Talk:Ashvamedha/Archive 2

Dalitstan
I'm a bit surprised you seem to want to mention the position of Dalitstan in the article, Rumpel, since you do not appear to share their views at all. I do not absolutely object to mentioning it, but it is, after all, just a hate website of dubious notability. I am not sure we should legitimize such anti-Hindu extremism by listing it as a notable position in a "dispute" over the ritual. Calling the ritual "Hindu filth" etc. is simply hate propaganda of the lowest sort and if you ask me should not be deigned worthy of discussion. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, I dont think the section can really classify as Modern Disputes when it only has views of dalit advocates. Views of more people are needed in this section... Even the thing by Subhash Kak would do. Leafy 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the section was called "anxieties", but people kept changing there. There isn't any actual "dispute", it's just propaganda and counter-propaganda. dab (𒁳) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll tone down the sentence. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I summarized the anti-Hindu polemic and removed the source since it is rather pointless to cite a hate site here in a academic article.Nonetheless, since Dalitstan achieved quite a popularity among anti-Hindu fringes when they were around it is important (I think) to mention their views, properly contextualized as propaganda, of course.Rumpelstiltskin223 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote "through deliberate falsifications and selective choice of quotes taken out of context". The latter is, of course, obvious (taking quotes out of context is what led to this issue in the first place) and the former, well, some of their "references" like "Rama the great Bastard" and "Rama's Incest with His Sister Sita" (this would be news to anybody who has anything to do with Hinduism) are totally bogus so falsification is definitely there. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Articles
An article in Wikipedia is expected to have at least a semblance of respectability. It is true that any reader can contribute to an article. But that does not mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry should mess with a subject like the Vedas.Kanchanamala 10:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * indeed, I couldn't agree more, and we are doing our best to keep it free of unqualified material. dab (𒁳) 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dab, good luck to all of us fellow editors.Kanchanamala 15:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No Fighting
Can everybody please not fight?It hurts me to see this discussion degenerate into an insult-throwing contest. It is clear that everybody here is knowledgable from their perspective on the concerned subject and it would be good if ALL significant viewpoints were given due importance. I would like this discussion about this article to be stimulating and productive to building an encyclopedia and an exhaustive article so I'd appreciate it if everybody just calmed down, and I mean everybody. Please! Rumpelstiltskin223 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What concerns me is very simple - as with distinction between 'religion and science', here its distinction between religion and history. This article falls under religion, the interpretations of griffith therefore cannot be held in light. If the views of western interpreters are to be exerted, by all means better exert them in another thread, or maybe shifting this thread from hinduism to history of india(?) and make another article in hinduism section named 'ashvamedha in hinduism'. As hinduism is referred to as an living religion or something of that sort, that wouldn't be a problem and would also completely sort out the issues. What say? The historical article can then, to comply with dab and paul's views; be renamed 'ashvamedha in vedic hinduism'. Leafy 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you are not making sense, sorry. this is a topic of history of religion. The ashvamedha plays a minor role in contemporary Hinduism, yes, that's why we have an "Arya Samaj" section. That's it. Feel free to add whatever the Arya Samaj people have come up with to that section, we won't stop you, but you cannot claim the term or its history as your own. Well, you can, on a gazillion of webpages and fora, but not on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it isn't performed much anymore, doesn't turn it into an article of only academic views. Its importance is still relevant to a great degree in modern times. Nor am I interested in exhibiting arya samaj's views; because I dont comply with them. Who's claiming an article of history as my own? You're claiming an article of religion as your own. I dont think their views are correct, nor am I interested in trying to claim their views as important thing of article. On the other hand you seem to sentimentally attached to making a rift in the article, although I dont see why you should be bothered - to rename it as 'ashvamedha in vedic hinduism' doesn't make a difference; you however claim it to be an article of history which all the more gives a reason to shift it to 'history of india' section. Leafy 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh, I'm only complying with policy. there is a section on the historical sacrifice, which is in the academic field of history of religion, and there is a section on modern Hinduism, which should report on contemporary movements wrt their relative notabilities. Yes, claims concerning the historical sacrifice have to be academic. We report only claims with any sort of authority. If the claim is religious doctrine, made by a contemporary religious leader, we insert it in the modern section, provided the person making the claim has sufficient notability as a religious leader. If the claim is not religious doctrine but concerns historical events, it is a claim of the academic field of history (in our case, Sanskrit philology), and we'll report claims by academics with notability in that field. That's the long and short of it, I'll not spell it out to you again, now feel free to make adequately sourced contributions to the section of your choice. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These 'sections' concerning distinction between the two are what is bothering me, and I do not see why you're so reluctant to make distinction between the historic and religious sections of the article. Yes, one who comes to religious article will no doubt be given a link that will redirect him to the historical content, and academic research on a historical sacrifice means more of archaeological and literal sources over philological sources. On the other hand I dont see how a reader of the article wouldn't think that the details of the ritual are actually what the philologists view the sacrifice to be. The article is a religious sacrifice with importance in contemporarial times as well, so naturally religion takes higher priority. Yes it is a concern of academical research as well, but that doesn't mean that how the sacrifice is performed will be completely based upon the views of philological historians, nor have you made any attempt to indicate that the details of the sacrifice are based upon research of western historians, unless you assume that they'll try to induce that by looking at the verse notations being attributed to griffith. Translations by griffith are based upon a religious vaisnav scholar named sayana, so I guess you'll then classify it under Ashvamedha according to Sayana's Translations. I've posted a site with polemics regarding the translations. I've given the resources for the griffith's translations I posted. If you really want to make so many classifications the article will be filled with millions of classifications. Leafy 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked for peer-reviewed publications from the field of history of religion, you haven't given any. Per WP:NPOV, we cover all notable opinions, giving precedence to the mainstream view. "sites with polemics" are irrelevant. This is also why Timeline of the Universe redirects to Timeline of the Big Bang and not to Creation Science or Kalpa (time unit). As far as we have established, the notability of the Ashvamedha in contemporary Hinduism is minute. It was first performed in 1991, for crying out loud. Giving that precedence over the Vedic ritual would be like redirecting Blót to Odinic Rite. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And I said I dont have to, because those are religious views about a religious ceremony. And the reason I posted the site with polemics was because you were asking for some proof regarding critique of the ritual, which was available in that website, translating words with chances of mystical interpretations in a materialistic fashion. I'm not talking about academic views because that classifies in its own section. And please, timeline of universe and timeline of bible are aeons apart. We dont have the article detailing jesus filled with academic views. The theory of big bang has more proof, but the evidence regarding ashva medha is sparing. And please, I think you ignored the more important part that it is to be performed by a KING and not anyone, naturally its performance would be less - that doesn't mean you consider the ritual as extinct and thereby bring up strange relations of extinct cultures like the norse legends you bring up. There is a BIG difference between those extinct cultures and that of vedas! Leafy 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and I call bullshit. we dont have the article detailing jesus filled with academic views. -- have you even *looked* at Jesus? you are either unable to understand policy when it is shoved in your face, or consciously trolling; I am beginning to lean to the latter possibility, and per WP:DFTT will not reiterate what was already stated. