Talk:Ashvamedha/Archive 3

Ashvamedha in the Vedas
Rudrasharman: As you will be aware by now, I only rely on knowledge which I get from the horse's mouth [No pun intended]. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. I assume you have access to translations. May I know if a thorough translation, in English, of chapters 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Vajasaneyi Madhyandina Shukla Yajurveda Samhita, dealing with 'ashva-medha', coherently and conclusively shows that 'ashva' means a horse?Kanchanamala 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the only translation is that of Griffith. Getting his original may be problematic, though.  The published versions available these days have been "edited" by at least two people, Surendra Pratap and Ravi Prakash Arya. If the efforts with 23.19-31 are any indication, all bets are off. You'll just have to read it yourself, and answer questions such as: what is bound by the sacrificer with 22.3 and sprinkled while reciting 22.4? In whose ear is 22.19 whispered?  And so on.  Not to mention the brahmana commentary, or the details in the shrautasutras.
 * Please stop trolling. rudra 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An online source that claims to provide the full text of Griffith on YV is available, and the YV 5.7 passages that seem to pertain to the ashva issue are at: http://www.ishwar.com/hinduism/holy_yajur_veda/book05/book05_07.html I do not not have access to a physical copy of Griffith and so cannot verify the accuracy of their version. I know little of these materials and so it is possible this citation is not relevant.  Can anyone recommend a source text by ISBN number for these materials? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddhipriya (talk • Buddhipriya 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. contribs) 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC). Buddhipriya 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The site is confused. This is AB Keith's translation of the Taittiriya Samhita.  Compare with this site and Google's rather poor reproduction. rudra 05:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you for the speedy evaluation. Buddhipriya 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are three full tranlations available in English: Griffith's, Keith's and Devi Chand's. Devi Chand is a follower of Dayananda, so horses don't tend to appear much. They are rather important in the other two. Keith's is available online. Paul B 10:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A clarification is in order, I think. "Three full translations" is misleading, because the same text is not involved in all three.  The Yajurveda has two major variants, Shukla ("white") and Krishna ("black"), that amount to distinct textual traditions, within each of which there are further recensional variations.  The Shukla Yajurveda has two main recensions, Kanva and Madhyandina, which have survived.  The Krishna Yajurveda has at least three (Taittiriya, Maitrayani, Kathaka).  AB Keith's translation (and I believe Devi Chand's) is of the Taittiriya recension of the "black" YV, while Griffith's is of the Madhyandina recension of the "white" YV.  There's plenty of overlap in material, but the texts are far from equivalent in any sense that would allow Keith's and Griffith's translations to be considered subsitutable for each other. rudra 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks folks, my work is cut out, and I don't know how soon I shall be able to get to it.Kanchanamala 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Radhakrishnan on Aurobindo
From Indian Philosophy Vol. 1 (OUP 1929) p.69:
 * "Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, the great Indian scholar-mystic, is of opinion that the Vedas are replete with suggestions of secret doctrines and mystic philosophies. He looks upon the gods of the hymns as symbols of the psychological functions.  Sūrya signifies intelligence, Agni will, and Soma feeling.  The Veda to him is a mystery religion corresponding to the Orphic and Eleusinian creeds of ancient Greece."

At this point, within the same paragraph (i.e. "inline"), R. quotes a lengthy passage by A. from Arya, Vol i, p.60. (Arya was a journal/magazine edited by Aurobindo, where he published the first forms of the essays that he later reworked into books such as Secret of the Vedas):
 * "The hypothesis I propose is that the Rg-Veda is itself the one considerable document that remains to us from the early period of human thought of which the historical Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries were the failing remnants, when the spiritual and psychological knowledge of the race was concealed for reasons now difficult to determine, in a veil of concrete and material figures and symbols which protected the sense from the profane and revealed it to the initiated. One of the leading principles of the mystics was the sacredness and secrecy of self-knowledge and the true knowledge of the gods.  This wisdom was, they thought, unfit for, perhaps even dangerous, to the ordinary human mind, or in any case liable to perversion and misuse and loss of virtue if revealed to vulgar and unpurified spirits.  Hence they favored the existence of an outer worship effective but imperfect for the profane, and an inner discipline for the initiate, and clothed their language in words and images which had equally a spiritual sense for the elect and a concrete sense for the mass of ordinary worshippers.  The Vedic hymns were conceived and constructed on these principles."

