my edits without giving any reason, its against the basic spirit of wikipedia.nids 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nidhish, please note that Dab has said it's fine to remove the unsourced translations. But, Wikipedia articles need to provide a summary of all aspects around a subject. So, criticisms, anxieties, social reaction, etc., are naturally included when discussing the subject. Besides, there's no such thing as an "official" hindu article whatever you meant by that. I'd request you to work on non-controversial articles to start with, understand the process here, ask your doubts in the notice board, and then come back to discuss here.


 * Dab, your frustration is understandable per what I said here, but, please try harder not to bite the newcomers. Many such people are not extreme fundamentalists, but are people not able to reconcile with what they've been taught. Please also remember that people not being conversant with idioms of the western world is not their mistake. Yes, it's not yours either. But in the light of increasing diversity, an increased effort towards civility over and above Wiki requirements would help. Please treat this as a friendly suggestion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, nids is not a 'fundamentalist' in any way, and I never said he was. We had a chat on my talkpage and I am confident there can be fruitful collaboration. Regarding the present state of the translation, I agree it is objectionable. It is acceptable, but not verifiable, so that people unfamiliar with Vedic Sanskrit have no way of assessing it. I will try to find a good published translation if I get round to it. At present, I do not object to the removal of the "Translation" section. dab (&#5839;) 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of my comments are related to other newbies. Never mind. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

new topic on main page
this is a list of, what will be, my future changes to the main page. if anybody has any objections to any of the point, please point out here instead of reverting my changes later. point out the objections even if they are without reason.

0. i shall be deleting the ambedkar's part as it is factually wrong. since vedas predate hinduism (i am not citing sources here, but it is not an original research), and even the caste system of hinduism, they cannot represent the degradation of brahminical culture. it was original vedas that said these things, and brahmins infact upgraded the religion by not performing any of the controvertial sexual rituals.

secondly i will be starting a new topic its blue print is presented here

heading : griffiths translations and ancient india.

not just in contemporary india, but even in ancient india there was a poor understanding of vedic sanskrit and vedas(griffiths translations).

1.there is no historical recording or epical description of performing of ashwamedha yagya as described in veda(griffith translations). (please tell objections, if any)

2.brahmin granths, which were initially meant to simplify and explain vedas, do not ascribe to any such translations(griffiths). (please tell objections, if any)

3.the epic of Mahabharata describes Ashwamedha in detail but does not attribute any sexual or mock sexual. (this is mentioned even in the current version of ashwamedha)

4.ramayana describes ashwamedha in far more detail than any other epics, since it was one of the important point of the epic, and the most important or infact the central point of uttar kand. in ramayana, ram just had one wife and even she was not living with him when he performed the yagya. (sita was living in valmiki's ashram). hence he does not subscribe to even a single verse of original vedic rite(griffith's translations) and has his own unreliable translations to sacred vedic ritual. (no original research)

5.the shatpath brahman also describe ashwamedha in detail, but attribute to it no sexual or mock sexual rituals. (pointed out in the current page too)

6.In bhagvat purana, almost every second big king resorts to ashwamedha yagya, but does not properly follows the vedic commentaries(griffiths translations).

7.no indian authour of vedic sanskrit before griffith, (like swami dayanand) could correctly explain the vedic rite and did not even described the basic sexual rituals.

please object to the points that you do not want to see on the main page. nids 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you seem to want to argue that the mock-bestiality of the ritual was forgotten by epic times. This is possible: the epics are after all some 600 years younger than the YV samhita. But you'd still need to cite some basis for the claim (by saying "Samudragupta performed Ashvamedha", one would expect the meaning "Ashvamedha as described in YV"; we wouldn't expect an explicit "...and he didn't forget the mock-bestiality part, either", since this is an integral part of the ritual) You are very welcome to describe the role of the Ashvamedha in the epics, this is indeed a section we are still missing, but I strongly recommend that you let yourself be guided by an English language publication, as it is very difficult to guess the meaning of the points you propose here. Note that it is a matter of definition whether Vedic religion is considered part of "Hinduism", some people would argue yes, some no. You also seem to imply that the Vedic rituals are "inferior" to Hinduism, and that Hindu Brahmins "improved" the religion by abolishing animal sacrifice etc.; this is not a neutral statement. We are simply looking at different epochs with different sets of values, but I would object to a characerization of the Vedic Ashvamedha as 'degraded'. Fwiiw, I agree that the details of the ritual were probably widely forgotten by the Early Middle Ages (the time of Shankara and the Puranas), so that it plays no role in Hinduism as it exists today. dab (&#5839;) 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

first of all i did not said that samudragupta performed ashwamedha, as i dont have the literary sources nor have i read it anywhere else other than wikipedia (whoever mentioned it needs to write out more, as it is one of the forbidden rites in kalyuga and more likely than not, kaliyuga started by the time of samudragupta). but i am not removing this part as i dont have resources to ridicule this fact (or fiction).

i am NOT saying that vedic ritual (including neccrophilia and bestiality) are inferior to hinduism. it is what is implied by the inclusion of ambedkars point in the current article. i am not going to write what is in point 0, i have written that to support my removal of ambedkars comments, as he seems to complain sexual ritual to be inferior or even degraded. (moreover he claims that brahmins degraded it, which is factually wrong as it is what the vedas have written and vedas predate the caste system). i still respect anyone who wants to conduct ashwamedha via griffiths translations. (as i have already supported the controvertial aghori sect of hindus.)

can you be more precise for what do i need english language publications . as what i know by now, there is no difference amongst the direct translations of classical sanskrit texts into any language. (there may be differences for hidden meanings)

nids 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Nidish On the issue of Dan Brown and the Bible and your reference to Ramayana :Just like Dan's code and The Bible are not the only two references/works for the laity and the scholars to debate over matters concerning the Bible, Valmiki's Ramayana is not the only text to help you decide over the nature and evolution of the Vedic Ritual called Aswamedha. The issue of Sita's Absence was was debated decades ago in Telugu literature. The twist in Ramayana and the issue of Swarna-Sita is an interpolation to hedge the issue of Sita and the ordeal of Aswamedha. How come Draupadi is not spared of this ordeal in Mahabharata? Who came first?Sita or Draupadi?... In Telugu we have a Book by 'Aarudra' called 'Ramudiki Sita Yemautundi?". It means: How is Sita related to Rama or You think Sita is really his wife?(Vishalandra Publishing House, Hyderabad (1978)) .The question at the outset may sound outrageous stupid and dumb.But there is a wealth of unexplored material to suggest that it is not that simple.In telugu we have a popular sayings: 'Ramayanam Ranku,Bharatam Bonku'. It means Ramayanam is illicit sleaze and Mahabharat is a big lie.The fact that it is a very common saying( ask any telugu you come across to find out how popular that saying is.,) the author Aarudra went about findings its roots. He came with some startling revelations: As per Buddhist and Jain sources of the same, Ram and Sita were Brother and Sister.That Valmiki himself acknowledges that he got the story from vyasa who got it from Narada who got i from Brahma..You see ... the story is long..you cannot kill a story or a story teller.. to assuage your fears and complexes. That book is an all time best seller in Telugu just like Muppalla Ranganayakkamma's (born 1939) 'Ramayana Visha Vriksham'(The poisonous Tree called Ramayana).The book is published by M/s Sweet Home Publications, Hyderabad. For Copies : Aruna Publishing House, Eluru Road, Vijayawada –2 Krishna Dist., Andhra Pradesh. Do You know how many Ramayana's are present in the world? As per Buddhist and Jain sources of the same , Ram and Sita were Brother and Sister.You have a popular story that says Sita was afterall Ravan's daughter.You know the story behind Rakhi? You know yama-yami.You know why swear words are so common in Hindi and Punjabi.Stories ..and more stories..that will need more than a wikipedia to fill all those stories up and give you links as proof.


 * Please have patience.You can not go around deleting /burning up scholarship, history and memories. Read and read more..get to the root of it ..doNot abandon it just because you don't like harappa 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

regarding the translation, we need an English language one because this is English Wikipedia, and it would not be helpful to post a Telugu translation (I for one couldn't make heads or tails of it). It may be true that Ambedkar has ulterior motives of bashing Hinduism, I don't know, that it's not the issue here. It may even be true that the ritual is dragged out to denigrate Hinduism today: wholly unjustified in my opinion. Such things belong in the "modern anxieties" section. Try not to be emotional about this, either way, let's just try to find the best summaries on the ritual available. Please do try to compile a section on the Ashvamedha in the epics (Mahabharata+Ramayana) -- it would be well to get started on this, and conflicts are best addressed when the material is on the table. dab (&#5839;) 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

even i am not interested in ambedkars personal life on this article. the current page says The mock bestiality and necrophilia involved in the ritual disgusted the Dalit reformer and framer of the Indian constitution B. R. Ambedkar and is frequently mentioned in his writings as an example of the perceived degradation of Brahmanical. this edit says

1.bestiality and necrophilia involved in the ritual disgusts him. i think it is a POV and ridicules the vedic believes.

2.it says it is an example of perceived degradation of brahminical culture. it not only says that the bestiality and necrophilia involved are inferior and degraded, but also sees that as a perceived degradation of brahminical culture. the second part is even factually wrong as it will not be hard for you to accept that caste system, (including brahmins), is followed by vedas. or precisely. cvedas predate everything that is hinduism.

i just want to remove this statement. (with your permission, of course)

and even i for one cannot understand heads and tails of telugu. for all the points 1-7 i have cited the sources and i have restricted myself to the direct translations and not the innovative one. as for ramayana, you will not need to go through the whole epic to find out what i am saying. even if you read a synopsis, you will easily find out that sita was not with ram when he performed ashwamedha yagya, and also that ashwamedha yagya is described in detail in ramayana. ashwamedha yagya is the central part of UTTAR Kand in Ramayan. and you can also easily find copies, even of the detailed translations, of english Ramayan. please cite for what you do not have access to english translations. nids 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you are basically asking me to write the section myself. That's work, you know. It's ok to get an overview from a synopsis, but then we'll need to quote book, chapter and verse. I am confident that I could do that, but it would take me probably about two hours to write a coherent "Epics" section. I was hoping somebody else would lend a hand. Regarding Ambedkar, it is not pov to state that he considered the ritual a 'degradation of Brahmanical culture'. That's his pov, of course, but we are just reporting it. It contains two assumptions actually, first that the ritual itself is 'degrading', and secondly, by summarizing millennia under "Brahmanical culture" without differentiation, that its performance by Brahmanical culture in 800 BC 'degrades' Brahmanical culture of 1950 AD (which undisputedly does not engage in such rituals). dab (&#5839;) 18:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i DID NOT said that you do the edits. i want to do them myself and i think i am bit more qualified in this respect. i just needed your permission so that you do not revert my edits.

as for ambedkar part, if we clarify that he says it as a degradation of brahminical culture in second form, it is perfectly all right. i shall do that. please do not revert my edits then.

also i am removing the translations part. please watch this page if somebody reverts it as i do not want to break my personal 1RR policy. nids 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done my edits, please point out here if you dissagree with any of the edits before reverting them. i shall clarify. i removed the translations because they were indirect translations from other language into english, rather than direct english texts. nids 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i removed the part where it was said that the tv productions toned down the sacrifice, since they discribed what was written in the epics only.

also, does my revert to the IP address vandalism to the main page counts as 1 revert?

i shall see for my spelling mistakes and other errors shortly. nids 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I did not realize your points above were supposed to be the actual text you wanted to insert. I am afraid that's completely unacceptable: on top of poor grammar, your text is confused, entirely incomprehensible and out of context. I am familiar with the subject and I have a hard time guessing what you are trying to say. I can attempt to rephrase some points for you, but I don't think much is salvageable. Not to mention that you didn't quote a single source after all. By "griffiths translation" you seem to refer to the content of VSM: I don't understand why "translation" since Griffith notably left the passage in question untranslated. Are you sure you absolutely want to contribute in English? dab (&#5839;) 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramayana
the Ramayana section now claims (with nids' additions as paraphrased by me) that the sacrifice is described in book 1 (old content) and in book 7 (new addition); which is true? both? Can you please check the passages and list them, nids? I am afraid that getting you to do fact-checking turns out more work than doing it myself. dab (&#5839;) 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the translations part as they were not the direct translations to English. what i could guess was that they were unexpurgated translations from Telugu to the modern english. if you want to keep them then its fine. But i thought it is an english wikipedia and deserves english language books.


 * i inserted the comment on Ambedkar because if he means the degradation by first way, i.e. referring to degradation of inclusion of sexual rituals by brahmins, than he not only refers to the rite as degraded but also says that brahmins degraded it, which is factually wrong. if we keep this comment this way, then it clearly seems to point out current brahmins.


 * if you want verse numbers for Ramayana, then i shall give you that. but here is common anecdote, (dont take it as literal text), that even a life is short to read out all the hindu sacred books. and i am not going to attempt all. the shathpath brahmin part was even included in the previous version of the page.


 * ashwamedha yagya is the most important rite for hinduism(whether vedic religion or not). and it is not restricted to epics. it has its fare mention in other books too, which are not epics. as an example, there are many incidents of ashwamedha yagya in Bhagavata Purana, and it is a book almost five times larger than bible. you can leave that as a mention there with a comment for other user to point out to exact verses. as a result i did not add to the point of Sanskrit epics and preferred ancient India.