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at it with more care cuz we dont have views of historians totally dominating the whole section - trolling? I already asked you, I ask you again - do you know what it means? You're the one who's completely failing to understand the policy, a religious ritual is a ritual. There would naturally be more historic content relating a legendary figure, but it is not as much filled with the same bullshit you speak of as this one. Leafy 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And please, you love to forget an important fact that this is a religious ritual and therefore you dont have to put academic reviews regarding the religious views of a religious ceremony! Leafy 14:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Do try explaining to me how the article of jesus is any more in favour of your suggestions when we have a whole section dedicated to historicity of jesus - which comes to the academic study you so much love - as opposed to having it fill the whole article itself. Being a religious ritual, atleast the introduction should cover proper views of the scriptures and a brief excerpt concerning the ritual, and a section speaking of 'ritual in detail' be dedicated to the academic views which you feel should dominate the article. Leafy 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Arya Samaj have no juristiction over "the proper views of the scriptures". I gather their position within Hinduism is comparable to that of biblical literalists within Christianity. If it buys us peace, we can have a statement "a modernized form of the ritual has been performed since 1991 by Arya Samaj and related movements." dab (𒁳) 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking just about arya samaj, but AWGP, aurobindo's and the rest of the crew as well. I'm not claiming their works as academical, but to view academical views as most authentic is what I'm opposed to. Why do you think I'm talking only about arya samaj? Because you found my ID in the only arya samajik forum out there? Earlier in the talk page I was arguing with regards to the views of Devi Chand, who happened to be an arya samajist but the footnote regarding the views was what I objected to, to say he took a cue from dayananda was better. Yea I know their overly fundamentalistic ideology is irritating, but I'm not here trying to propagandise their views with the likes of VJSingh. Call it personal aversion or whatever, it is not talked about in detail ANYWHERE and for you to assume that everyone unanimously agrees with this is not correct either, the disagreement was prevalent amongst hindus atleast since the time buddhist scholars began to dominate. Secondly, as there is not much documented information regarding this ritual in vedic times, the views regarding the ritual in scriptures and its performance in hindu mythology should first be highlighted, "The Vedic Sacrifice in Detail" or something as such where a little bit is added that it is talked about in detail by Griffith, and I dont think anyone would have a reason to allege his interpretations are "fallacious", for as I said, academic views comply with those of griffith and the like. But I still say the same, that philology =/= history. Leafy 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what do you want? we do have a "modern" section. That has no impact of the discussion of the ancient ritual, religious doctrine of one age cannot affect religious doctrine of a completely different age. We can expand "Arya Samaj" to Hindu reform movement if you would actually invest some sweat and provide some clean Aurobindo references. Wikipedia is intrinsically dependent on academic mainstream. Anyone can dream up alternative views, but unless such opinions get academic peer review, Wikipedia isn't interested in them. dab (𒁳) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not much information regarding the ritual to begin with, and its a religious ritual for crying out loud, its not something that requires an academic peer review which you're so obsessed with. To speak of "academic reviews" implies there is no clean evidence and therefore the views of some ancient author cannot be validated as the authentic ritual. Wikipedia is not interested in considering the views of outdated research in a religious article either, from where begin your fantastic claims that it is not a religious ritual. Leafy 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) And even after I explain that we're not talking about "anyone" but resources from historic schools, you seem to enjoy ignoring that line. Why are you so obsessed with giving lesser precedence to RELIGIOUS views in a RELIGIOUS article? Leafy 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly has the right to demand 'academic peer reviews' on everything it quotes or references. It is nothing more than a summary of the results of 'academic study'. We cannot expect it to understand the value of traditonal Vedic education. In the eyes of 'academics', a man can study 30 years at gurukul and when he gets out he's just as ignorant as when he went in. We can't expect Wikipedia to accomodate any view other than that of the current generation's pseudo-intelligentsia. Who cares if people are misled? It's their mistake for thinking a resource such as Wikipedia can be objective in regards to such matters to begin with.
 * Asking academic stuff regarding academic material is fine with me, but to have an article detailing a religious ritual be dominated by views of academicians is what I'm bothered about. To ask for academic material regarding a religious ritual is no doubt absurd, the whole fuss about 'religion and science' lies here itself. The article is concerning religious performance, and as the ritual is not well documented for to begin with, the introduction should deal with everything relating to the ritual and not the ritual itself. As you said, it is as such in the eyes of the academicians implying that there needs to be made a distinction between the views of academicians and religious figures. The quotations from scriptures should precedence over any academic acknowledgement of the ritual, considering the fact that inconsistency lies in the whole ritual. The article doesn't detail of what the outcome of the ritual was explained to be either [conquest, protection of nation, incurring progeny, etc...]. Wikipedia has the right to demand academic peer reviews - regarding academic material, which may include the performance of this sacrifice. However to ask regarding religious views, that is absolute BS. Leafy 10:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you've said that a few times now. it means you reject WP:RS. The opinion of "religious figures" of the period is in the primary sources, and academics are merely the experts discussing them. There is no other way to address ancient religion. Contemporary religious leaders may have juristiction over contemporary religion, but not over historical religion. Regarding contemporary religion, we can of course cite any notable religious leader, and I invite you again to do that. You don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that 1991 or 1875 CE isn't the same as 900 BCE. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Even as the Pope or his bishops or a devout Catholic is best qualified to talk about Catholicism, so are we Hindus best qualified to talk about Hinduism. Dbachmann, we don't need your like to tell us what Hinduism is all about. And we don't need to engage ourselves in any argument with them. Hinduism is a matter of faith. I do not appreciate any non-Hindu trying to badger us. If you want to be a student of Hinduism, that's fine. Just don't act like a pundit which you are not.Kanchanamala 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many devout Catholics are profoundly ignorant about the Bible! The Pope is an expert on modern Catholicism, but not necessarily on the text of Deuteronomy. Kanchanamala, do you have any information or arguments. You tend to make grandiose assertions that you know The Truth as though you have access to Higher Wisdom, but we need actual information. Otherwise you are just filling space. Paul B 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * dab, You're the one bent on rejecting WP:RS because you're bent on trying to prove this is an article of academic concern with no space for opinions of religious scholars. Unable to bend the rules, you will try bend the views of the article.... It is definitely not 1875 CE belonging to a much more ancient sampradaya, but you fail to realise the reliance upon 13th century commentaries and rejecting the analysis by a 7th century BCE scholar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Leaflord (talk • contribs).