R. continues, to conclude the paragraph:
 * "When we find that this view is opposed not only to the modern views of European scholars but also to the traditional interpretations of Sāyaṇa and the system of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, the authority on Vedic interpretation, we must hesitate to follow the lead of Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, however ingenious his point of view may be. It is not likely that the whole progress of Indian thought has been a steady falling away from the highest spiritual truths of the Vedic hymns.  It is more in accordance with what is known of the general nature of human development, and easier to concede that the later religions and philosophies arose out of the crude suggestions and elementary moral ideas and spiritual aspirations of the early mind, than that they were a degradation of an original perfection."

Aurobindo has long been classified as a mystic. This effectively places his views outside the scope of philological critique and evaluation. Since he has to be read on his own terms or not at all, it isn't clear why he needs to be cited here. rudra 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The title page of the PDF mentioned earlier has no author other than "Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture" and it is not otherwise clear on authorship. As I noted in an earlier post, I concur that the PDF document is not worth citing as it does not have a very clear line of sourcing other than to the Kak materials which we have already covered.  I am not aware of a citation directly to the writings of Aurobindo, but I have no broad knowledge of his writings.  I regret if my language was imprecise.  Thank you for sharing the quotation which helps add to the discussion. Buddhipriya 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If I remember, Aurobindo himself is ambivalent about horses, but wants to follow Dayananda, who he claims "will be honoured as the first discoverer of the right clues" to Vedic interpretation (strange that it wasn't until the late 19th century that the first discovery of the right clues to interpret these texts occurred), so there is a lot of stuff about how asva is really an image of energy as such. Of course this is true of Shakespeare too. When Richard III says "my kingdom for a horse" vulgar materialists have interpreted this to mean that he wants a horse to escape from the battlefield in a cowardly fashion! In fact the true spiritual interpretation is that he wishes to replace his worldly kingdom for the freedom of the spirit as imaged by a horse which really stands for the inner energy or vital power of his soul (etc etc etc). Paul B 09:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Another citation that addresses the symbolic view
Thank you again to all who are sharing views on this question. I had not previously been introduced to this question and so am learning much by reading your dialog. It is helpful to me when specific citations are given. I found a systematic presentation of the "inner yajna" perspective in the document "Yajur Veda" at: http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/PDFs/Yajur_Veda.pdf In particular, pages 77-89 include a tabular outline of the way this school interprets various aspects of the sources in a symbolic way. Can any of you with more experience in this question give me perspective on this document? A quick way to research its views on this topic is to open the document in Adobe Acrobat Reader and then do a search for the term "ashva" which quickly allowed me to go to the relevant parts of this long document. It is clearly a secondary source, but one that supports the symbolic interpretation theory. Please help me understand this better. Buddhipriya 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss the contents of the document. The only issue is whether this can be considered a reliable or credible secondary source.  Are there any reviews or critical assessments of this document (or its "school")?  Do the assertions hold up philologically?  Also, please note that while slagging so-called "ritualistic interpretations" is quite common among mystics, it is a staple of Hindu politeness to refrain from commenting adversely (in public, at least) on the alternatives propounded by such critics. rudra 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, as is, this document can't be cited. It's effectively only a web page.  No publication information, no date, and no bibliography for its references.  rudra 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that the document cannot be relied on as an academic citation. It merely provides an informal indication that there are at least some who hold the views in addition to our fellow editor who first raised the question.  I am wondering if there is any more formal review of this issue is available in a recognized journal. Buddhipriya 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So far we do not mention Aurobindo. We can easily add him alongside Dayananda if we get a clean citation to one of his works. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the Aurobindo PDF again more closely and at the end it does provide a citation to what may have been their source for that article. I tracked the book down further at http://www.mlbd.com which is the publisher.  Here is what I dug up: Kak, Subhash., 2002. The Asvamedha: The Rite and its Logic. Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi. ISBN 81-208-1877-6 Bibliography: vii+71p. Abbreviation, Notes, Ref. Index.  The publisher's blurb says "ABOUT THE BOOK: This book describes the ASVAMEDHA rite and its symbolism to explain distinctive aspects of the Vedic sacrifice system. Several questions related to the Asvamedha are posed and answered in the context of Vedic epistemology. This rite has three important functions: (i) it presents and equivalence of the naksatra year to the heaven, implying that it is rite that celebrates the rebirth of the Sun; (ii) it is symbolic of the conquest of Time by the king, in whose name the rite is performed; and (iii) it is celebration of social harmony achieved by the transcendence of the fundamental conflicts between various sources of power. Numbers from another Vedic rite, the Agnicayana; help in the understanding of several of its details. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: SUBHASH KAK is an acclaimed scientist, historian and Vedic scholar. Currently a professor at Louisiana State University, he has authored thirteen books and more than 200 research papers in the fields of information theory, neural networks and Indic studies."  I became curious about this and Googling his name found his home page: http://www.ee.lsu.edu/kak/  The article already mentions that there are metaphorical interpretations of the rite in addition to the literal interpretations but perhaps the issue is more sensitive for some than I for one realized.  Buddhipriya 08:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kak again :) you may not have noted that we have an article on the man. It's mostly vanity, he's been editing it himself. Still, I wonder this book hasn't been brought up before, all we had so far was some blog posting of his. A book is certainly better than a blog posting, even if its author is a crank. Kak postulates "Indo-Aryans" in the 7th millennium BC (that's aceramic Neolithic). I suppose no further comment is necessary. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since KI have actually read this book, I'll add a summary of its "findings". Paul B 11:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should drag this article too deep into pseudoscholarly kookery. Wikipedia doesn't have to cite every village idiot. I'm sure you'll put it into context, but I fear it will open the gates to crapflooding the article. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kak is a bona fide kook. His latest effort dispels all doubt. rudra 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. I don't want to call anyone names, so lets just say that I hope his vedic scholarship is sounder than his knowledge of physics. :-) Abecedare 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a "crank" seems a bit harsh in the context of Wikipedia, where other controversies such as Elvis sightings, Sewer alligators, and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are treated with encyclopedic care. Buddhipriya 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but Kak hasn't yet achieved the notoreity that would warrant a page devoted to his kookery. Maybe that's a good thing.  rudra 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indigenous Aryans is really intended as the equivalent of Elvis sightings in this topic. We do not give a full list of "sightings" on Elvis, and similarly, stuff like Kak's belongs there, not here. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