 * i referred to griffiths translations, as i did not want to make them look more accurate than all the previous sages. And for translations, i heard that (i may be wrong here ) even in Bible there was a phrase that referred to Jesus for walking on water. while just recently it was decoded for the currect phrase that Jesus walked by the water. so for extinct languages, it is quite possible that even griffith could have made the error.
 * nids 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

for the Ramayan part, i think i was pretty clear that it was mentioned in the seventh part Uttara kand of Ramayana. who said that it was performed in the first part. even the current page on Ramayana on ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, mentions my part. clearly stating that in uttara kand, ram performed the vedic rite without sita. are you saying that it is wrtten unsourced on the page Ramayana. nids 07:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you are wrong. It would just be nice if you could state "7.18-22" or something rather than just uttara kand (which most people will find less than helpful). As I said, I could do that for you, but I thought we agreed you would do the job yourself. What about 1.10-15 then, is that about the Ashvamedha at all, or should we remove that part? Griffith has no claim to being a "sage", he is just a philologist. Of course he may be wrong, in which case per WP:NOR you should cite another philologist saying where he is wrong. Look, I am aware that the Ashvamedha is mentioned in lots of places. If you want to discuss Puranic references, do it in the "Vedanta and modern Hinduism" section. If you want to discuss epic references, do it in the "epics" section, and if you want to discuss the Brahmana commentary, do it in the "Vedic" section: makes sense, doesn't it? We cannot aim at a full enumeration of references in post-Vedic literature of course. Regarding Ambedkar: yes, he said the ritual degraded Brahminism: that's just his opinion, of course far from neutral. We are just reporting the man's opinion, we are not endorsing it, I am sure you can appreciate the difference if you give it some thought. dab (&#5839;) 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the reference fine for the Ramayana part. or do i need to give a detailed translations of the verses. and what kind of references do i need to cite, just like the ones which were accepted here and claimed Samudragupta performed the yagya and ashwamedha is mentioned in first book of Ramayan(thats insane). I have also heard that not everything of sanskrit literature is translated to english,(i may be wrong here, but i met a german last year in Uttaranchal who was interested in Hindu literature, and who said that only a percentage has been translated ). for other philologist views, does swami dayanand qualify, or does this link satisfy you.

i really could not make out that what you want from me in references. it is not a scientific research claiming to decode the step by step process involved in manufacturing of Delhi iron pillar. or do i just need to give the verse numbers wherein the ashwamedha is described in the original texts.

i clearly say for the ambedkar part that since his view is not NPOV, we should not keep it here. may be you are perfect to distinguish it here and say that we are just reporting it and not endorsing it, but that will not be the same for everyone.

and why are you supporting that we keep the indirect translation of vedas via some telugu authors, when we still have some good english translations.

and i want to mention in the introduction part, that the ashwamedha as described in the vedas was never performed. it is important because other pages point out to this link, including ramayan. and it becomes literal that they do it the vedic way. what is the harm in mentioning this on the main page. nids 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Ashvahmedha occurs in both book one and book seven. In book one it is performed by Rama's father Dasharatha. In book seven it is performed by Rama in the absence of Sita. She is represented by a statue. The ritual is interrupted and the details of the ritual are glossed over. The story of the second ritual was included in this article at one point, but has disappeared. Paul B 08:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

can you cite the sources for book 1 please.nids 08:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in chapter 14. Here's an online version of the Ramayan . Here's chapter 14 . I don't quite understand some your comments above. I have already incorporated Dayananda's account via the translation of his follower Devi Chand. Dayananda is, however, motivated by his Vedic fundamentalist beliefs rather more than dispassionate historical scholarship. Likewise, Ambedkar himself is not NPOV, of course, but that's beside the point. The article should include all notable points of view, and Ambedkar is a notable commentator. An NPOV article includes different POVs. Read WP:NPOV.Paul B 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how we can possibly say that "the ashwamedha as described in the vedas was never performed." Maybe it wasn't, but one would assume that sometimes it was. We have no reason to believe that it was never performed in full. However if you can find a notable commentator who contends that it wasn't then that person's vew can be included, attributed to him/her. Paul B 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * well, it appears that nids neglected telling us that Sita was represented by a statue then :) Which of course goes to show that presence of the queen is important to the ritual even in the Ramayana. I will be glad if you dig up the proper references to the epics, Paul, I am really not into doing that, and it doesn't appear likely nids is quite up to the task either. dab (&#5839;) 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where nids gets the idea that the ritual was "never performed" either. That statement seems just pulled out of thin air, considering we have numerous historical claims that the ritual was indeed performed, notably by Samudragupta (although I note there is no reference for this claim either, it just hasn't been disputed so far). Afaics, it is undisputed that it was never performed after the 4th century, and thus clearly doesn't qualify as a component of contemporary Hinduism. dab (&#5839;) 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

first of all, i did not hide that sita was represented by statue. i dont know that and i am not endorsing it (but i am not opposing it, since i dont have the perfect source to ridicule it). out of over 5,00,000 verses of Hindu texts, i can safely claim that i have read nothing. (even if i have read a few scriptures). moreover i am not saying that the ritual was never performed via griffiths translations, what i am saying is that in the recorded history or epics or any other books, it was not performed via griffiths translations. nids 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the link that paul gives does not mention that sita was represented by a statue. infact, the link does not even translates the book 7. can i know the reliable source which says that sita was represented by a statue. nids 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you are allowed to use secondary sources, nids, no need to plod through 5 million verses yourself. It's called philology. Just don't make claims and send us to verify them for you. dab (&#5839;) 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the summary, Paul. dab (&#5839;) 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope it's ok. We still need to find good citations for several of the passages and the uttara kanda. Nids, the site I linked to excluded the last book because it is widely believed to be a later addition to the text. Several versions and translations exclude it (including the much-denigrated Griffith). We still need to find good link to a version, preferably with both Sanskrit and English. Paul B 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Error in Ramayana translation
In the section "Sanskrit epics," the translation of Ramayana 1.14.34 seems to include a significant error. It says, "Queen Kausalya desiring the results of ritual disconcertedly resided one night with that horse."

In the original Sanskrit (as found on the page we're using as our source) the words describing Kausalya's mentality are "su-sthitena ca cetasaa," which mean "with a composed (or "steady") mind." In the word-for-word meanings, the translator himself gives "composed."

How can this justify "disconcertedly"? The Sanskrit includes no negative word that would turn "a steady mind" into "a disconcerted mind."

This is significant because her "disconcertedly" spending the night with the horse could be read as hinting at the sort of mock sexual act described elsewhere in the article. Without "disconcertedly" that implication disappears.

What should we do about this?

Respectfully, O Govinda 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Disconcerted means disconcerted. I'd be pretty disconcerted at the thought of having to spend the night with a dead horse. I seem to remember a scene in The Godfather in which a character was rather disconcerted by something similar, so I think you are reading rather too much into it. Anyway, the "mock sexual act" described is mainly a series of ritual utterences. I guess the emotions described are to some extent ritualised too. The quotation is from the translation referenced. We cannot change the wording of a quotation, but perhaps alternative versions can be given in a note, or you could find another translation. The big advantage of this one is that the Sanskrit is present with the translation. Paul B 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not she is supposed to have performed any mock sexual acts cannot of course be known, but the text does say that the ritual was performed exactly as prescribed in the Veda. I don't think being "composed", "steady" or "disconcerted" indicates anything either way concerning what she was about to do. A person might be described as "composed" or "disconcerted" before a visit to the dentist, or before being executed. It tells us about their state of mind, not about what's about to happen. Anyway, we simply report what the text says. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Paul B 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * that the queen does spend the night with the horse is sufficient to imply that the ritual was followed to the letter. Regarding 'disconcertedly', we cannot alter the translation quoted, but we could insert a footnote discussing the original term and its literal meaning. We are however splitting hairs at this point. As Paul notes, ritual "mock dismay" is prescribed for the queen anyway even if she is not 'disconcerted'. I agree with OG that the literal translation of susthitena cetasaa would be something like "with resolve, with determination, composedly". The translator seems to take this as the queen "bracing herself". I suppose the intended meaning is to compliment the queen on not flinching from her duty, but 'disconcertedly' seems to be a rather poor translation to me too. dab (&#5839;) 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

TS translation
nids, please pay attention. I am not supportive of keeping the present indirect TS 7.4.19 translation, and I didn't restore it after you removed it. I argue that it is accurate, but I admit it is inadequately sourced. And no, we haven't found a proper English translation of the passage yet. dab (&#5839;) 09:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

are you saying, that if we do not have a good translation for a passage in english, we can resort to regional language translations. nids 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * no, read my lips: I did not object to your removal. Sheesh, I cannot do more than tell you four times, can I? dab (&#5839;) 09:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

cut from the article by nids (for future reference)

Translations of TS 7.4.19
Today, there are full published translations of the passages, for example Rangacharya (1999) and Shastri (2003) in Telugu.

An unexpurgated translation in modern English of the corresponding passage in the TS (7.4.19) is given below.


 * [The wives of the king surround the slain horse]
 * 1.The Queen, grieves thus: [7.4.19b] "O mother, no-one has taken me. The little horsie is asleep".
 * 2 The rest of the King's wives say to the Queen: [7.4.19c] "O Queen, cover yourself and the horse with this cloth and pray thus: 'O Horse, You are capable of impregnating me. I am ready. Take me.'"
 * The priest covers the queen and the horse with a cloth.
 * 3. The queen hugs the slain-horse saying thus: [7.4.19e] "Let us hold each other with our (hind) limbs."
 * 4. The Priest says the following (mantra): [7.4.19f] "May the horse expel its sperm and may the Queen receive (the sperm)."
 * 5. The Priest recites: [7.4.19g] "O horse, place your male organ in between the legs of the queen. Excite the queen's vagina so that it will receive your huge penis". The Queen then places the horse's limp penis in between her legs.
 * 6. The Queen once again calls out aloud: [7.4.19h] "O Mother, no-one has slept with me. This good-for nothing horse is fast asleep."
 * 7. The other women sorrounding the slain horse and the queen respond thus: [7.4.19i] "O Queen, just like the one who, after collecting the bamboo poles from the forest ties them together first places them upright on the ground, lift your vagina and hold it up. Later, just like the one who sifts grain from the chaff exults when the cool wind blows, you must relax and exult."
 * 8. The Queen once again complains aloud about the somnolent horse to her mother. [7.4.19k]
 * 9. All the other women say thus: [7.4.19l] "O Queen, grieve not. You may not be aware that you have been taken by the horse. Just like a slave-girl who gets to sleep with her master and rejoices without expecting anything in return."
 * 10. "O Queen, Rejoice, that the horse has accepted you."
 * 11. They all say: [7.4.19n] "Here we see a female bird warbling around a male bird (even after mating). It is unsatisfied and restless. O Queen, you are behaving like that bird. This is not good."
 * 12. "You can rejoice and be happy that the horse has accepted you. Now please stop complaining about it."
 * 13. [7.4.19p] "O queen. Have no doubt. Just like your father has done to your mother when they climbed on to a wooden cot, and your father entered her saying 'I am placing my penis inside your vagina', the Horse has entered you. Have no doubt. Now, please get up."

I'll try to find a published, scholarly English translation now. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

current article is fine for me
current article is fine for me. will come back with proper verse numbers in mahabharata, and the verse numbers in Bhagvat Purana. nids 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

please dab. you can check my above comment and the time for it. i told you that you can leave this article as it is, although i really appreciate your work. there is no use in denigrating me on other talk pages. i have written myself here that i shall give you the verse numbers for bhagvata purana wherein the yagya was performed, and you were not required to do anything. nids 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not denigrating you; I just note that you are not very productive: You came here complaining that a treatment of the epics is missing, and Paul (not you) wrote a presentable summary. It would be great if you could just have come up with something like Paul's text, but the fact is that you had somebody else do the work. Not that I regret this, of course, I agree the article is making good progress at the moment. dab (&#5839;) 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Making head & tail of Divergent POV

 * Those who read KYV and SYV Samhitas will recall that the Aswamedha ritual concludes with a mock verbal duel between the Shudra and the Brahmins. The Shudra loudly alleges that the Ritual was a sham and the the Yajaman got plundered in return for nothing. In reply, the Brahmana says it was a yagna well performed, and and the expenses were worth the benefits that would befall the Yajaman. The shudra returns with afew morsels of horse meat and some cowries, and the Brahmana returns home with a lot of gold, cows and land. The queen (s) cannot get out of their shock, but being women of those vedic times, their feelings were dispensable. Only Sita escapes the ordeal...
 * Immediately after India's Independence, the Constituent Assembly was convened (with the Drafting Commitee)Chaired by Ambedkar. The verbal duel that ensued there was not a mock duel.He contended that the caste based -ritualistic Brahminical strangle hold on emergent India's future should end. And He won. With active support from progressives of that time.Hindu Mahasbha demonstrated over 90 times before his residence when The Sharada Act was passed in the Parliament. That Act liberated the 'Hindu Woman' from slavery of Tradition.  India is now a secular country. We have APJ Abdul Kalam and Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi at the helm of affairs. The lone Hindu State in the world, Nepal , is rebuilding itself  as a modern secular democratic republic.The Neo-con Hindu Brigade simply cannot swallow that fact.


 * The person who deleted the reference to D.N.Jha's book ' Early India- a concise history' Manohar Books Delhi (2004) is simply not in touch with what is taught to students of History in Indian Schools and University. Of all the basic books one reads on Ancient /Early India (by AL Basham, Romila Thapar, R.S.Sharma), D.N.Jha's is the most forthright on the subject.What is posted on the Wikipedia is what is being taught in the universities.


 * To put things in perspective,Aswamedha ritual is only a drop in the ocean of Early Indian studies.Valmiki is not the original author of Ramayan. He lifted the story from Jain and Buddhist tales that predated Valmiki.. Incest is central to Jain and Hindu geneologies just like in Christianity. The 'Hindu'-Intelligent Design theorists go by time-scales that are not authenticated by modern researchers.For them ,Mahabharata comes after Ramayana. That is why I had asked 'Who came first ,Sita or Draupadi?''For them Kali Yug starts from Ambedkar and the Secular Indian Constitution.And for the 20-somethings, it is VPSingh's Mandal(1989) and Arjun Singhs's Mandal II(2006).They have no time to discuss issues like human dignity, self-respect, independence, and freedom.They have no qualms about British colonialism or present day globalisation.