 * what steaming nonsense. I have myself created the Arya Samaj section.peer-reviewed Vedic philology goes to the Vedic section. "opinions of religious scholars" go to the "modern" section, because they are modern religious scholars. now stop the trolling and contribute to whatever topic it is you want to contribute. If you disagree with philological mainstream, I am sorry, but that's your problem, and you won't be able to do anything about it. As Kanchanamala keeps saying, Vedic texts are difficult, that's why there's a specialized academic field dedicated to their study. Hindus are perfectly qualified to express their view on their own faith. Which happens to be modern Hinduism, I doubt any of you was born early enough to remember king Samudragupta. What you are suggesting is basically that every Catholic is a natural expert on Biblical criticism and Koine Greek philology by virtue of having been sprinkled by some water, or that every Muslim is an expert on Classical Arabic by virtue of having said a short phrase. A view which besides being patently ridiculous is also emphatically rejected by both the Catholic Church and Islam. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Leafy, you know, it's really very easy to sign your posts. Please do so. You just add ~ at the end. If you can't find these "tildes", as they are called, on your keyboard, just click on them in the "sign your name" section under the Save Page box. It makes reading Talk pages so much easier. If you have evidence that writers prior to Dayananda denied that the horse sacrifice involved real horses, please provide it. I haven't seen any, just assertions that it had a cosmic significance or that there was an "inner" sacrifice in addition to the "outer" one. You can add this material to the discussion of the interpretations, improving the article by making it more comprehernsive. Paul B 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Note on BAU 1.1.1 - 1.2.7
The BAU that is generally cited, and which has the Ashvamedha-related material in the first two brahmanas, is actually the Kanva recension (i.e. ŚBK 17). This is mainly because Sankara's commentary was on that version. In the Madhyandina recension, the BAU (at ŚBM 14.3 onwards) starts with the third brahmana of the Kanva version (dvayā ha prajāpatyāḥ ...). The first two are found instead in the ŚBM at 10.6.4 (1.1.1-2 as just one paragraph) and 10.6.5.1-8 (1.2.7 split into two), as the concluding sections of the Agnirahasya. Also noteworthy is that TS.7.5.25 is probably an older version of ŚBK-BAU.1.1.1-2/ŚBM.10.6.4, and the core bandhu may have even had origins in actual liturgy. rudra 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend that these details on the versions be added to the text of the main article. I found them very helpful. Buddhipriya 06:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A citation regarding Proto-Indo-European influences
Citation: J. P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. (Thames & Hudson Ltd.: London, 1989) pp. 135-7 ISBN 0-500-27616-1. I believe that Mallory is a mainstream text. He has a section on "Horse sacrifice" that says "Some would maintain that the premier animal of Indo-European sacrifice and ritual was probably the horse." His summary of the Indic version of the asvamedha is firmly literalist. He then compares the Roman horse sacrifice which was known as the October Equus. He then cites another parallel sacrifice in medieval Ireland. "A detailed analysis of this and other material has led Jaan Puhvel to propose a Proto-Indo-European myth and ritual which involved the mating of a figure from the royal class with a horse from which ultimately sprung the famous equine divine twins." He says that the name of the Indic ceremony, which he transliterates as "asvamedha", derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ekwo-meydho "horse-drunk", attesting a ritual which included both a horse and drunkenness. The modern English mead is part of the same series that gives us Sanskrit madhu-, Greek methy, Old Church Slavonic medu, etc. Another interesting parallel is in the recurrent depiction of Indo-European divine twins associated with or represented by horses such as the Indic Ashvins "horsemen", the Greek horsemen Castor and Pollux, etc. He connects up other details with archaeological evidence that paired draught horses were not likely to have been employed until after 2500 BC, and consequently some time after some assume the disintegration of the Proto-Indo-European community, raising a conflict between the mythological prevalence of the divine horse-twin motif and the physical evidence of cultural artifacts. In all, it is an interesting read which I have summarized perhaps so much as to be unintelligible. He has citations to the materials by Puhvel which may be worth looking into. If you want them I can provide them. Buddhipriya 08:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mallory is indeed a good summary of mainstream opinion, and this article could indeed do with a comparative paragraph addressing these things. ekwo-meydho is however conjecture, there is no cognate term, and translating meydho as "drunk" is a bit daring: meydho is *not* the same as medhu. The literal meaning of Sanskrit medha is "broth, juice", but it obviously came to mean "cooked animal sacrifice" early on, so that it would be very misleading to translate ashvamedha as "horse-broth". dab (𒁳) 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Ashva
Paul Barlow, if you can cite firsthand documentary evidence, in Sanskrit, and not based on some translation, that 'ashva' in 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' means a horse, then do so. I seriously doubt if you have even an iota of competence. People like you should stop dabbling in subjects like the Vedas in which you not only have no competence but which is none of your business. No one needs ignorant people to malign Hinduism. Let me share an anecdote with you. An 'asura' went to the ocean at the southern tip of India, and asked the ocean to give him a fight. The ocean said that the 'asura' should seek someone who was his equal, and sent him way up in the north to the Himalayas. The 'asura' asked the mountain to give him a fight. The mountain said that it was not in his nature to fight, and sent the 'asura' to Vali, the 'vaanara' king of Kishkindha. Guess what, Vali put the 'asura' in his place. Paul, I am greatly impressed by the tenacity of people like you. What you should do is, find out if there is an article on Christianity or Islam. Visit those articles, and start asking for proofs for such basic tenets as, "Was Mary really a virgin?" or ask proof for anything about the holy book of Islam or the prophet. Your mischief won't last long. I dare you to try. Put up or shut up.Kanchanamala 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try: Aitareya Brahmana 8.21-23 (or 39.7-9 in the adhyaya numbering), each of which starts: etena ha vā aindrena mahābhiṣekeṇa [name of priest]-aḥ [name of king]-am abhiṣiṣeca tasmād u [name of king]-aḥ samantaṃ sarvataḥ pṛthvīn jayan parīyāyāśvena ca medhyeneja.... Cross-reference AB 8.21 with Shatapatha Brahmana 13.5.4.2 for good measure.  