 * Coming to South Indian Languages-- they started making their presence in the face of stiff resistence from Court language Sanskrit,  from late 7cAD. Peninsular India was largely Buddhist- Jain- Shivite- controlled land. There was no Hinduism (of the neo-con variety).The early exponents of Vernacular languages were either Buddhists, Jains or Shivites.Each cursing the other is not uncommon.They actually used to go at each others throats. So the popular saying ' Ramayanam Ranku- Bharatam Bonku' (meaning Ramayana is illicit and Mahabharat is a lie) points to the subaltern view of the classics and so called sacred texts that survived till this day in Andhra.

Godspeed to all of you who cared to read this note. I will attempt a clean up after a week harappa 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab, thanks for acknowledging that the translation I posted as so far the best available, in plain English. I never claimed to be scholar and hence I called mine a 'lay man's translation'.
 * I demand that the Neo-con Hindu internet squatters sticking icons/templates of Swastika,Aum ,This user is a Hindu etc should be warned not to bring their excess baggage on to the Wikipedia.
 * this is all very interesting -- I am sorry for removing the Jha reference: the article did not make clear its relevance, in fact, it was not even referred to in the article body, it was just sitting in the bibliography. You are most welcome to add it back and explain its relevance to the topic. Regarding self-descriptions on user pages: Wikipedia currently allows biased statements on user pages, as well as declaration of religious and political bent. As long as user pages are not abused as platforms for propaganda, I see nothing wrong in that. A given user will be a fundamentalist regardless of whether he plasters his page with religious symbols. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul & Dab, i would prefer an advisory right at the beginning of the article ,to the general public ,stating that the subject Aswamedha is fairly advanced even for specialists in Early Indian history and Vedic Studies, and the article presumes that the visitor who wishes to share his views on the subject has exposure to books by AL Basham,Romila Thapar, R.S.Sharma, D.N.Jha,( All of them are world renowned experts on Early Indian History) Rahul Sankrutyayan (volga to Ganges),Amartya Sen's Argumentative Indian(2004).Knowledge in Vedas,Epics and Indian Sanskrit classics is of course welcome.I would prefer that the Translation is restored to the main article. It got deleted on very specious grounds .harappa 09:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that removal of the translation was a loss, but it is true that it was inadequately sourced: we cannot make an exception to policy when it doesn't suit our agenda. I am confident I will find an acceptable replacement, just give me some time. I don't know about 'advanced': it is a specialized subject, to be sure, but not any more than that of countless other articles on Wikipedia. If it is special, that is entirely due to the "modern anxieties", discussion of which should be firmly contained to its own section. We often get people very insistent about inserting some hearsay half-knowledge, it is WP business-as-usual to remove or correct these additions (although I must say India related topics seem to be getting an above average incidence) dab (&#5839;) 12:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Harappa seems to have really reached back to pre-historic ages. First of all, he fails to mention anywhere that Ambedkar was an anti-Hindu. Check out www.ambedkar.org for more on him. Second he keeps mentioning these sidey books from obscure publishers. I am only mentioning this because he is making an issue of this. Vishalandhra Bookstores are run by the government of Andhra Pradesh (an Indian state) to keep local literature alive: they carry books without any reason other than that they are published in Andhra. I have lived in Andhra for more than 12 years and I have never heard of the "famous" books he mentions. Beside that the fact that Harappa keeps reverting to his translations without a mention of practices or the contemporary Hinduism, as it is practiced.


 * I request, against Harappa's wishes (in his last line above), that Hindus be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia articles on Hinduism :-)


 * To All: Please bear in mind that Ashwamedha is a part of as existing Hindu tradition and NOT some a completely gone and forgotten ritual. Since it is still practiced, I strongly suggest that an addition be made as to how an Ashwamedha Yagna is performed as of today. This would be just as enlightening to Wikipedia readers as the scholarly translations.Nshuks7
 * Hindus are, of course, most welcome to contribute. But they must accept that they are bound by the same rules as everyone else, and not succumb to the temptation to consider themselves "natural experts". You are most welcome indeed to describe the contemporary "Ashvamedha" ritual. Presently we only have a very short reference in the "modern Hinduism" section, by all means expand it. I think it is undisputed that Ambedkar is anti-Hindu: his statement is nevertheless notable, illustrating, if you like, how the ancient ritual was used as a rhetorical tool for Hindu-bashing. I think a line of argument such as Ambdekar's is rather silly, but there you are, the Ambdekar thing is important for understanding the contemporary tensions surrounding the subject. dab (&#5839;) 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a reply to above responses at my [] thought I should not crowd this page any more. Happy Independence Dayharappa 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes by User:Leaflord
Leaflord has made number of changes viz:

1. Moving the Ambedkar section to the bottom of the "Anxieties" section 2. Changing the title of the "Anxieties" section to "Criticisms" 3. Deleting the comment in a footnote from Chand that the Vedas are the word of God. 4. Adding a (somewhat oblique) reference to Dayananda's claim that "ashva" referred to horsepower rather than to actual horses (hence Dayananda's argument that the Vedas show knowledge of electricity). Oddly this was first expressed in the bracketed phrase "(due to the polysemous meanings of the word 'ashva' as horse as well as fire)," but was then changed to the less intelligible "(meaning of the word 'ashva' as horse as well as fire)."


 * First off, Ambedkar's section has no real respect because it is his view, thus falls into the "views" section. Chand's footnote that "they're word of god" has no relation to the topic because every person they're word of one person or the other so the one who put there unless he has a propaganda, has no need to keep it there. The reason i reduced the the line scrapping is because i felt it was unnecessary. This claim of yours, I never heard of it. It is ridiculous to say "anxieties" as if its the original version. A verse in the scriptures itself equates a horse to fire thus your reasoning is fallible. The explanation of electricity is from the verse dealing with indra, but comparing them with griffith's translations is ridiculous because i'm not sure if griffith was well versed in the brahmanas.Leafy 08:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these changes are useful:
 * Regardless of whether you consider they are, it is correct.

1. Ambedkar's comments follow directly from the description of the ceremony, so are better placed where they are than further down. The move seems to be designed solely to "bury" the statements.
 * For your paranoid mind it certainly seems so i guess.
 * So what was the reason then? Paul B 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

2. The anxieties section could maybe have a better title, but its content includes people who omit details from translations out of propriety; people who find the ceremony distateful; people who use it to attack Vedic culture; and people who deny it ever happened. Not all of these are "criticisms".
 * Anxities is definitely a worser title because this version of the ritual is being criticised. "omitting details of translations" - this pertains to griffith, who refused to translate many verses as "barbaric".


 * He called the ceremony "disgusting". I know who it pertains to, so how does this justify your claim? Paul B 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because his translations are not the only ones out there of course? the itihasa are not clear on the issue as well. Leafy 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not making any sense. The claim I was referring to was that "criticisms" is better than "anxieties". Of course I know that there are other translations - they are referred to. Griffiths and Keith's happen to be in the public domain, because they are old. Hence the fact that their versions of various texts circulate on the web.

3. The comment in the footnote - which is a direct quotation - helps us to understand Chand's attitude to the Vedas.
 * Every person has one attitude or the other, unless the move was solely to criticise the defensive view of chand.


 * Yes, and that is Chand's it helps us to see where Chand is "coming from"? Paul B 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it helps us see you have some hidden propaganda. If there is a critic, there will be an apologist. If you're going to add that, I might as well add the view of westerners that i mentioned below Leafy 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no hidden propaganda. Chand's view helps explain the Arya Samajist attitude to the Vedas. Paul B 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The view of arya samajis is better explained in the article dealing with arya samajis no doubt. Leafy 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Yes, Dayanada's views could be mentioned, and I have left the first version of the sentence, but it could be more clearly articulated. I am not aware of the word ashva ever meaning fire (perhaps I will be corrected), but rather thought that the word is used in poetic imagery to suggest swiftness, as indeed it is in English poetry ("pity like a naked new born babe, horsed upon the sightless couriers of the air..." Macbeth; "galloping flames" etc) Paul B 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, be clear that you're not aware the word has polysemous meaning. The western translations pertain to the ones by sayana, thus faltered because sayana's translations do not even stick to nirukta. All in all your allegations are not so clear. Leafy 08:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So Sayana was wrong in your opinion! That's just assertion. Provide some evidence. Paul B 10:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no way sayana could've been right because all he did was make a heterogenous compilation. i dont need to "provide evidence" for your allegation that he could actually be right.


 * You do need to provide evidence. That's how Wikipedia works. Cite your sources. Just asserting that "there is no way Sayana could've been right" is no more useful than saying "there is no way Sayana could've been wrong". Paul B 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the refutation made by various authors such as dayananda, aurobindo, etc.... There are too many people who dont agree with his heterogenous pauraanik translations, and western translators run on his lines - not that of yaska, whose nirukta is vital to understanding vedas (thus called 'vedanga'). Pertaining to translations over a century old isn't too wise either... Leafy 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As for this "poetic relation" you're making - please! Western poetry and eastern poetry are two different things. Colonials considered intercourse as vile and uncouth, but indians considered it much more holy - marital sex, mind you. This relation you're trying to make is worser than comparing oranges to apples Leafy 08:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not an argument. Cite relevant verses to prove your claim that ashva can mean fire. Paul B 10:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what was the need for you to post your view of poetry?

(RV I:27.1) ASHVAM NA TVAA VAARAVANTAM VIDADHYAA AGNI NAMOBHI and further BRISHO AGNIAH SAMICHYATEAASHVO NA DEVAVAAHANAH TAM HA VISHMAN EEDATE and in shatapatha brahmana, VRISHO AGNIH ASHVO HA VAA ESHA BHOOTVAA DEVEBHYO YAJNAM VAHATI

Lets not forget that in mahabharata, krishna is supposed have ridden an "ashwathari vessel" across the waters. It is clear that a ship wasn't horse-driven here! There were no flying horses either. Leafy 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * These passages do not say that ashva means fire. They juxtapose the word for fire with ashva. There were flying horses - in mythology, and mythology is what you are referring to. Greek gods ride horse-drawn chariots across the sky, but no-one uses that to prove thy were really riding aircraft and that therefore "hippos" refers to aircraft fuel. Paul B 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Juxtapose? It is clear you haven't read the translations. Here max muller also equates agni(fire) to a horse. It does make greater sense when you read surya riding 7 lights, instead of horses (light is also called agni - vedic people believed light was particulate fire).


 * What translations haven't I read? Can you please be a little bit clearer. "Here max muller also equates agni to a horse"? where is "here"? It's not that I'm disputing that the connection is made - its entitrely consistent with the imagery of swiftness and energy, and is quite different from saying that the word ashva means fire. Paul B 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The word 'agni' is derived from 'anchu' and respectable i.e., "to move". The word agni is based on swiftness and energy. Leafy 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying horses - yes.... but what sense does it make that they its a SHIP? Here you go on making wild assumptions that it has to do with riding aircraft or trash.... Not all of the claims of dayananda are true of course, but his translations are much better. These weren't his own translations, but these relied on nirukta by - who was much closer to the date of formulation of vedas (1500 BCE while yaska was 800 BCE) Vaidik sanskrit is polysemous, this is clear. Relying on laukik sanskrit is futile. You're forgetting that pauraanik mythology stemmed AFTER the vedas were written - they were written post 4th century AD. Pauraanik mythology mainly stems from tantras and agamas coupled with the more authentic forms of puraanas.

To sum it up Paul Barlow, this page is not meant for your personal views but is to stick to a neutral point of view. if you're uncomfortable with sticking to a neutral view then i suggest you refrain from participating in these pages.


 * great, just what we needed, more "the Colonials are to blame" paranoia. Try polite debate before removing well-discussed passages, please. The ritual isn't 'criticised', come on, it's just that some prudish people in the 19th to 20th century were shocked by it, that isn't criticism. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the ritual was prevalent much before the advent of colonials, otherwise the puraanas wouldn't have said that the ritual is prohibited. C'mon, think rationally - this shows the ritual was criticised by hindus themselves, your allegation is thus fallible. Leafy 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nother thing, who the heck is removing the li'l bit that the horse flew away like a bird? if the verse is quoted, please quote it completely. I'm also adding the allegation of uttara kanda etc.. Leafy 09:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Puranic 'criticism' in any case would not figure under modern anxieties and/or criticism. Look, I have no fixed opinion on how the material should be presented. Just try to appreciate that the present state is the result of a debate, it doesn't simply represent Paul's or my opinion. As we wanted to discuss things, we had to justify them. If you want to make changes, propose them first and try discussion, or else don't be surprised if they are reverted. Sorry about the bird bit though, I removed that once, by mistake (taking it for vandalism to the "Vedic" section, while I am not familiar with the Epic story). (ᛎ) qɐp 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit was reverted twice so I got irritated. Sorry about that Leafy 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed
In mahabharata, ashvamedha parva is 14th not 12th. But even in the 14th parva, the 7th chapter doesn't speak of anything pertaining to Draupadi laying with a dead horse.

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/mahabharata/mahabharata_14007.php

Please clear up citations Leafy 09:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. though the Ganguli translantion, which you cite, rather prissily has "sit near" . Here's the passage in Sanskrit . Paul B 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is chapter 89, why does it say seven? Nevertheless I shall make the respective corrections. But i still dont understand - do you have a certain anti-hindu propaganda? The views of the author have nothing to do with the translations. In the days when Sacred Books of the East was written, it is clear the colonials wanted them translated in such a manner that christianity can be propounded in a much easier manner. For this reason, they offered the Boden Chair of Sanskrit to Monier Williams instead of Max Muller who was the most obvious candidate, because max's translations were too liberal. Leafy 11:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: it says "sit near the divided animal" so the meaning does certainly change.


 * Yes, the Boden chair established by Mr Boden, who paid for it in his will, to study Hinduism in order to help the spread of Christianity. That kind of bequest was commonplace in those days, and that's why Muller didn't get the chair. But the idea that Hindu scriptures were somehow deliberately mistranslated in order to undermine Hinduism is sheer paranoia. The Sacred Books of the East made Hindu and other texts availible in English. If anything, the spread of serious Orientalist scholarship undermined Chritianity, or at least the literal-minded versions of it! Paul B 12:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. My point is that Paul B continually edits the article to "show the view of the author" which is by no means necessary. I dont believe they were delibrately mistranslated, but nor do i think otherwise. The reason max muller lost his seat though, is extremely clear owing to his much liberal translations; and the church had always criticised him for "going against word of god". Yet again, he tried to convert raja ram mohan roy into christianity - in other words, their view of hindu scriptures can still be placed in doubt. Leafy 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Max Muller never met Ramohan Roy. You are probably thinking of the letters he wrote at the end of his life to P C Mozoomdar of the Brahmo Samaj. Paul B 15:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think it was keshub chandra sen. What i remember is that it deals with a major roleplayer of brahmo samaj. regardless of that, one of his letters to his wife brought him notoriety of his views where he states that his translation will decide the fate of the 3,000 year old faith of india and is the only way of uprooting it. Leafy 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * that would be an interesting letter, by all means do cite it. Concerning Max Muller, look, most of the translation is straightforward, anyway, with no accuracy disputes involved. You cannot dismiss the entire translation because Muller was a Christian: parts with uncertain translation would have been discussed in academia subsequently, so if there is debate about a passage, provide evidence for the debate, don't just wave your hands arguing that in principle Muller could have been mistaken. Because in the vast majority of cases, his translations are unproblematic and could have been produced by anyone at all. Also, since the relevant passage wasn't translated at all by Muller in the first place, I really don't see why people keep talking about Muller's translations. Discuss individual verses. If there is academic debate about a particular verse, cite it, it's as simple as that. Muller was above all a philologist, and to suggest that all his work must be suffused by some intangible evil colonialist Christian subtext is simply crackpot conspiracy monging. If there is a problem with some particular verse, put your finger on it. 18:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course he didn't intend to translate them as such - and even if the allegations are true (that britishers hired him for such translations) it is clear that he based them on sayana's translations (which are just a recollection of prevailing pauraanik translations). I agree, sometimes indophiles get a bit too paranoid regarding the "colonial missionary" thing, but I'm not dealing with that - the letter is on his wiki page anyway...
 * For crying out loud. He was hired by the EIC to produce a printed edition of the Rigveda in Sanskrit. It is not a translation. The Sacred Books of the East was a large collaborative scheme - much later - of which he was general editor, but which involved numerous scholars from many countries including India. Paul B 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me when i said those are the allegations by indophiles? Then again, why did he say so in his letter (and printed version in sanskrit???)? I'm not talking about Sacred Books of the East though, but in that only the bhagavad gita was translated by an indian. Leafy 09:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The letter has no relevance to Ashvamedha. It's discussed on the Muller page. Also MM never published an English translation of the YV. Paul B 21:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Similiarly, the views of a fanatic author have nothing to do with ashvamedha either. The views pertain to arya samaj, he as an arya samaji put up his translations based on postulates of dayananda. this is why i didn't bother the "following dayananda" bit - if one is really so interested, he will read about dayananda. Leafy 05:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fanatic author? Are we back on Chand here? Of course they do, because Chand published a translation of the YV with this ideology to justify the reading given. That's what the section is about. I think that when dab says "Muller" he means Griffith. I we have any evidence of specific motives on Griffith's part then it would be reasonable to include them. Paul B 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that this section is not to do with chand - it is to do with ashvamedha. Otherwise the NPOV can be objected. I think you're forgetting the five pillars of wikipedia - this is an encyclopaedia, not a place for private research and conclusion. Unless you have a certain propaganda of course. If you're really so concerned with expressing views etc., i suggest you add a little note in the article of dayananda - if one is really so interested, he will check it there. As for muller and griffith - both of them are contemporary figures, christians were in conflict with the translations by muller but not with those by griffith - so one can assume here that griffith's translations are biased pro-christianity. No need for proof, its undebateable inference. So far, this has been the only article i encountered in wikipedia where the editor is spending unnecessary time trying to show the view of the author. Leafy 09:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is about Ashvamedha. This section is about different interpretations of the Ashvamedha ceremony, in particular the mock-sexual bit. The Dayanana/Chand view that the the YV does not refer to to an actual horse sacrifice certainly seems extreme to me, but I am at a loss to understand your view that it shouldn't be inclued. First we are told that not including such views is "anti-Hindu", then when they are included that's also "anti-Hindu" in some mysterious way. We can't assume at all that Griffith's translations are "pro-Christianity", indeed it's difficult to know quite how you could translate the YV in a "pro-Christian" way. Don't forget that Europeans had been reading and translating the works of non-Christian Indo-European literature for centuries - its just that most of it was Greek and Roman. Victorian scholars did not insert pro-Christian ideas into their translations of Pausanius. Also, Orientalist interest in Eastern literature is often associated with anti-Christianity. See, for example, Muller's French colleague Emile Burnouf, who is openly anti-Christian (and anti-Semitic). Paul B 10:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "pro-christianity" = "anti-hindu". Greek and Roman scriptures? Not a fine answer, because their mythology was too ridiculous to affect the christian views, while their philosophy was greatly in harmony with christianity of those days. All that is offtopic anyways... PS: If you're saying that max muller was anti-christianity, then you're mistaken...

Coming back, I agree that his view is extreme - but anyone who knows dayananda knows his views are extreme (hindus knew telegraph?!?!?!). You've already said that he pertains to the view of Dayananda, so there is no need to repeat it - it seems more like an allegation that his translations should be avoided (whether this is your view or no, this is an encyclopaedia!). If you wish to make the view of the author clear, it will be better if you make an article for Devi Chand showing his views about vedas and other such scriptures. I honestly think it's better that way. Leafy 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what you are saying at all. Of course Muller was not anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, but Burnouf was. We are discussing interpretations of the Ashvahmedha, that includes all points of view. You argued that Griffith must be pro-Christian because he was (roughly) contemporary with Muller. I gave an example of a contemporary who was not, to show that one can't make such assumptions. Muller himself said very little about the YV, so he's not really very relevant here. Chand and Griffith are. Paul B 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having an anti-semetic friend isn't enough to counter claims that he is pro-christian - my friend and i have totally conflicting views for example.... I dont see how you call the two "roughly" contemporary.. But i think you're forgetting an important thing - that an encyclopaedia is a source of formally presented information, not a group discussion forum. This article is not to spot to dicuss interpretations of ashvamedha either - but to formally present information pertaining to ashvamedha, and views of other significant figures Leafy 14:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: how EXACTLY are devi chand and griffith contemporary figures??? it totally beats my logic. Leafy 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's virtually impossible to communicate with you when you make bizarre statements about Muller "having and anti-Semitic friend" (as if that's a good thing) and - even more bizarrely - "how EXACTLY are devi chand and griffith contemporary figures??" I said nothing about them being contemporary. I said that unlike Muller they were both relevant to the subject of this article because they both wrote about Ashvamedha. As it happens Burnouf wasn't Muller's friend. In fact the kind of racialist claptrap he writes in The Science of Religions is just what Muller hated. But to my knowledge neither of them wrote about Ashvamedha. This is now way off-topic. You say "This article is not to [the?] spot to dicuss interpretations of ashvamedha". Of course it is. Different points of view are relevant to the article. Paul B 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * leafy, can we get this discussion back on track somehow? what exactly are your concerns, and what exactly are your suggestions for improvement? (ᛎ) qɐp 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * currently, the article is in the state i'm saying it should be in - in the footnote of the views of devi chand, the extra bit that "according to him vedas are the word of god revealed at the beginning of mankind" - such views are adhered to by everyone so the special note is unnecessary, and to me (call me paranoid or whatever...) it seems to be as if discouraging or "warning" us from reading his translations. According to paul, it should be put in there because we need to know the view of the author - to which i suggest, instead of adding it to the footnote, a seperate article is better made if the view of the author is indeed so mandatory. He has already mentioned that he follows the views of Swami Dayananda, which i feel will suffice. Leafy 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Everyone" does not think the YV is the "word of God revealed in the beginning of creation" anymore than everyone believes that the Book of Genesis is the word of God. But if everyone did believe it, why would it be contentious? You are contradicting yourself by imlying that the comment is designed to "warn us" against his translations while at the same time saying that evryone believes it. Paul B 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what my intentions were over there is pretty clear, but due to a slip of words perhaps it wasn't clear - every hindu believes them to be word of god but what you said makes it seem etc.... If my words conceived such a contradiction, then i apologise. You were debating sometime back with me about the meaning of ashva - in other words, you dont exactly 'respect' the translations. Whatever it is, tell me, why are you so bent on the "author's views"?? If the author's view is indeed so vital for you then you can make a wikipedia article on it - that will benefit the wikipedia much more than a footnote. Leafy
 * what author are you talking about? I think Paul meant, not every Hindu believes in "God", or should I say, not for every Hindu Brahman="God". I suppose it is true that all Hindus hold YV to be shruti, and it is better to use the technical term here: YV is "shruti", however that may translate to English. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the author Devi Chand. The classification of Vedas as shruti is a natural classification, but what Paul (or maybe someone else) kept in the footnote is the author's view that that vedas are the word of god at the beginning of mankind. And about vedas being revealed by brahman - from all the traditions i've experienced they just say "god revealed the vedas" but not "brahman" - some say say brahmaa revealed them, others say siva revealed as dakshinamoorthy while hare krsnas say Krishna. It is clear all dont accept them to be revealed by brahman depending on the definition (some say brahman=brahmaa, which is not true) but they pertain to other personal gods. Leafy 09:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ramayana and Mahabharata were re-written 100s or 1000s of times. As an analogy Now-a-days we see movies dubbed from other languages or countries edited / modified according to the local culture and philosophy. This happened with Bharata and Ramayana. In order to get support for Brahmanism, the Brahmin writers added new stories to the epics to suite their Brahmanism Philosophy and modified existing stories in original Ramayana and Mahabharata to suite the existing trend culture of that time. For example the Ramayana written about the 12th Century AD by Kamba in Tamil known as KambaRamayana gave so many Godly and noble character to Rama and Sita to suite the existing Tamil culture of Kamba's time that was very different from what was written in Valmuki Ramayana. Most of the Ramayana written after the 12th Century were based on Kamba Ramayana and hence does not have the original character as in Valmuki Ramayana. Similarly the Mahabharata was edited and rewritten over the several 1000s of years. The BhagwatGita itself is a later addition to the Mahabharata to justify Brahmanism. In the original Bharatha, Krishna advised / convinced Arjuna to fight his relatives - the Kauravas. Later the supporters of Brahmanism inserted the Bhagavad-Gita at this location to justify their Brahamanistic Philosophy. A review on various cultures and civilization reveal almost without exception that incest (marriage between brothers and sisters, between father and daughter, between son and mother etc) existed in almost all civilization, bestiality, homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, human and animal sacrifice also existed. As time went by standards, ideas changed, humans refined and today bestiality, homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, incest, human and animal sacrifices are condemned. In fact most of these practices continued in India almost till the beginning of 20th Century among several clans / castes. As several customs changed with time the way Ashvamedha was done also changed with time. Most of the strong supporters of current Hinduism could not accept / digest this fact and could not recognize the genuine work done by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.

The current Hindu society is a mixture of so many cultures, religion and philosophies. So trying to use todays standards and books to justify what would have happended 1000s of years ago will not give the right history.

A review of ancient and middle age Tamil poems reveal completely different truth of the Origin of Castes, custom and Philosophies of ancient religion in India.


 * Sorry, internet was down so couldn't reply. The city of dwaraka has been discovered, dating to 2900 BCE. Another city discovered dating to 7500 BCE; while its astronomical dating takes it to 3097 BCE. Kamban and Tulsidas' ramayana are kept distinct from Valmeeki Ramayana, which most likely you're not aware of. The latter interpolations of valmeeki ramayana such as the Uttara Kanda itself dates to 200 BCE; and every historian agrees ramayana occured before mahabharata. So much for 1000 BCE....