Is denial the name of a river in Egypt to you? rudra 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothwithstanding your editorial remarks, how are you so sure that 'ashva' here means a horse? Denial is a subterranian river ('gupta-vaahini') in your little knowledge. Find yourself a learned guru. Rudrasharman, I am not a Vishnusharman.Kanchanamala 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because ashva does normally mean horse. However, why don't you pour de Nile-like rivers of your profound knowledge over us and explain why it does not mean what it usually means. Rudra suggests that you are claiming that it is a bahuvrhi compound. OK. Tell us. By the way, have a look at the no true Scotsman fallacy. You seem to be adopting the "no true Hindu" equivalent. According to you "Hindus" deny that the sacrifice involved a real horse. This is despite the fact many Hindus clearly do not, and that a real horse seems to be depicted on Samudragupta's coins and referred to in the Epics. So were the Hindus who created these objects and texts "degenerate" or "confused" in some way? Were they No True Hindus? Paul B 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, Samudragupta's coin has nothing to do with understanding the 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna'. I have just informed you guys that 'ashva' here does not mean a horse. I don't intend to initiate anyone into Vedic studies in this forum. Please find yourself a learned teacher, and do fundamental research on the relevant Vedic material. It does not matter whether your teacher is a Hindu or a Martian as long as that teacher is learned and competent. Until then, hold your horses [no pun intended].Kanchanamala 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What does aśva mean here: āsandīvati dhānyādaṃ rukmiṇaṃ haritasrajam aśvam bahandha sāraṅgaṃ devebhyo janamejaya... (or, āsandīvati dhānyādaṃ rukmiṇaṃ haritasrajam abadhnādaśvaṃ sāraṅgaṃ devebhyo janamejaya...)? dhānyādaṃ is a good clue. rudra 02:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand why Rudrasharman, Dab and Paul are complicating such a simple proposition. So, let me try to lead you all through the logic step-by-step:
 * Ashva does not mean a horse.
 * Why? Because I said so. and I don't need references
 * Why should I believe you ? Because I am a true Hindu. and by the way, asking for references smacks of anti-Hinduism
 * What makes you a true Hindu ? See answer to (2) and repeat cycle.
 * See, it is simplicity itself ! If you still don't get it, get yourself a true teacher who will explain this to you. Then you can come back and work on this article. However before you try editing the article, make sure these statements appear obvious to you (else continue with your education)
 * Any reference which say Ashva=horse is too old or, too new, or too western or too communist; and definitely non-Hindu.
 * Any reference, ahem person on internet, who says Ashva does not mean horse is correct by definition.
 * Hope that helps. In case it is not obvious, my tongue is firmly implanted in my cheek :-) Abecedare 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it does. Thank you.  "There is no fact which sufficient piety cannot explain away." rudra 07:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudrasharman, may I have the textual reference to the above janamejaya-lines please?Kanchanamala 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that means you didn't recognize the two variants of (essentially) the same anustubh. Which tells me two things: first, that you have no familiarity with the relevant materials; and second, that you didn't bother to look at the references I gave you.  Does "cross-reference" ring a bell? rudra 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudrasharman, just give me the textual reference.Kanchanamala 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I already did, effectively twice. Here it is a third time:  the aśvam bahandha variant is from Aitareya Brahmana 8.21/39.7, the abadhnādaśvaṃ variant is from Shatapatha Brahmana 13.5.4.2.  Had you bothered to look at the references I gave you, you couldn't possibly have missed the verse.  Should I ask what dhānyādaṃ means to you?  Or will you take that as an opportunity for some more hot air? rudra 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, you guys have started attacking me like a pack of hyenas. That's okay. I have known college students acting like that. My good friends, you seem to have a lot of time at your disposal, I don't. Anyway, Rudrasharman, you seem to have great facility in Sanskrit. That makes it easy for me. Now, more than one word has been used in different contexts while referring to a horse: 'ashva', 'turaga', 'saindhava', 'vaajin', 'hari', and so on. The word for horse in Sanskrit seems to be 'haya' from the root 'hi gatau vriddhau ca'. The word 'ashva' from the root 'ashoo vyaaptau sanghaate ca' is a very potential word. When unable to determine the right meaning in any given context, especially in the Vedic texts, it is convenient for one to explain it away as a horse. In explaining the 'gana sutra' "shveta-ashva-ashvatara ..." in the Ashtaadhyayi, Kaumudi does not explain the word 'ashva' to mean a horse. Shankaraananda, for instance, in one context, explains it to mean 'indriya'. I have not come across any instance where any commentator, Sayana, Uvata, Mahidhara, and the like, have explained 'ashva' in the Vedic 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' to mean a horse. Rudrasharman, I am a Hindu. For me, the Vedas are the holy book. It bothers me when someone goes out on a rampage to show the Vedas as dealing with horse and horseshit. It is as highly improper and unbecoming of any decent scholar to do so as trying to prove that Mary, mother of Jesus, did not have an immaculate conception. Let us be decent and sincere. I shall give you guys the last word.Kanchanamala 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Last word? The point here is not to shut you up.  It's to encourage you to contribute something.  You keep on repeating "ashva is not 'horse' (in some contexts)".  What you don't say is what 'ashva' is, instead, in those contexts.  In other words, you haven't offered a positive assertion, something that can be reliably or credibly verified.  Even here you could have mentioned what Sayana, Uvata or Mahidhara do say about 'ashva' in 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna', but again you merely register a denial.
 * As for "horse" in Sanskrit -- or Vedic -- there are many words: haya carries no special distinction. In fact, if any word does, it would be aśva.  Consider the structure of the Naighantuka (the first 3 parts of the Nighantu, that deal in synonyms).  It has lists, of words a, b, c, etc., followed by a defining or explanatory word "X".  If the Naighantuka is to make any sense at all, clearly the import of each such list is "The words a, b, c, etc are found/used with the sense of 'X'", and for this to be useful, it must be the case that 'X' is generally much better known or more commonly understood or clearly less ambiguous than the words a, b, c, etc. that it explains (some of which are obscure indeed!).  Note also that the context of the words in the Naighantuka is unambiguously Vedic (and Rgvedic at that.)