Neither is B.R.Ambedkar honest, nor is it unbiased. He relied on the yet-to-be-perfected translations of westerners and their dating which have been refuted, as well as reliance on buddhist version of ramayana et cetera - during the pre-christian times, buddhists and jais reviled the vedas and vedic scriptures; thus the version of ramayana et all by buddhists cannot be considered authentic. These allegations of "vedas changing in recent years" dont have much of proof either - puraanas otherwise wouldn't have reviled these animal sacrifices and such that were performed at around the time of their composition. Tamil literature doesn't reveal a different version of caste system et all etiher - only depends on the interpreter. What is ridiculous is that genetical evidence proves that there is no such race as aryans or dravidians; but climatic and regional changes over a long period of time caused such effects. Leafy 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

more references
A quick search on the www.worldcat.org led to the following results:

www.worldcat.org lets you locate the nearest library having a copy of the above books.~godspeedharappa 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1.	Ashvamedha yajña : eka suksmatisuksama antaryagaby Makarand DaveType: Gujarati :  Book Publisher: Mumbai : Navabharata Sahitya Mandira, 2004.
 * 2.	Shrimad-vajsaneyi-madhyandin-shatpath-brâhmanam : with vedarthaprakash commentaryby Sayana; Harisvamin.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Delhi : Nag Publishers, 1990.
 * 3.	Shrimad-Vajsaneyi -madhyandin-Shatpath-brahmana : with Vedarthaprakash commentaryby Sayana.; Srihari, Svami.Type:   Book Publisher: Bombay : Laxmi Venkateshwar Steam Press, Vikrama 1997 [1940]
 * 4.	BSukla Yajurveda Samhitaby Daulatareama Gaurda, bseastrei.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Varanasi : Chowkhamba Vidyabhava, 1965.
 * 5.	Yajurveda samhita = Srimadvajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla-Yajurveda-samhitaby Ravi Prakash AryaType: English :  Book Publisher: Delhi : Parimal Publications, 1997.
 * 6.	[Vajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla Yajurvedasamhita] = Yajurveda samhita : text with English translation, notes mantra-devata-name index etc.by Ralph T H Griffith; Surendra PratapType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Delhi, India : Nag Publishers, 1990.
 * 7.	Vajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla Yajurveda-samhitaby Sripada Damodara SatavalekaraType: Sanskrit :  Book :   Microform Publisher: Aundharajadhanyam : Svadhyayamandala, 2003 [1946]
 * 8.	Yajurveda-Samhita Bhasa-Bhasya.by Jayadeva VidyalankaraType: Hindi :  Book Publisher: Ajamera, Arya-Sahitya Mandala, Sam. 2019-21 vi. [1962 or 3-64 or 5]
 * 9.	Vajasaneyi-madhyandina suklayajurveda-samhita : prathamo'dhyayah : Karapatra bhasya-samanvitaby Hariharanandasarasvati, Swami.; Gajananasastri Musalagamvakara; Vrajavallabha DvivediType: Hindi :  Book Publisher: Kalakatta : Sriradhakrsna Dhanuka Prakasana Samsthanam, 2043 [1986]-2049 [1992]
 * 10.	Mula-Yajurveda-samhitaby Brahmarshi DaivarataType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: [Varanasi : Kasi Hindu Visvavidyalaya], 1973.
 * 11.	Caturveda-samhitaby Jagadisvarananda Sarasvati, Swami.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Dilli : Vijayakumara Govindarama Hasananda, 1996-
 * 12.	The Yajurvedaby Devi Chand; M C JoshiType: English :  Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal, 1980.
 * 13.	Isa vasyopanisat, Karapatra-bhasyamby Hariharanandasarasvati, Swami.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Kalakatta : Sriradhakrsnadhanuka Prakasana Samsthanam, 1987.
 * 14.	Sukla-Yajurveda-Madhyandiniya-samhita.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: [Bombay, 1896]
 * 15.	Krsna-Yajurvedasya-Taittiriya-Samhita;Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Bombay, 1888.
 * 16.	Suklayajurvediya Brahma (Nitya) karma. [Premanandatmajena Jayasankarasarmana samsodhya.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Mumbapuryam, Jagadisvara Yantralaya, sake 1812, A.D. 1890]
 * 17.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhita = Krishna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhitaby Rangasami L KashyapType: English :  Book Publisher: Bangalore : Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture, 2002-
 * 18.	Sukla Yajurveda, Vajasaneyi Madhyandina samhita sanvaya Marathi bhashantarasahaby Dhundiraja Ganesa Dikshita BapataType: Marathi :  Book :   Microform Publisher: Aundha, Ji. Satara : Srimanta Rajesaheba, Sãsth
 * 19.	Yajurbeda-samhita : Sukla o Krshnaby Bijanabihari GosvamiType: Bengali :  Book Publisher: Kalakata : Harapha, 1977.
 * 20.	Taittiriyasamhitaby Bhattabhaskaramisra.; Alladi Mahadeva Sastri; Kasturi RangacaryaType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Dilli : Motilala Banarasidasa, 1986.
 * 21.	The texts of the White Yajurvedaby Ralph T H GriffithType: English :  Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1987.
 * 22.	Athasuklayajurvedamadhyandiniyasamhitaprarambhah.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Bambai : Srivenkatesvara Presa, 1984.
 * 23.	Art poétique, suivi de traductions de la Vajasameyi Samhita (XXIII, 45-62)by Roger Caillois; Egili Skallagrímsson; Louis Renou; P RenauldType: French :   Book Publisher: Paris, Gallimard [1958]
 * 24.	Yajurvediya Kathaka-samhitaby Sripada Damodara SatavalekaraType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Aundharajadhanyam : Svadhyayamandala, 1943.
 * 25.	Suklayajurveda-samhitâ (Srîmad-Vâjasaneyi-Mâdhyandina), with the Mantra-bhâshya of Mahâmahopâdhyâya Srîmad-Uvatâchârya and the Veda-dîpa-bhâshya of Srîman-Mahîdhara ; (with appendices & mantra-kosa)by Srîmad-Uvatâchârya.; Srîman-Mahîdhara.; Wâsudev Laxman Sâstrî PansîkarType:  Book Publisher: Bombay : "Nirnaya Sâgar" Press, 1929.
 * 26.	Krishnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhitaby Sayana; Bhattabhaskaramisra.; Narayana Sharma Sontakke; T N DharmadhikariType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Poona : Tilaka-maharashtra-vidyapitha-sakhabhuka-Vedic Samsodhana-Mandala, [1970-]
 * 27.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhita : Marathi anuvada, mula samhitesahaby Ganesh Umakant Thite; V N Jha; University of Poona.; Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit.Type: Marathi :  Book Publisher: Pune : Pune Vidyapitha, 1987-
 * 28.	Taittiriya-Samhita, Krsna-Yajurvedaby Kasinatha Sastri Agase"; Sayana.Type: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Poona : Ánandásrama Press, 1901.
 * 29.	Yajur Weda : weda sruti, mantra samhitaby Proyek Pembinaan Sarana Keagamaan Hindu (Indonesia)Type: Indonesian :  Book Publisher: Jakarta : Departemen Agama RI, Direktorat Jendral Bimbingan Masyarakat Hindu dan Buddha, Proyek Pembinaan Sarana Keagamaan Hindu, 1985-
 * 30.	A grammatical analysis of the Taittiriya-padapathaby Nirmala R KulkarniType: English :  Book Publisher: Delhi : Sri Satguru Publications, 1995.
 * 31.	Die Taittiriya-Samhita.Type: German :  Book Publisher: Leipzig, 1871-1872.
 * 32.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya Samhita : Vedarthadipikasahityamuby Ramavarapu Krsnamurtisastri; Divakarla VenkatavadhaniType: Telugu :  Book Publisher: Tirupati : Ti. Ti. Devasthanamulu, 1985-
 * 33.	The Veda of the Black Yajus School, entitled Taittiriya Sanhitaby Arthur Berriedale KeithType: English :  Book Publisher: Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass, 1967.
 * 34.	Taittiriya-Samhita, Krsna-Yajurvedaby Kasinatha Sastri Agase"; Sayana.Type:  Book Publisher: Poona : Ánandásrama Press, 1900.
 * 35.	The Sanhitá of the Black Yajur Veda : with the commentary of Mádhava Áchárya.by Mádhava Áchárya; Sayana; Asiatic Society of Bengal.Type:   Book Publisher: Calcutta, 1860-1899.
 * 36.	Sukla-Yajurvediya Kanva-samhita : padapathayuta : Sayanacarya-Anandabodha-viracitabhasyadvaya-sametaby Bellikoth Ramachandra Sharma; Sayana;  Anandabodha; Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Pune : Vaidika-Samsodhana-Mandalena, 1988-
 * 37.	Taittiriya-samhita-vaiyakarana-padasuci. A grammatical word-index to Taittiriya Samhita. Sa ca bhimadeva-Ramananda'maranatham nantariya-sahayya-bhaja Visvabandhuna sampadita.by Visvabandhu SastriType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Hosiarapuram, Visvesvarananda-Vaidika-Sodha-Samsthana, 1963.
 * 38.	Taittiriya-samhita-vaiyakarana-padasuci. A grammatical word index to Taittiriya Samhita.by Visvabandhu SastriType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: Hosiarapuram, Visvesvarananda-vaidika-sodha-samsthanam 1963.
 * 39.	The Baudhayana srauta sutra belonging to the Taittiriya samhita Baudhayanasrautasutramby Baudhayana.; W CalandType: Sanskrit :  Book :   Microform Publisher: Calcutta : Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1904-1913.
 * 40.	Sayana's upodghata to the Taittiriya samhita and the Rgveda samhita : introduction, English translation of the text and notesby Saraswati Bali; SayanaType: English :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Pratibha Prakashan, 1999.
 * 41.	The Baudhayana srauta sutra belonging to the Taittiriya samhita = Baudhayanasrautasutramby Baudhayana.; W CalandType: Sanskrit :  Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982.
 * 42.	Suklayajurvedakanvasamhita srisayanacaryaviracitabhasyasahita : 1 adhyayadarabhya 20 adhyayaparyantaby Sayanacarya; Madhava SastriType:  Book Publisher: Benares : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1915
 * 43.	A grammatical word-index to Taittiriya Samhita. --by Visvabandhu SastriType: English :  Book Publisher: Hoshiarpur : Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1963.

Double Standard
Here is where I see a double standard again. Western translations of the Qu'ran, for instance, take the concept of Jihad to mean literal war, even the Arabic can be translated as "literal war". nonetheless, the Pikthall and Yusuf Ali translations "circumlocute" it to mean "personal inner spiritual quest" and the latter is given credence over the former "because Muslim renditions carry precedence over non-Muslim ones" (Pikthall and Yusuf Ali were both Muslims) yet this doesn't seem to apply to you people here, which is why there is a double standard that leads me to question your objectivity. If you have any objections then shall I take this to a medcab? Rumpelstiltskin223 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you are sadly mistaken, jihad by no means means "literal war", the literal meaning is generic "struggle". If you want to make contributions to the topic of Arabic philology, I suggest you comment on Talk:Jihad. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and "semen" by no means always refers to "spermatozoa" in Sanskrit. It can also mean "strength" in the figurative sense. Same principles at work. I mean, the Mahabharata says Kunti had sex with the sun. If we are to take it literally, that would mean she had sex with a ball of exploding gas millions of kilometers in diameter, which is physically impossible (she wouldn't be able to spread her legs that far apart, for one). One must make this clear.Rumpelstiltskin223 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please produce a vedic passage where retas means '"strength" in the figurative sense'. There are figurative uses in the RV, for example, but "strength" is not the connotation in any of them.  They have to do with retas being something that flows, and at that, flows beneficially. So, it isn't "spermatazoa", but "semen". rudra 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it wherever you like, but the fact remains that your tendency to compare an article on one subject to one on a totally different one is not helpful. We can't edit this article on the basis of what some other article on the Qu'ran says. This is not some tit for tat war between Islam and Hinduism. It is for editors with an interest in translations of the Qu'ran to debate the merits of different meanings of "jihad". It has no place here. You have provided no evidence whatever that any translations are motivated by a desire to denigrate Hinduism. This claim has been repeatedly made with no evidence ever provided. In fact the evidence is the opposite. English language translations played down the "embarrassing" aspects of the sacrifice. Keith's translation contains some discussion of the sexual meaning of the language in his footnotes. Other Western sanskritists discuss it in scholarly commentary dating back to the late nineteenth century. Thjere is a detailed French book on the subject from the 1920s that I read a year or so ago, but I can't call to mind the title at the moment. Kak - who you referered to in an earlier comment - does not even deny the meaning of the language. He just claims that the use of the diminutive of ashva might possibly imply a toy horse (though how you can kill a toy horse is unexplained). Paul B 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you just admitted to a double standard. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You simply don't get it do you? We can't edit this article on the basis of interpreations of a totally unrelated word in a totally unrelated language. I don't think you even grasp the concept of double standard. BTW, I was thinking of Dumont's l'Asvamedha. Paul B 12:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a precise reference? Plus, is there an English translation? I do not know how to read French. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dumont, P.E. Description du sacrifice solennel du cheval dans le culte vedique d'apres les textes du Yajurveda blanc, Paris: Paul Guenther, 1927. There are also many articles in journals devoted to religion, but that are scattered. I remember one in in History of Religion about a reference to a four-eyed dog. Paul B 13:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is unwise to change an article based on the suggestions of one person, it is equally unreasonable to base an entire article on comments of a few people. This cannot be considered a tit for tat argument between this article is concerning a hindu ritual, he however has a point that to speak of a certain ritual that is rarely practised based on translations of a few occidentals cannot be validated who majorly base it on the school of sayana, having failed to consider the important role nirukta plays in rgveda which monier noted to a greater degree than muller. On the other hand the odds in favour of jihad as war is greater than ashvamedha as a mock coitus. Mahabharata is recorded to have a mere 10,000 verses at time of king bhoja, but now it is bloated to over 75,000 verses making it the longest epic in the world. Ramayana also remains troublesome for the mention of pahlavis, sakas, etc.. which is absent in the other five kandas made many historians conclude there are interpolations in this part of the scripture. Nor does kak claim for it to be a diminuitive horse baseless, I'd say you're showing your narrow-mindedness here for the ritual speaks of 'ashvaka' and not 'ashva' which makes plentiful difference; the appendix of '-ka' makes enough difference of distinguishing forest-dweller from a forest. It also remains a point of contention as to how accurate his translations are, for instance gambhirambas can be translated as deep waters or creative energy in nasadiya sukta which griffith conveniently translates as waters even though latter western interpretors rejected it. You claims of killing a toy horse are also valid because it has always remained a topic of heated discussion as to whether the horse is killed at the end of the ritual or no. On the other I fail to understand how a toy horse can be less realistic than tying 609 wild and tame animals. Care to explain? Leafy 12:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * your fallacy is the "translations of a few occidentals". It doesn't matter how many translations were made, what matters is the academic notability of these translations. We base our article on opinions of Sanskrit philologists publishing in academic fashion, occidental vs. oriental doesn't enter into it. dab (𒁳) 15:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is as to how you judge this "academic notability", nor is this question of occidental vs oriental but it is about original research versus accepted systems of interpretation. The language itself being polysemous, employment of it is not to be done based on how 'academically brilliant he is' but in a manner that is actually consistent. If the article were to be indeed based on sanskrit philologists then there are many philologists who contend against these interpretations. Try SAKSI for example, who explain some interesting aspects of the way the vedas were translated, such as 'aja' means unborn, translated as goat... Fallacy comes from your own statements, occidentals had trouble cognising oriental mysticism and many other aspects of them, to jump into interpretations of scriptures before that cannot be entertained, especially when we're talking about translations that are over century-old. Griffith himself rejected many parts of his interpretations, shows that they were much more open to altering their suggestions than we tend to be now. Leafy 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fathom what you are saying. The ritual is described at length. It lasts for a year, during which the horse wanders where it may. Even the Epics clearly describe physical sacrifice. It's not unrealistic to tie 609 wild and tame animals in a very large royal ceremony. Are you aware of how many animals were often used in Roman ampitheatres? The Kak reference is a thowaway comment in a blog.Paul B 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amphitheatres deal with demonstrations, here we're talking about tying down 609 wild and tame animals to one horse. Don't say epics, mahabharata is an exemplary victim of interpolations that surpass the number of authentic verses itself. Even then, both of the epics are not consistent in the description of the sacrifice. Ramayana's bala kanda and uttara kanda [former interpolated, latter fabricated, this is accepted by mainstream historians alike] describe the sacrifice in varying fashions. Clearly describe...? Flying away like a bird somehow is crystal clear to you, is it not? The horse wanders for an year altogether, after which it is released - this release is suggested as killing by some, freeing by others. Leafy 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No we aren't. There's nothing about tying 609 animals to the horse. Most of those are separate sacrifices. I was talking about what the Epics describe. Whether or not these are interpolations is irrelevant unless you believe some original author knew the "truth", so that later additions are somehow not "really" part of the poem (in what sense is the uttara kanda "fabricated"? All texts are "fabricated"). Even then it's rather beside the point since we are simply talking about what they describe. Paul B 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether they're seperate sacrifices or no we're still talking about animals about to be sacrificed to a horse. Unless you're suggesting the interpreter knew some "truth", the translations try their best to ignore any mystical chances of interpretation. How is uttara kanda fabricated? It wasn't part of ramayana, it was added on later. The rest of ramayana pertains to a more ancient date. That's how. The problem here is, we're not talking about what they describe, we've got no clear idea of what it says first off, nor is rejecting suggestions by other authors based on allegations of propaganda going to help you know the truth - unless of course, you suggest they were closest to it. None of the authors came to the conclusions without base developed from other scriptures.


 * the horse wanders for an year altogether, after which it is released - this release is suggested as killing by some, freeing by others. &mdash; -- interesting, feel free to actually provide some source for this. Yet others take the "horse" to be Prana and what not, that's covered under "Vedanta". dab (𒁳) 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But I'm not talking about vedanta, nor is there evidence to enough evidence to suggest sacrifice of the horse in the first place. ramayana doesn't speak of horse being killed, mahabharata does. No one's talking about vedanta, but if you reject upanishads on same basis I fail to see on what basis you're ready to accept puraanas and epics. Leafy 10:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources and citations
They are not perfect, they are not reliable. Unless the contributors are able to present the online sources or the ISBN numbers of the books they cite, they cannot be included in the article. Please try cleaning up the page. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is "they"? What are not perfect or reliable? What "online souces or ISBN numbers" of what books are you talking about? Please explain yourself more clearly. Paul B 13:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the header. Sources and citations. The books you have cited should have ISBN numbers for verifiability of it's contents. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see the header, but you haven't answered the question. We don't need ISBN numbers for all books. 19th century books don't even have ISBN numbers. Paul B 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They have ISBN number now dont they? Their revised editions, atleast. Leafy 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if there are post-1960s reprints. This is all really rather unimportant. Anyone can check that the books exist by looking in a catalogue. Paul B 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RSPP reverted one of my edits, here's my rationale for it
From WP:RS
 * Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.


 * Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media.


 * When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. In case you were referring to this, you have not pointed out if they have published their work elsewhere. Sulekha.com looks like an advocacy website which does not have any place on this encyclopedia. Kindly revert yourself. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223, the "disputed" tag was used improperly. Either ask for sources for specific statements you object to, or present your own sources for alternative views you want to have included. Since this is a topic of philology, only academic sources need be considered, blogs and pamphlets qualify at best as primary sources illustrating "modern anxieties" (the existence of which is undisputed). dab (𒁳) 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a mistake there, Kak is well known for his research upon vedas having found relation between astronomy and vedic altars, and is academically recognised in more than one field. Were this topic detailing philology what he posted would have MOST significant importance, considering the fact that it says 'ashvaKA' and not ashva. Leafy 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kak is well known for producing nonsense as if his life depended on it. Provide an academic review of his "rigvedic astronomy", please? dab (𒁳) 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to him, the universe is recognised as a geo-centric system with the sun closest to earth, the heavens are identified as being above the sun. Agni, Vayu, Aditya are traditionally identified with the earth, sky, sun; the rituals map some of the constellational movements etc... - He's not being a propagandist, highlighting many flaws of vedic astronomy in many a places. Leafy 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I own the book, yes. he collects a lot of useful information on altar construction. His conclusions are still loony, at least in part. Be that as it may, I was asking if there is any academic review of the opus. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't read your lines properly. No, none that I know of. However I don't understand why his idea shouldn't be included. Agreed his conclusions are loony, however we're not here to conclude about his insanity as you claim, nor are we here to keep in mind views of outdated interpretations, there is no reason to keep his views away on basis of personal claims of bigotry or the like. Leafy 11:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there is no academic review of Kak's stuff. For the same reason that there may never be.  Crackpots usually have to be prolific in order to be worthy of attention of any kind. rudra 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"alleged bestiality"
Sir Nicholas, nobody "alleges" actual bestiality. To begin with, the horse is dead, which would pose a technical problem. Then, we merely have "mimic copulation with" in the "Vedic sacrifice" paragraph, per Griffith. No source alleging actual bestiality was presented. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question of horse dying first off itself is put in question, let alone the rest. Leafy 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * is put in question by whom? Not by the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, apparently, nor the Shatapatha Brahmana. It may be "put in question" by Shriram Sharma Acharya for all I know, but you'll have to provide references for that. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question was put forth in certain upanisads, can't retrace the names, nor does shatapatha brahmana speak of the animal being killed. Shriram Sharma Acarya, Aurobindo, David Frawley - although you may allege indophilia, they have their point. Satapatha Brahmana speaks of it? Citations please? I'm surprised you make a quotation from puraanas which belong to post-tantrik times. Leafy 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, brharanyaka upanisad, one of the most ancient upanishads, speaks of the ritual at an esoteric level. Oh by the way, as for the whole fuss about Kak's thing being posted in a blog, its written in his book called "Ashvamedha: The Rite and Logic" so the edit pertaining kak can be fully reverted I guess. Leafy 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Some polemics regarding ashvamedha by SAKSI http://www.vedah.com/org2/literature/yajur_veda/ashvamedha.html Aurobindo was particularly right at one point, that the translators back then ignored the chances of ambiguity and resorted to materialistic interpretations, when the case can be otherwise. Vedic Sanskrit was rigid, at the same more subjective and polysemous than modern sanskrit. Secondly, if it were regarding allusions by griffith regarding any presence of mimic copulation in the vedic sacrifice shouldn't it be better kept away in the 'views' or likewise section, and allow comments from upanishads etc.. into the main article? Brhadarayanka's chapter I, Markandeya Puraana[I can't remember where, but it is kept at an earlier period] also speaks of ashvamedha as being esoteric, along with many other such scriptures of ancient times. Leafy 10:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sun
I finally found the source of the "Ashvamedha=Sun" idea. It's in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, part of the "Death as a horse" creation myth. It would be helpful if people interested in the allegorical interpretation would help out searching the primary texts instead of just generically bickering. dab (𒁳) 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The last time I made an edit to the footnote, it was reverted on accusations of fundamentalism. With the presence such aversion towards any changes, I'd not comment until there is some unanimity of thought in this thread. Leafy 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just perused item 22 above. I know exactly how you feel. It is sad.Kanchanamala 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Griffith
This statement: Griffith (1899) omits verses VSM 23.20–31 (the ritual obscenities), protesting that they are "not reproducible even in the semi-obscurity of a learned European language" (alluding to other instances where he renders explicit scenes in Latin rather than English).
 * Where is the source for it? Rumpelstiltskin223 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Griffith (1899)? dab (𒁳) 07:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement: Griffith (1899) omits verses VSM 23.20–31 (the ritual obscenities), protesting that they are "not reproducible even in the semi-obscurity of a learned European language" (alluding to other instances where he renders explicit scenes in Latin rather than English).
 * Where is the source for it? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Griffith, The Texts of the White Yajurveda. Translated with a Popular Commentary (1899). dab (𒁳) 07:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.I will see if I can get it. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rumpelstiltskin, what do you want? That reference has been in the article since the beginning. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just doing some fact checking.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keith
This statement
 * A. B. Keith's 1914 translation also omits verses, with the following citation
 * Keith, Arthur Berridale (trans), The Veda of the black Yajus school entitled Taittiriya sanhita, Oxford, 1914, pp. 615-16
 * Notice Page 615-616. If you are talking about this work by Keith, He does not omit the reference but refers to "Soma" or "seed" of the horse so there is no omission but figurative interpretation. Exactly what is he "omitting"? or did you mean proofreading? Rumpelstiltskin223 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the source for what? Are you suggesting that he does not omit the verses? Have you even seen a copy of Keith's translation? Paul B 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. The google books link is shown above. Why didn't he "Omit" the Soma verse? You have not answered my first question so I will repeat.
 * the google books link has "no preview available". I had the 1914 publication in front of me when I wrote this. Maybe you mean the 1967 Motilal Baranasidass reprint? At least the 1987 Munshiram Manoharlal reprint of Griffith has been known to insert absolutely fantastic home-grown "translations" where Griffith had refused to translate (for some reason not omitting his protest that it is 'irreproducible', resulting in a somewhat surreal effect). dab (𒁳) 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? That's strange because the google books link works well for me. I can even download the pdf. The About page says: "The Veda of the Black Yajus School: Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita ... By Arthur Berriedale Keith Published 1914 The Harvard university press"
 * The contents of Page 615:
 * The sun moveth alone, the moon is born again.Fire is the remedy for the cold.Earth is the great enveloper.I ask thee of the furthest end of the earth.I ask thee of the navel of the world.I ask thee of the seed of the strong horse.I ask thee of the speech's highest realm.They call the altar ground the furthest end of the earth. They call the sacrifice the navel of the world.They call Soma the seed of the strong horse.They call the Brahman the highest realm of speech.O Amba, O Ambika O Ambalika. No one leadest me. The wicked horse is sleeping.O fair one, clad in fair raiment, in the world of heaven be ye to covered.
 * A footnote says that the queen lies down beside the horse for fertility. I don't see any "omission" unless you'd like to fill in any "lines". Assuming no omission occurred there is nothing that explicitly states mock bestiality or necrophilia taking place. If you can establish an omission with verification that the "non-omitted version" legitimate in this particular case then we have some progress. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The contents of Page 616 are below:
 * When the deer eateth grain, he deemeth not his flock fat. When the Cudra woman is the loved of the Aryan, she seeketh not wealth for prosperity. Dadhikravan I have sung, the swift strong horse, May he make our mouths fragrant.May he lengthen our days,Ye waters are healing,Further us to strength,To see great joy,the most auspicious flavour that is yours,according to us here. Like eager mothers,to him may we come with satisfaction,to whose dwelling ye quicken us.Bhuh, Bhuvah, Swahaa (that's the start of the Gayatri Mantra I guess). There is a footnote that says "The next verses are hardly translatable see Eggeling SBE XIV 323 seq.The Sutras recognize the obscenity of the passage:the queen is reluctant and complains". The footnote is puzzling. Does he admit to omitting passages because he can't translate them, or is he so repelled by the contents that he doesn't want to? What is Eggeling SBE XIV 323 seq? Is that a reference? Why does he reference to justify that he doesn't want to translate it? Does that mean that this Eggeling bloke did translate it? Please explain. It's all rather obscurantist.Rumpelstiltskin223 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, yes, wait a minute, that's the "no one leadest me" thing; I think I was mistaken, I had not seen that book myself. SBE is Sacred Books of the East. Eggeling translated the Shatapathabrahmana, but not in vol. XIV. Are you sure that didn't read XLI instead? I have the impression you are looking at an Indian reprint that inserted random gibberish for the parts left blank, but I'm not sure (I still cannot see the pdf). Are you looking at the actual 1914 Harvard university press book, or at the 1967 Motilal Banarsidass reprint? dab (𒁳) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Vol XLIV of the SBE. Eggeling has partial translations of VSM 23.20-31, but that's because the ŚBM itself only quotes partially.  Even so, Eggeling leaves words like am.hubhedi (VSM 23.28) and lalāmagu (VSM 23.29) untranslated in the English text :-) rudra 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And Eggeling also uses ellipsis ("...") in 13.5.2.2 to leave this part untranslated: nirāyatyāśvasya śiśnaṃ mahiṣy upasthe nidhatte, for what the queen does before, in Eggeling's words, "'May the vigorous male, the layer of seed, lay seed!' she says, for completeness of union" (mithunasyaiva sarvatvāya). So the ŚBM doesn't leave much to the imagination either, though the exact import of nidhatte is debatable.  rudra 07:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rumpelstiltskin: 'Eggeling XLIV 323 seq' is a reference to the translation of ŚBM 13.2.8.5 onwards, which can be found online.  Keith left the equivalent passages of TS untranslated, presumably because he thought them not worth rendering in view of their acknowledged obscenity.  If you look closely at his translation, you'll find that the verses are marked with letters, a,b,c, so on, and there are gaps in the sequence. rudra 08:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the about page clearly says "Original from Harvard University". No mention of Motilal. Nonetheless, isn't the claim that all Indian versions deliberately insert gibberish "part of the discourse of conspiracism" as Chip Berlet would put it?Rumpelstiltskin223 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * no, no, take it easy. I just happen to have such a reprint with gibberish inserted, but that's Munshiram Manoharlal (see above). Motilal Baranasidass as a rule do a very good job. It appears that the shoddiness is entirely on the part of Keith ("no one leadest" isn't even English, for godssake!). I would still like to know why I cannot see that pdf and you can. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "no one leadest" sounds like some sort of Jacobean-type English or something,spoken by British upper-classes in 19th century also, so could still be ok since this book is very old. Anyways, I don't know why you can't see the text. Ask somebody else like Paul Barlow if he can. I certainly can see both the scanned image forms and the downloaded pdf quite well. If you think that the Keith translation is "shoddy" then what grounds to keep it in the article?Rumpelstiltskin223 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * no, that would be no one leadeth, and thou leadest, *not* no one leadest, as we've discussed before. we do not have the Keith translation in the article, all we are saying is he omits some verses, which is probably a reference to the footnote you mentioned. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but what is it that he omitted and does it have anything to do with the allegations of bestiality/necrophilia? I do not understand what Keith means in his footnote as his arcane English is confusing to me.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have this, which isn't a scan, but gives the text as you gave it, including {...several verses omitted from original translation...}. I remember now that this is what we based the bit in the article on. "no one leadest me" translates na maa nayati kash cana, which is exceedingly strange; if it was na maa nayasi I could understand it as an attempt to render an incoherent original, but na maa nayati straightforwardly means "no one leadeth me". The omitted bit is na maa yabhati kash cana (4.19.2.2h) "no one is fucking me". See the discussion above right on this page, one section is even titled "the Keith translation". dab (𒁳) 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does na maa yabhati kash cana suggest Bestiality or Necrophilia? She could be referring to her husband/lover here, and not the horse. She could be lamenting that she is away from her husband and so can't be sexually satisfied, pointedly suggesting that there was no sex involved (else she'd be presumed to be expectantly happy and not lamenting). If she is saying this to solicit sex from the dead horse (in on itself, fairly nonsensical as the damn beast is dead) Does the full verse keep the horse explicitly as the subject? That is the question. The fact that the Brits omitted it could have more to do with British prudery concerning sex and religion in general (at an all time high during Victorian times) rather than a response to the belief that it depicts bestiality or necrophilia. If that is how Ambedkar interpreted it then we should attribute it to HIS interpretation (probably deliberately done so by Ambedkar to denigrate Hindus, given his bigotry against them).Rumpelstiltskin223 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rumpelstiltskin, you are being silly now. She is about to spend the night with the dead horse as if with a husband and is taunting the horse for being inactive (as in dead). This isn't some isolated mantra, there is context. No, this isn't Ambedkar's idea, it is perfectly evident from the context, and every translator had no way around it short of dropping the entire passage. Or do you think the "Brits" omitted every passage referring to copulation in the Vedas? Nonsense. They may have resorted to Latin sometimes ('futuere'), but they were perfectly used to the uninhibited references to (human) copulation in Vedic texts. I am sorry, but if you're going to do "a little fact checking", I suggest you do that without letting us participate in every thought that crosses your mind, this isn't what talkpages are for. No-one is denigrating Hindus, for crying out loud, this is a ritual of Vedic religion, and nobody alleges this is being practiced anywhere. It was only ever practiced by kings anyway, and not for 300 years now. It has nothing to do with contemporary Hinduism, alright? That doesn't change the fact that the TS text (1000 BCE) concerning the 'mock' (not actual, not even back then) bestiality is plain as day. Yes, Ambedkar may have used it for his anti-Hindu agenda. That's Ambedkar's problem. By accepting the ritual is smearing Hinduism you are really taking Ambedkar's side. That the whole thing is in any way 'denigrating' anyone is just an opinion, an anti-Hindu or anti-Vedic opinion if you like, and not one I personally hold, and not one our article is advertising in any way, so I really don't see your problem. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the Ambedkar bit should specify that Ambedkar was motivated by his prejudices against Hindus ("Context", remember?). I will discuss Ambedkar later. Right now I am concerned with this "na maa Bhavati Kash Kana" line, which you say immediately proves actual mock bestiality. ASSUMING that this line actually exists in the Yajurveda and is not some sort of missionary propaganda tactic (which I suspect it is, but I'll have to find evidence and I will look) and assuming it even involves sex (I will have to look at the unabridged sanskrit version and translate it myself, which I have not done in a while, but I can and break it down shabda-by-shabda, dhatoo-by-dhatoo) then the article should reflect the detail that she laments that the horse (symbolizing masculinity) is not "making love to her" but that there is no evidence to suggest a literal sex act (else there'd be a line in the Yajurveda that said "O joy, I just fucked a horse, wot fun"), all that is inferred by partisan readers who automatically assumed that a literal sex act was afoot.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me ammend some of my sentences above. I admit that all this is implied by the statement "mock bestiality" and "mimic copulation" but the implication is cursory and not specific enough. I feel that, ASSUMING that we can establish this "kash kana" bit as genuine based on the Griffiths book (which I will get as sonn as I can} and any other rendition of the Yajurveda which actually contains this supposed line, then it should be explained in detail what it means etc. Right now, the phrase "mock bestiality" and "Mimic copulation" is vague and misleading as it still suggests some sort of masturbatory act or something, instead of PRETENDING to make love or imagining that the horse is making love to the queen. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you got it, that's what's in the TS/VS text.And it isn't bhavati, its yabhati. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. Then I suggest that we distill this discussion down to the salient points and include them in the article to make sure that the average reader does not misunderstand. Is that acceptable? Rumpelstiltskin223 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keith omits verses. I wrote the footnote and I had the book in front of me when I did so. Paul B 11:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'kay, but is it germane to the issue of bestiality? What does his wierd footnote mean? Is it proper to justapose this statement after Griffiths Victorian moralizing, suggesting that Keith did the same? These are the questions. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one alleges that it is being practised anywhere, then it should be mentioned that this is a rite of the Historical Vedic religion and not observed in Hinduism. This should be mentioned in the "Vedanta and modern Hinduism section".
 * that's why the section is called "Ze bleeding VEDIC sacrifice". See the "modern Hinduism" section if you are interested in modern Hinduism, where the discussion is entirely on mystical and allegoric interpretations. It is getting difficult for me to assume good faith here. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you here at all. I agree that these statements are there. I'm just saying that they are in convenient out-of-the-way parts of the article that the average reader might miss and/or misinterpret and some rewording and expansion is necessary. The material hashed out from the references in this discussion should be explained in the article in the same way that you yourself did above. I should think that you would be pleased to have that done. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The google link does not have a PDF of Keith's text attached as far as I can see. There is one of some pages from Griffith's Samaveda. That's all. The full text of Keith's Yajurveda is at Sacredtexts.com, but much of the scholarly apparatus found in the printed version in missing. Paul B 12:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the scanned image link in full: http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04084512&id=1X-rqpWLk30C&pg=RA1-PA1&lpg=RA1-PA1&dq=The+Veda+of+the+black+Yajus+school+entitled+Taittiriya+sanhita#PPP11,M1 This is the pdf link in full: http://books.google.com/books/pdf/The_Veda_of_the_Black_Yajus_School.pdf?vid=OCLC04084512&id=1X-rqpWLk30C&output=pdf&sig=5tbCp_qPS4RJEttWU6WcTx8pPzQ
 * As you can see from the link text, it's Keith, not Griffith and it's The book as cited in the article (that's where I quoted the above passages from). Here is more information from the about page:

The Veda of the Black Yajus School: Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita By Arthur Berriedale Keith

By Arthur Berriedale Keith

Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith

Published 1914

The Harvard university press

Original from Harvard University

Digitized Aug 17, 2005

This is the full link tot he about page:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04084512&id=1X-rqpWLk30C&dq=The+Veda+of+the+black+Yajus+school+entitled+Taittiriya+sanhita

Rumpelstiltskin223 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashwamedha and anti-Hinduism

 * By the way, you are aware that the hate website Dalitstan had long and lengthy articles on Ashwamedha and mininterpreted it to denigrate Hindus, right? I saw one when they were still online. There should be a section titled "Ashwamedha and anti-Hinduism" where these things should be said. Also, I believe that the same is true for Lashkar-e-Toiba's anti-Hindu propaganda book "Hinduon ki Haqeeqat" (condemned by US Congress as hate literature) but I will have to recheck that. Also, academics in the US are alleged to spread myths concerning Ashwamedha and pretty much do the same deed as Dalitstan did.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an article about this . This can be added to the wikipedia page as a reference for anti-Hindu bigotry aggrandized by deliberately misinterpreting Ashwamedha or misrepresenting it's importance in modern Hinduism. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't really matter what the allegations are and not, cuz we have to think secular and act unbiased when it comes to understanding the scriptures. Sun is mentioned as being seperated by earth by a thousand 'go' - is it cow or earths, for the word means both? Greeks also considered heavens to be 1000 earths away, so it more likely meant earths. Leafy 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point. My view is that there shuld be a section where the anti-Hindu prejudices associated with Ashwamedha should be catalogued unbiasedly, just like there is a section Talmud. There should be a article explaining how some have misinterpreted Ashwamedha to spread bigotries against Hindus. There appears to be sufficiently notable incidents of this to deserve a section here, that's all. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that. Lets first concentrate on getting the disputes regarding ashvamedha ironed out first... Leafy 11:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * we have such a section. It's the anxieties one that people keep renaming. See below. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about content concerning some subsections, but the content going into what is claimed to be most authentic translations of ashvamedha. Leafy 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Leafy lad, who's the "freak"! Paul B 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Shyena, Golden Member of Arya Samaj. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it not clear enough? Earlier you were keeping totally bigoted views of completely rejecting without any attempts of trying to accept suggestions, so naturally we know who the "freak" is. Golden Member? On basis of posts. I get into frequent arguments with their likes which you perhaps didn't notice... Leafy 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, great job figuring that out. I was surprised you didn't come across that when it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Leafy 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly did you wish to conclude by bringing up a topic that is neither anymore consistent with my views (which doesn't really matter) or is it a turn of personal attacks now that you're unable to support your views? Leafy 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * wait a minute, you call us 'freaks' and somehow construe this into a personal attack on our part against you? you would make corporate lawyers blush, laddie. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't seem clear to you, let me clear up a few things - first when I edited that thing about devi chand, there was this whole fuss created about it being to 'conceal propaganda' or whatever. Followed by it was me trying to fix a bit of the itihaasic verses, take the ramayana's verse - which speaks of the horse flying away like a parrot, which was again constantly being reverted. Coupled with it was wrong verse notations and Paul Barlow's whole prejudiced impression that the author was struggling his best to apply euphemism and stuff, I'd naturally call the other a freak. On the other hand, I call anyone a freak who disagrees with me on the slightest issue, not to forget the forum we're dealing with is a religious forum and bringing up something happening elsewhere on the internet into the debate for WHAT reason I dont understand, is not clear to me. I dont care what you talk about me in some other forum, nor do I see how my personal views have to concern this debate; internet is called free speech and you know that well. If it be concerning my behaviour, I suggest you better post it in my talk page. So what does that have to do with this debate? Yea I'd make the lawyers blush, cuz I dont bring up unrelated personal views of some person into another discussion. Leafy 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, I can call you freak or anyone for that matter and you can put up an anti-shyena/leafy website but to bring it up in the talk page discussions is useless. Leafy 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote...
I've found translation of some verses of yajurveda: Some translations I usually encounter regarding ashvamedha... "All wife of the host reciting three mantras go round the horse. While praying, they say: 'O horse, you are, protector of the community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'" - Yajur Veda 23/19.

"O Horse, I extract the semen worth conception and you release the semen worth conception'" - Yajur Veda 23/20.

"This horse may release semen in me." -Yajur Veda 23/20.

"O horse, please throw semen on the upper part of the anus of my wife. Expand your penis and insert it in the vagina because after insertion, this penis makes women happy and lively" - Yajur Veda 23/21.

Translations of Griffith I found on the net: 19. You we invoke, troop-lord of troops. You we invoke, the loved one's lord. You, lord of treasures, we invoke. My precious wealth!

20. Both the priest and the Yajamana extend the four-fold Dharma and thrive in the heavens. Let the strongmen inculcate prowess.

21. O represser of foes! Punish those who are paramour of women to maintain law and order in society.

Leafy 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What are the original Sanskrit lines that this is supposed to correspond to? Rumpelstiltskin223 10:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the 19~21 verses from here. Its of shukla yajurveda, vajasaneyi samhita. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcd/ind/aind/ved/yvw/vs/vs023.htm Leafy 11:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well 23/20 seems to transliterate as follows:
 * "Ta Ubhau Chaturaha Padaha Samparr Saryaav Svarge loke Prarnuvatham Vrisha vaji raitodha raito dadhatoo"
 * Something about four feet and heaven? Where's the horse?Could you break it down for me? My Sanskrit is not what is used to be.
 * 23/21 transliterates as:
 * "Utsakthya Ava Gunda Drahisamijicharyaa vrishan. Ya Satrinaam Jeevabhojanah"
 * Break it down?
 * Rumpelstiltskin223 11:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it's the VS text. The original is posted, on this very page, above. This isn't a Sanskrit lecture course, Rumpelstiltskin, if you are interested in breaking it down, do your own homework. This appears to be a home-grown translation handed around on the internet, and as such we cannot refer to it. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not ask you. I asked Leafy. Let him decide if he wants to or not. He can do it in my talk page if it bothers you. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

it's alright. here are the verses: VS.23.20.a: taa/ ubha/u catu/ra.h pada/.h sampra/ saarayaava svarge/ loke/ pro/r.nuvaathaa.m v.r/.saa vaajii/ retodhaa/ re/to dadhaatu \\ VS.23.21.a: u/tsakthyaa a/va guda/.m dhehi sa/m a~nji/.m caarayaa v.r.san \ VS.23.21.b: ya/ strii.naa/.m jiivabho/jana.h \\ I don't know about "semen worth conception". "retodhaa reto dadhatu" means "o giver of semen, give semen!", please, we've discussed this above, it isn't even archived yet. dab (𒁳) 11:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the breakdown.I always thought "retam" had the same meaning as "nutfah" did in Arabic (literally semen but mostly used to mean masculinity in the abstract than literally semen) but anyway. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I try not to comment about vedic sanskrit as my views regarding it vary, an extra tip for dab - from those of arya samajists as well. Anyway, the quotations were from the book "Yajur Veda Samhita" by Griffith (ISBN: 81-7110-136-0). Leafy 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Griffith's translation has long served its purpose. It is high time that it is laid to rest in an archive.Kanchanamala 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS
Was reading the guidelines, and noticed two significant points:

[i]In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.[/i]

[i]Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.[/i]

This gives all the more reason to put vedantic and upanishadic views in the main section and importance to the interpretations by westerners. Ashvamedha is not a topic of academic research, it is and remains a religious ritual.. Leafy 11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * um, yes? that's why we have a "modern Hinduism" section? Where we cite akhandjyoti.org "All World Gayatri Pariwar" and things? There is no "main" section, there is a section on the historical Vedic sacrifice, and one on Upanishadic references as well as modern Hinduism. If you add more material on modern interpretations, we can even do an Ashvamedha in Advaita philosophy. That's not my field of interest, but if you're willing to actually to work on this, be my guest. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why then, is western interpretations kept in the main section - by which I mean the enormous space dedicated to the section called 'vedic sacrifice'?