 * Now, look at Ngh.1.14. What are a, b, c, etc?  The list starts atyaḥ, hayaḥ, arvā, vājī, saptiḥ, vahniḥ, dadhikrāḥ, dadhikrāvā, ... and amounts to 26 words in all.  And what is the defining, explaining 'X'?  You guessed it, aśva (ityaśvānām).
 * For completeness: aśva also occurs in the Daivata (the 5th part of the Nighantu that deals with epithets of divine beings, at Ngh.5.3). Yaska is well aware of this, and specifically talks about it in his commentary on Ngh.1.14, which is in N.2.27, where in Lakshman Sarup's translation, he says "The following twenty-six (words) are synonyms of horse [...] There are Vedic passages where the word is used (both in the sense of) a horse and a deity.  We shall explain those (passages where the word is used in the sense of) a deity later, and in this place those (where it is used in the sense of) a horse."  (... athaitadaśvavat. See N.9.1. for aśva the deity.)
 * It's all there in the Nirukta, from Yaska's time, well before any medieval mystifications, or worse, misconstruals of bandhus as literal "definitions": Yaska, following the Nighantu, using aśva as the most readily accessible and understandable word for... horse.  In relation to Vedic usages.  Wow.
 * (And btw, I make no claims of "great facility". I'm more a historian than a sanskritist, and what I do in real life to pay my bills is far removed from both.  Even so, was "shveta-ashva-ashvatara" a "test" of some kind?  "shvetaashva" is one word here, as is clear from the items listed for '..lopas ca'.) rudra 05:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudrasharman, I don't know who you are, and why you are so adamant to show that 'ashva' in the Vedic 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' means a horse. Let me respond. (1) As I have said above, when unable to determine the right meaning of 'ashva' in any given context, especially in the Vedic texts, it is convenient for one to explain it away as a horse. The translator quoted by you is a good example of it. I am not inclined to think that Nirukta is interested in giving the synonyms of horse. [By the way, Vedic 'devataa' does not mean a deity that is worshipped in a mandir]. (2) I am only interested in pointing out that 'ashva' in the Vedic 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' does not mean a horse. If you can quote Yaska, you should be able to try to find out what 'ashva'  means in the 'yajna'. Let me give you an analogy. In the context of computers, if one says that 'hardware' means articles made of metals, as tools, nails, fittings, utensils, etc., I tell that person that 'hardware' does not mean that in the context of computers. That's all. You should do your own digging to find the gold. I shall not do it for you in this forum. (3) Please don't encourage me to spend any more time in this discussion. If you want to keep horsing, be my guest.Kanchanamala 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Yaska's Nirukta is a commentary on the Nighantu, as stated at the very beginning: "samāmnāyaḥ samāmnātaḥ | sa vyākhyātavyaḥ |" If, as you suggest, "deity" is inherently associated with worship in a mandir, then "divinity" might have been a better choice of word, but there is no real danger of confusion given even the slightest acquaintance with Vedic texts.
 * (2) Um, no. I'm not here to do your research for you.  Your say-so, which is what it has amounted to so far, is worthless.
 * (3) Suit yourself. If you don't want to contribute what 'ashva' does mean, then don't. *shrug* rudra 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This interpretation of Nighantu/Nirukta is completely backwards. The text is not giving us a list of terms to be used synonymously with 'horse', its giving us a list of terms which elucidate the various meanings of 'aṣva'. Take the term 'vājī' for example. If you look it up in Monier-Williams (MW938c) you will see:
 * vājī: in comp. for vāja mfn. strengthening, stimulating, producing virility; n. an aphrodesiac.
 * In turn, look up vāja (MW938a), and you will find:
 * vāja: m. (> vaj) strength, vigour, energy, spirit, speed, RV. AV.; a contest, race, conflict, battle, war, RV.; the prize of a race or of battle, booty, gain, reward, any precious or valuable possession, wealth, treasure, RV. AV.; food, sacrificial food, RV.; (?) a swift or spirited horse, war-horse, steed, RV. AV.; the feathers of an arrow, RV.(...)
 * [Note: I did not add the (?) before 'a swift or spirited horse' - it's Monier-Williams' own note. I did, however, limit the glosses to those with RV (and AV).] The logic here is to elucidate all the concepts implied by the highly polysemous term 'aṣva'. Think about it for a minute and you will see that L. Sarup has it backwards. If he were right, then vājī (or vāja, as the case may be) would mean nothing other than 'horse'.
 * Besides, don't you find it at all odd that a translator/interpreter (Sarup) should use a one-dimensional gloss (aṣva = 'horse') while translating a text the very nature of which is to explain the polysemous aspects of various important terms in Vedic literature?
 * Did you even read what I wrote? Look at your own example and perform the appropriate substitutions in "The word a is found/used with the sense of 'X'".  This does not preclude other meanings for a.  In fact, that is precisely the point: the Nighantu is primarily a collection of difficult words, whose original meanings in not a few cases were unknown in (or lost by) Yaska's time.  According to your "interpretation", the lists a, b, c... consist of well-known or understood words that elucidate the meanings of the various X's!  Sheesh, the extent to which people will go to mystify everything with ten-dollar words like "polysemous" and whatnot.  *shakes head* rudra 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, for your argument to be correct, then all of the terms listed would have to be rather obscure and otherwise non-related to the key term (in this case 'aṣva'). However, haya, for example, is primarily defined by Monier-Williams as 'horse' and secondarily as 'urging on, driving', both in connection with the root >hi. Of all the terms listed by the Nighantu in connection with 'aṣva', haya is most clearly 'horse', and - going by your interpretation - any gloss in this context would be completely superfluous. However, if the aim of the Nighantu is, as I have said, to give a list of terms which help to clarify the various connotations of the word 'aṣva', then its inclusion makes perfect sense. -Varoon
 * The Nighantu was a traditional list by Yaska's time. No one knows the original reasons for the compilation, and Yaska does not say either.  As far as we know, he made no attempt to reduce it to just the obscure words, so the occurrence of words that now appear familiar is of no significance, just as there are still a number of obscure words that had it not been for the Nighantu and the Nirukta would have been lost completely. "All of the words have to be obscure" is a straw man. rudra 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple test for Varoon. We have an associative structure of the form {a, b, c...} <=> X. Let us call the left-hand-side list {} the "numerators" and the right-hand-side 'X' the "denominator". We have two theories of the association (and thus, by implication, what the Nirukta is "all about") Consider, first, the word gauh. It has, as we know, tons of meanings, a polysemous word if there ever was one. Apart from the standard "cow", for example, there is "earth (i.e. world)". Next, consider the word pr.thivī, which also means "earth", apart from its divine associations. Let us agree, then, that pr.thivī is (or at least, can be) a gloss of gauh. Finally, let us assume that this gloss, of gauh by pr.thivī, occurs in the Naighantuka. Our problem is to predict the form of the entry. Now, someone please consult Naighantuka 1.1 (the very first entry) and get back to us. rudra 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Polysemic : Each numerator is a gloss of the denominator
 * Metonymic : The denominator is a gloss of each numerator
 * Polysemic : pr.thivī should be a numerator for the denominator gauh
 * Metonymic : gauh should be a numerator for the denominator pr.thivī
 * while this is all very interesting, it is also completely offtopic here. You could add to the articles on Nirukta or polysemy etc., but since the meaning "horse" of ashva in ashvamedha is completely undisputed, I don't see what the discussion is giving us here. I mean, the ashva of the Yajurveda text is sprinkled with water, has things whispered into his ear, is left to roam the countryside, is yoked to a chariot, bathed, bound to a stake and finally killed. Now ashva may be polysemous, and refer to the number seven or the constellation Sagittarius, but you'd need to be completely off your rocker to argue that the idea is to whisper into the ear of the number seven, or to yoke the constellation of Sagittarius to a chariot, and, more to the point, nobody has been shown to have suggested such a thing in anything like respectable academic discussion, so discussion of the polysemy of ashva may be interesting on our ashva article, but it is completely irrelevant here. I am also tired of the allusions that topics of Hinduism are somehow treated more criticlally than topics of Christianity, as Kanchanamala does above. That's just a completely empty claim, an entirely transparent attempt at playing the race card, and half a minute of research would show that this is simply not the case. If K is really interested in the comparison, I suggest he looks over Talk:Virgin Birth instead of giving us idle anecdotes. There is no Christain conspiracy here. If anything, there is a "secular" conspiracy, and that would be the one started by Denis Diderot, and declared on WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the Bible and the Qur'an, the Vedas are held in the highest reverence by its followers. It would seem highly improper to treat such a text with secular irreverence.Kanchanamala 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me my saying so, Bachman, only in a forum like this does one with little knowledge like you gets a chance to keep making senseless assertions. There are times when you should get into a learning mode. Don't act like an expert in an area [the Vedic texts] where you have shown that you hardly know anything worthwhile.Kanchanamala 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, Dieter, he is used for a guy.Kanchanamala
 * the horse (stallion) is very much a he. You keep saying I am clueless, and implying that you do have a clue, but you have done nothing to support that opinion of yours. The article is perfectly aware of Hindu reformist views, and you yet have to tell us anything we don't already know. You should understand that you are free to have any opinion you like, but that Wikipedia isn't interested in your opinion. Wikipedia is exclusively about published, peer reviewed academic opinion. If you don't like this, well, the internet is wide, and I suggest you open a blog somewhere letting the world know your condescending disregard for Wikipedia and its principles. Really, you are welcome to do that, just don't keep editing Wikipedia talkpages if you don't agree with the project fundamentals. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you keep saying whatever you want to say anyway. Likewise, others will say what they think it is the right thing to say. You don't own Wikipedia, nor do they. Anyway, according to you, talking about us human beings, is it okay if someone refers to a guy as she and a gal as he?Kanchanamala 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kanchanamala, I hope you will do us a favor by spending some of your valuable time reading Civility. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's unfair to single out K for this admonition. I also think that while exchanges have been sharply worded, an even keel has been maintained on the whole.  rudra 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it you'd look at the top of this section, rudra, you'll find a piece of undiluted trolling on K's part. This is not a bona fide discussion. It's all ad hominem allegations, idle and condescending chatter, and no constructive suggestions, let alone citations. We don't have to even react to stuff like that. K is free and indeed welcome to make succinct observations about the article, backed up with sources, without courteous flourishings. just filling the talkpage with trolling and opinion pieces is not helpful. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond:

Deeptrivia, there is no need for any user to patronise other users. As for civility, note what Dab has written above: "If K is really interested in the comparision, I suggest he [emphasis mine] looks over ..." Is that proper? And then Dab gives a strange explanation: "The horse (stallion) is very much a he [emphasis mine]." I can overlook anyone making a personal remark about me. But, pardon me, one should not be offensive.Kanchanamala 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * what is wrong with you? If you like to be addressed as a "she", all you have to do is ask, or maybe identify yourself as female on your userpage. I thought you were objecting to my referring to the ashva as a "he", which would at least have some relevance to the article (since, you may be surprised to learn, Wikipedia talkpages are for discussing articles). Since this is obviously going nowhere, why don't you just tell us what you want, that is, make some constructive suggestion on what you want to change in the article, and we'll see if we can come to an agreement. If you just keep making oblique and patronizing statements about editors (yes, it was you who started the patronizing. All I did was use a pronoun, forgive me for not second-guessing your sex, but I frankly couldn't care less about your genome), all you'll do is bore people. Talk about the article, to the point, or drop it. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors: It is normal practice to use secondary sources. But when questions are raised using primary sources, they should be considered. Secondary sources should not be treated as definitive. After having all the discussion so far in this forum, one should not say that the meaning 'horse' attributed to the Sanskrit word 'ashva' [in 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' in the Vedas] is undisputed. The dispute should be mentioned in the article.Kanchanamala 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kanchanamala, what you say may well be true and I personally will be happy to add other interpretations of Ashvamedha i the article, if we can source the interpretations to  reliable sources. As you probably well know through your own experience editing wikipedia we cannot  do  original research on wikipedia and cannot therefore state that the Ashva = horse is disputed based on disagreement between editors. To reiterate:
 * If we obtain a reliable secondary source that provides another interpretation of Ashva in the context of Ashvamedha, or states that the interpretation of Ashva as a horse is disputed, we can and should add that to the article.
 * If you feel that we should not need a secondary source for this purpose, but should add the other interpretations based on your (and other editors) analysis of primary vedic sources; then you should take the dispute to Village Pump (Policy) in order to request a change to the underlying wikipedia policies that would allow us to do so.