Ignoring some aspects of the debate concerning the interpretations? Upanisads are much nearer to the period of vedas, and AWGP seeks support for some of it. The mock ritual is placed under debate, it should then be better kept in a subsection labelled mock coitus. The horse may or may not be killed, that is not much of my concern. What bothers me is as to why the interpretations of griffith are placed in such highlight, even if some aspects of it do not seem to be accepted to the same degree by the interpreters themselves, nor is there much hint provided in the section of whether the interpretation is the correct one or not - but the reader would assume it to be the actual one. What proof exactly lies that this is closer to the original?


 * On the other hand it is much more helpful to dedicate subsection concerning ashvamedha in ramayana then - where the ritual is explained in a totally different fashion, with the three wives stabbing a knife into the horse[not already sacrificed] after having 300 animals (not 609) sacrificed (tied to individual posts) to incur progeny [not for conquest, although in uttara kanda it is explained as otherwise]. As you're well concerned with this article, why not make complete dissection of the article concerning the various interpretations? There is no reason to contend that interpreters were actually interpreting the ashvamedha 'as it is' for I can't recollect if any verse of satapatha brahmana actually pinpoints to the killing of the animal as is described. Regarding this issue, the whole debate about sacrificing of animal - also comes into the point regarding consensus. Leafy 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What does the description in the Ramayana have to do with the description of the vedic ritual? (For instance, 300 animals instead of 609, as enumerated in VSM 24: are you claiming that a later kāvya text is more authoritative than an earlier samhita text as to the details of a proper performance?)  As for the Shatapatha Brahmana, it describes the aśvasya śāsaḥ as hiraṇmayaḥ (13.2.2.16) ; and the actual killing is described with the verb sam.jñapayanti in 13.2.8.1 and then glossed with ghnanti in 13.2.8.2.  Your memory of the ŚB seems defective.  rudra 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Vedic" section is detailed because I have invested time in it. The "Advaita" section is meagre to nonexistent because nobody bothered to invest time in it. I don't care if the scholars cited in discussion of the Vedic section are "western" or "eastern" as long as they publish their opinions in professional Indological literature as opposed to some blog or some cheesy amateurish opus. There is no reasonable doubt that the Vedic sacrifice was an animal sacrifice. Fabrications to the contrary are propaganda piped onto the internet for political reasons and have nothing to do with Vedic scholarship. If I am wrong in this, no problem, cite some scholarly article that says otherwise. Until you have such an article to cite, you'd do well to just drop it. The Vedic discussion still largely relies on Griffith because you still haven't cited alternative scholarly views, you just keep insinuating there is some sort of dispute. Have I mentioned yet that you should cite your source? In fact, I think this debate is pointless until you come up with some sources. I guess WP:RS tells us that unless you may show some "RS" that confirms that there is some dispute, no amount of hand-waving on talk will make up for it. Saying things like "The mock ritual is placed under debate" or "I can't recollect if any verse of satapatha brahmana" are not helpful. And "Ashvamedha is not a topic of academic research" is just pure BS, of course it is a religious ritual, a historical one, and the only thing available to Wikipedia, since king Samudragupta I doesn't have a personal homepage, is academic research. What else? Blogs? Wikipedia strawpolls? Give us a break and come back when you have some academic source to show around. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're pissed off cuz you invested time in it, and when opposed you do not wish to accept suggestions that run otherwise. Or is it because, since samudragupta doesn't have a personal homepage, you somehow found his secret diary I guess in which he declares it to be academic research and therefore conclude it to be so. Or are you actually it was never a religious ceremony? Who exactly gave you the right to conclude it is not majorly a religious ritual? The problem is that by 'academic' it always refers to western style of interpretation which is often decried upon for being not completely compatible with oriental style of thinking and therefore requires reconciliation. I've already quoted some sources which question the authenticity of such translations, and the ritual was - as you quoted yourself - even after being "condemned in kali yuga", performed by samudragupta. So much for seeking support from a puraana, when the more ancient upanishads are there. Are you claiming that, as research by aforementioned figures is what western scholarship of sanskrit is based upon, we can consider their interpretations to be academically accurate? Nor are your claims valid - dayananda comes from the school called sarasvati dandi panth, which has roots ancient enough. It was no 1875 reformer, it predates that. which is intensely based upon nairukta school of interpretation. Aurobindo's interpretations on the other hand were mainly propogated by madhvaacharya of dvaita philosophy and is called parivrajaka school of interpretation. On the other hand the interpretations you speak of, are based in victorian times, back when religious bigotry was still extant, even if the scholars wished to be unbiased; where they relied upon the loose interpretations by sayanacharya of late times. Leafy 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you got it wrong, Mr. Golden Member of the Noble Society, I do not wish to accept suggestions unless they are from a reliable source. Nor do I have to, since this is Wikipedia policy. If that's a "western style of interpretation", tough, then so is the very concept of an encyclopedia, and per WP:ENC this is what we are here. You are perfectly free to open a devotional website to your taste anywhere else on the internet. I am not interested in Aurobindo or Dayananda. Peace to them, but how come it is still me who has to research their stuff? If you want to expand on their views, which are those of a religious reform movement, not academia, you are perfectly free to cover that in as much detail as you like. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The concept of lexicons and concise encyclopaedias was well extant in oriental cultures thank you, nor do the rules say anything about having it biased towards western interpretations as you seem to imply they should be. On the other hand you seem to be one of those narrow-minded persons who think anything opposing western interpretations HAS to be devotional! Max Muller was a vedantist and Griffith's translations run along the same lines, so dump them too ;) Of course we're not here to contend what is religious and what is not, but being a religious activity PLEASE SHOW ME WHY YOU CLAIM IT NOT TO BE A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY their views are to be held in light. Nor am I saying listen to them, but you asked for sources - those are your sources. When I show that its not sourced from those figures, you seem to understand the total opposite. Their interpretations have historical roots, so it doesn't come under "modern hinduism". Sayana's interpretations are an agglutinate of loose word-to-word interpretations of mantras at that times, which somehow are more academical to you. If you're really so concerned about academic research upon this, why dont you open up another wiki article, named Academic Research upon Ashvamedha? On the other hand have you noticed, this article falls under hinduism section - in other words A RELIGIOUS ARTICLE?? You can exhibit your academic knowledge some other place thank you, being a religious article it is not an exhibition ground of western scholarship. Leafy 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what on earth makes you think I claim it is not religious? It is purely religious. So what? Even our articles on religious topics are supposed to be encyclopedic. You, sir, are an Arya Samaj troll, as you admit yourself on the Arya Samaj forum, judging from your "avatar", an adolescent zealot, and further discussion is pointless. Do your edits, citing academic sources, or be silent. dab (𒁳) 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as you believe I'm an arya samaj troll, I believe you're a marxist troll. I dont think you even understand what a troll means first off; on the other hand you were acting pretty irritating trying to argue that horse as fire must have come from horse power without making an attempt to try studying the source of that claim. I'm not interested in exhibiting my religious views, had that been the case I'd have been blabbering about how ashva HAS to mean a horse by bringing up other vedic verses which argue against killing of animals, etc... - That's none of my concern, nor do your futile attempts of trying to give academic views greater importance have any base.

And then Mr. Freud's apparentice makes some psychoanalysis that the avatar I kept MUST imply I'm an adolescent zealot, unfortunately the apparentice failed to realise its a cropping from prince of persia artworks; me being a fan of the series. Sorry, I just posted from the rules and it shows that religious views have more priority than academic views. That puts up the views of puraanas, upanishads and hindu reform movements atop the academic views of the situation. Academic sources for a religious issue? Please make sense about that. Time and time again you're never posting proper logic as to HOW a religious article can be given more priority as a topic of academic issue. Just because it is barely performed doesn't mean that the ritual is no longer a concern of hindus. Soon you'll begin claiming vedas are no longer majorly religious I guess. Leafy 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you may relax, I'm not interested in analyzing you any further. just note that encyclopedic treatment of religious topics fall into the academic field of Religious studies. If you don't accept that, you have no business here per WP:ENC. There is no point in repeating that you think this makes no sense; if you do not, you are free to create your own devotional website, but you should stay away from Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If treatment of a religious topic falls into academic study of religion, then every topic would have then come under the branch of religious studies. That is obviously not the case, it should therefore be understood that there is a clear line drawn between religious and academic views; and the dominance of academic views in a religious article is least commendable. On the other hand you're welcome to open an academic website, and better keep your academic views away from religious articles. Leafy 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article
The article is organized as follows.
 * 1) the historical Vedic sacrifice. Scholarly debate on the ancient royal ritual. Souces include TS, VS, ShBr., Itihasa descriptions and accounts of historical performances (last known in 1716 by some Jaipur prince).
 * 2) in Vedantic Hinduism: sources include Upanishads, Puranas
 * 3) modern Hinduism, sources may include all sorts of modern Swamis and homepages of contemporary movements. So far, we only know of Gayatri Pariwar's performances. Feel free to expand
 * 4) Anxieties. Qualms of Victorian translators, employment of the sacrifice in anti-Hindu pamphlets, outraged Arya Samaj cries of Muslim conspiracy etc. This section isn't on religious pracitce, but on the impact of the YV texts on modern perception and its role in Dalitstan vs. Arya Samaj politics and what not. Sources can be recent newspaper articles, sociological studies and what have you.

Now, Rumpelstiltkin, can you kindly contribute to whatever section it is you are interested in, and stop conflating the separate sub-topics. If you want to do an effort to produce your own translation of the VS text, I suggest you do that in userspace. So far, we have one sad sentence on "modern interpretations",
 * Some currents in contemporary Hinduism (such as All World Gayatri Pariwar, Swami Dayananda) understand the Ashvamedha as allegory or as a ritual to get connected to the "inner Sun" (Prana),

based on my own research because people seem more happy to complain than to do actual work, and the "inner Sun" or "Prana" isn't even properly referenced. The only source I have is some cheesy web-magazine (akhandjyoti.org) that doesn't even properly declare its background (advaita??). It appears that Puranic Hinduism still recognizes the ritual for what it was, and was content to prescribe it outlawed in Kali Yuga, and the fanciful revisionism is due to Dayananda and thus post-1875, but we don't have a source for this. Please, if you want to help, give us the first reference to the "it never really was about a horse" idea. Is that Dayananda's own, or is there a Puranic source for this? That's a straightforward question that requires straightforward research, and no amount of bickering will answer it. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. I think these are valid points and I will do my best to rewrite the article in a sandbox or something. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it appears to transpire that the only current of contemporary Hinduism that is concerned with the ritual is Arya Samaj / Gayatri Pariwar. Other currents seem to simply ignore it, as it appears because the Puranas declare it a thing of the past. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, puraanas post-date upanishads which speak of this, nor do all puraanas speak regarding this issue. Markandeya Purana(?) also speaks of the ritual and suggests inner meaning exists in it. Funny how you suggest that puraanas can actually be more authentic than upanishads regarding the ritual, ignoring some vital points that tantrism was in full swing with the varified sacrifices and promiscuous meetings. Puranic source? Is that what you're all into? Leafy 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting no such thing, and you are welcome to add to the Puranic section. Why is it that you are only complaining on talk without doing any work on the article? It's not like I reverted your brilliant overview of the view of the Ashvamedha in the Muhkya Upanishads is it? Let us see your treatment of "Ashvamedha and Upanishads" and then we'll talk again. dab (𒁳) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because before I have any of my edits reverted before else happens. Nor am I interested in having the vedic sacrifice section dominated by academic research. Why not rename the section as Ashvamedha in academic views? Leafy 10:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Leafy, I don't know what is the problem you are talking about. Let me just say this. Vedic texts are highly technical. Any one who wishes to write about them should have a first-hand knowledge of the text in the original Vedic Sanskrit. Depending upon translations, especially by Western scholars, have led to ridiculous interpretations and conclusions. Suppose a person who has never gone to a medical school wishes to write about cardiology in an article on medicine in Wikipedia. Do you think that would be proper? Same is the case when writing about the Vedas. Kanchanamala 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the "ridiculous interpretations" seem to be more on the part of those people who, as opposed to "Western scholars", wish to employ the texts for their own religious agendas. dab (𒁳) 11:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I am privileged to be a native scholar of India educated enough to approach the Vedas with both caution and humility. There is no gainsaying the fact, however, that as in the West, there are pseudo-scholars in India too. My teachers in the West have taught me to heed what learned scolars say, and bypass others.Kanchanamala 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)