 * Barring the above two options, I fear we will be debating among ourselves in circles with increasing acrimony and to no avail. Regards. Abecedare 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that "Ashva is not 'horse'", especially in the context of the Ashvamedha, is an extraordinary claim, and thus needs extraordinary evidence. This is more than cherry-picked quotes and sound bites: it will have to be philologically credible at a minimum. rudra 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * we do say that "Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati", whoever that is, claims that ashva is the Sun and stuff. That's Arya Samaj doctrine, and duly treated under the Arya Samaj section. I really don't see the problem. If we are missing anything, just tell us and we'll insert it. I'm sure there's more mystical stuff in the Upanishads. Cite it for crying out loud, and we'll be grateful for your help; idle bickering on talk is pointless. Citation of literature is appreciated. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kak in his book on the ritual initially claimed that a real horse is used in some parts of the ritual and that a "substitute" is used elsewhere. In his keenness to dissociate physical sacrifice from the Rigvedic sages, he claims that real horse sacrifices may have been performed by non-Vedic peoples who later merged with them and "corrupted" the Vedic ritual (no evidence at all is provided for this). His theory that asvaka refers to a toy seems to be a recent development. In his book he follows the argument that it refers to a fire, sourcing the claim to S. Sankarananda, the leader of the Ramakrishna movement in the 40s and 50s. Sankarananda's book claims that the "dead horse" is in fact "a fire called asvaka which represented the sun dead in the sky during the night preserved in a small scale fire in the earth". In this version she sits in an all-night vigil by the fire with her husband (Sankarananda, The Rigvedic Culture of the Pre-Historic Indus, Das Gupta, 1943). It should be noted that Sankarananda, like Dayananda, is preocuppied with the idea that sexual imagery of any sort must represent degeneration from a primitive "purity". "the sex cult...did not originate as a religious cult. It is an after-product. It is a degeneration of the original. It is the people who bring down the ideal, which is too high for them to comprehend, to their own levels." However, he goes on to helpfully explain that the Christian cross did originate as a phallic symbol, so "Christian votaries are devotees of a sex cult". Paul B 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * interesting. for the "anxieties" (make that "psychosis") section of the article. "Trust us, it is not what the texts say it is at all, don't ask, we just know; it's... er... a toy, yes, and a fire, or no, it's all, yes, symbolic. it really cannot have anything to do with sex at all, stupid, sex being a late corruption introduced by the British". dab (𒁳) 11:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I respect you. May I submit that, (1) I have only shared my comments as a discussant, and (2) I have only suggested that a change should be made in the article on Ashvamedha. When I read a passage in the Vedas, say "ashvena ca rathena ca sooryah ..." [Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita 4.4.8.18], I think like say Sayana who "adopts the naturalistic interpretation [of the Vedic devataas], which is supported by modern European scholars" [S.Radhakrishnan, "Indian Philosophy",1929, page 68]. When I look up at the sky, I see the bright white shining sun. I don't see any chariot driven by seven horses. I am deeply concerned about the Vedas because my faith is firmly founded on it. If I have come out strongly sometimes, I shall beg my fellow editors to forgive me.Kanchanamala 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did Radhakrishnan quote this passage, or just Sayana, in his book? And was it in the context of the Ashvamedha?  AFAIK, TS.4.4.8 is part of the Agnicayana (Fire-Altar) ritual, and has aśvena ca rathena ca vajrī (not sūryaḥ).  The entire passage is obviously about Indra (if not also addressed to him through the bricks).  The bearer of the thunderbolt on a chariot drawn by horses is a perfectly coherent image, don't you think? rudra 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point Kanchanamala is making, through an example, is that the language of the vedas is not always literal. This I assume no one will disagree with ! :-)
 * As for the question of whether the Ashva in Ashvamedha refers to a horse or not - luckily we don't have to settle that issue on wikipedia (that is what academic journals are for !). All we have to do is cite what reliable sources have said on the issue - as far as I see the article already does that, and more views (from acknowledged/prominent scholars, academicians or religious figures) can be added if and when an editor provides them.
 * Does anyone disagree with the summary ? If so, please provide a concrete suggestion on what specifically you would like to add/change in the article. If not, any general discussion on the subject of the article (rather than its writing) interesting as it may be is better moved to other forums such as this or WT:HNB.
 * Finally, I request all editors to assume good faith - while we may have different views on certain issues, hopefully we all share the goal of improving this and other Hinduism related articles on wikipedia. Abecedare 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudra: Radhakrishnan makes a general statement about Sayana. The context is mine. I don't view Indra the way you have described.Kanchanamala 02:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. TS.4.4.8 is available from a number of places, e.g. (1) The TITUS Database (Frames make this a pain: click on Indica[Vedic] in the upper left frame, allow the refresh, scroll down in the lower left frame to Taittiriya Samhita, click on HTML version, in the new frameset, select '4' in the upper right, allow the refresh, select '4' and enter '8' in the lower right, press "lookup".) (2) The MUM Collection (p.252 of the PDF), and (3) AB Keith's translation.  With words like śacīpati, maghavān, vṛtrahā, somapā and, as it happens, vajrī scattered through the passage, the subject doesn't seem to be in much doubt. rudra 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rudra, are you unable to find the statement with 'soorya' quoted by me?Kanchanamala 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wherever 'soorya' after 'asvena ca rathena ca' might be, it is not in TS.4.4.8., which has 'vajrii'. rudra 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rudra, you are absolutely correct, and I am also correct.Kanchanamala 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rudra, the Sanskrit publication from which I have cited the reference is "Krishna-Yajurvediya-Taittiriya-Samhita", chief editor: Shripada-sharma, son of Damodara, in the family of Satwalekar, published in devanagari by Swadhyaya Mandal, Pardi, Surat District, Bombay State, 1957 CE, Shaka 1878, Samvat 2013, price Rs. 10.Kanchanamala 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I don't have Pt. Satvalekar's book, I can't determine what you mean. I could guess that it's a matter of variant readings, but that would call for philological analysis to judge the merit of manuscript/recitation evidence (which, AFAIK, Pt. Satvalekar doesn't provide).  Without exception every published version of the TS that I've seen has 'vajri'; it also makes total sense in this context (the Indratanu bricks), so even if there is a soorya that Pt. Satvalekar picked up and recorded, it doesn't rate to be more than an aberration of a defective local tradition somewhere. rudra 02:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Not having the book is not the same as not being able to access the book. The New York Public Library has a copy, in the Asian and Middle Eastern Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences Library (42nd Street at Fifth Avenue, Rooms 219-220).  The call number is OKI 88-1241 (#14 in the list of 17 entries).  TS.4.4.8 is on page 274.  The word after "ashvena ca rathena ca" is not "soorya", and there are no variant readings. rudra 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare: May I suggest you consider the following to be included in the article in the very introductory paragraph: When the Vedic text is interpreted, like Sayana does, in a naturalistic way, [cite S.Radhakrishnan, "Indian Philosophy", 1929, p.68] the word 'ashva' in some contexts in the Vedas does not mean a horse. [cite Krishna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita, 4.4.8.18]Kanchanamala 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have emended the above statement by substituting the word may by does.Kanchanamala 10:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kanchanamala, for the suggestion. I think the particular language you suggest may not be includable (if that is a word :-) ), since it may violate wikipedia's guidelines on synthesis and may be even considered somewhat tangential since, (1) neither of the cited sources are specifically talking about the ashvamedha yagna, and (2) no secondary source cites the two sources to draw the desired conclusion.
 * That said, I think your suggestion did clarify some issues for me. If I understand your viewpoint correctly now, you don't dispute that ashva literally translate into "horse" even in the context of Ashvamedha; rather your view is that the term "horse sacrifice" is used figuratively and does not involve the literal killing of an animal? In summary the point that you wish to add is along the lines: "while Ashvamedha literally translates to 'Horse sacrifice', some commentators interpret the term as a figurative reference to 'ascetic austerities' ". Right ?
 * If so, this point is currently mentioned in the "Vedanta and Puranas" section of the article. If we can find reliable sources making this point directly, we can place it more boldly, perhaps even in the lead. IIRC, Sri Aurobindo has provided an alternate interpretation of Ashva in his writings ... although I don't recall if that was in the context of Ashvamedha and I cannot locate the specific work right now. Anyone have that reference handy ? If so, we could add a sentence about the existence of non-literal interpretations more prominently. Thanks. Abecedare 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The history of this issue is fairly clear. European scholars became interested in the Vedas during the nineteenth century. There is generally little "Christian" bias in this interest, but of course Christian missionary activity was common in the British Empire, and missionaries certainly regularly claimed that Hinduism is morally degenerate in comparison to Christianity. Ever since Wilkins’ translation of the Gita there was a discursive convention contrasting the “pure” and “noble” forms of Hindu thought with corrupted or degenerate forms. Max Müller regularly uses this kind of language. The Ashvamedha was certainly used by missionaries to attack claims for the sacred status of the Vedas. In some cases, as with the Brahmo Samaj, that led to a rejection of the authority of the Vedas as a basis for Hinduism (Müller congratulated Sen and Mozoomdar for conceding this). An alternative and more popular response was a reactive tendency to accept the pure/degenerate model but to defend the Vedas by insisting that they were “pure” and that later interpretations were “degenerate”. These accounts drew on earlier traditions that had accepted symbolic and figurative significance to the ritual, but which did not deny that the ritual itself existed in the “naturalistic” sense. The radical claims of Dayananda substituted the symbolic language that had developed for the “literal” reading, insisting that the latter was a misinterpretation. His account is extreme, others were less so. Most did not deny that an actual horse was central to the ritual. They either denied simply the sexual aspect of the ritual or the literal killing of the horse. There are several such traditions. They are all directly connected to responses to Christianity and, more recently, to Islam. As far as I know there is no denial of the literal nature of the ritual prior to the 19th century, though of course there is much discussion of the symbolic aspects and of the notion that the exterior form leads us to a deeper spiritual meaning. The Epics are clear that a literal ritual is described, as are all early sources. Paul B 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the "naturalistic" meaning of ashva is "horse". There are various metaphorical uses, yes.
 * discussion of such meanings of "ashva" go on ashva, it's why we have that article.
 * making contorted conditional statements about the meaning of ashva on this article is dodging the issue, idle hand-waving aimed at confusing the reader.
 * yes, the upanishad have an "inner ashvamedha", referring to "austerities". Hello? It's in the article.
 * I don't see any suggestion here, just rhetorical re-hashing of what's already in the article. Why are we having this "debate"? dab (𒁳) 09:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, thank you for your timely help. You have been a good guide to me in the twilight zone of Wikipedia. (1) I am a student of the Vedas born and raised in the world of academics. That, nonetheless, I have not been excommunicated by Wikipedia is a welcome situation, and for that I shall remain grateful to my fellow editors. (2) I have been made to realize that I am not yet in a position, in Wikipedia, to dispute the interpretation that 'ashva' in the Vedic 'ashva-medha mahaa-yajna' means a horse. But when I am, I shall make my submission. (3) Also, Abecedare, in the example quoted by me, 'ashva' is used literally not to mean a horse. But I shall wait until I am in a position to make a submission acceptable to Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as your edits are in good faith and you accept that most other editors are also sincere then you will be welcome. Paul B 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to provide citations that may be relevant to this interesting discussion, here is a link to the online version of Monier-Williams' (p. 115) definition of the term aśvamedha as "horse sacrifice", with a description of the sacrifice and references to source texts. http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/0100/mw__0148.html A similar defintion and description appears in Apte's The Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 182. An interesting modern depiction of the aśvamedha appears as chapter 7 in Roberto Calasso's book Ka: Stories of the Mind and Gods of India (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.: 1998) ISBN 0-679-77547-1.

An article on metaphorical uses of the concept of horse ("aśva") appears in Ram Karan Sharma's "Elements of Poetry in the Mahābhārata (Motilal Banarsidass: Delhi, 1964) ISBN 81-208-0544-5, p. 62. In that book Sharma writes:"'Horses are very favorite upamānas of fickle sense-organs and human emotions, e.g., even a learned man is misled by the deceitful sense organs as a charioteer, bewildered, is misled by the excited disobedient horses (hriyate budhyamāno 'pi naro hāribhir indriyaiḥ / vimūḍhasaṁjño duṣṭāśvair udbhrāntair iva sārathiḥ 3.2.62; cf. 3.202.23). One who controls his rising anger as a charioteer controls his horse is regarded as a charioteer by the virtuous persons -- not he who simply holds reins (yaḥ samutpatitaṁ krodhaṁ nigṛḥṇāti hayaṁ yathā / sa yante 'ty ucyate sadbhir na yo raśmiṣu lambate 1.74.2); cf. chapter 2,I,12, and chapter 7.'"

Thank you to all who have contributed so far to this discussion, which has raised some new points of view. I pray we may all work together to share our views with respect for one another in a search for clearer understanding of these complex questions. Buddhipriya 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)