this is quite rich. I was so far prepared to assume that Kak is a bona fide engineer that just happens to dabble in Arya-Samaj-style "Vedic" kookery. But the relativity thing seems to establish that the guy is a complete fake beginning to end. No egineer worth his salt would spout such nonsense about general relativity. As it happens, we do have a full page "devoted to his kookery", it's at Subhash Kak. It appears it does need a bit of cleanup, since it seems to depict him as a serious researcher (and poet, of course). We'd also need to check if there is such a thing as a "Kak neural network". The article seems to rely on citations of Kak himself to establish that there is a type of neural network named after Kak. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will rely on the judgement of the usual editors for this article on what would be best to do. I have little knowledge on this topic and so am simply placing the citation at the feet of those who are able to assess it better.  For me, the important insight I have gotten from this exchange is that the topic is a matter of living faith to some, and as such has the potential to give offense.  It is a measure of my ignorance that I was surprised to learn that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddhipriya (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC). Buddhipriya 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you are right; the "offense" is largely due to Ambedkar et al. who have used the ancient ritual to denigrate contemporary Hinduism. Some Hindu authors are "feeding the troll" as it were by embarking on ludicrous claims instead of simply shrugging it off as irrelevant to their faith. You could as well try to call a Frenchman an ogre because his Gaulish forbears used to practice human sacrifice. dab (𒁳) 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! The article should be titled: Ashvamedha according to Garp.Kanchanamala 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * who is Garth and what has he got to do with the article? dab (𒁳) 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect she meant Garp. rudra 14:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ah well, I suppose she can always list it on WP:RM. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo [now fixed]. rudra is correct. Thanks pal.Kanchanamala 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Age of horse?
This completely unrelated to any of the below, by the way. I don't claim to know much about Hinduism, but I do know horses and I just wanted someone to check that "The horse to be sacrificed must be a stallion, more than 24, but less than 100 years old." is the correct age. Horses normally live no more than 30 years max and a 24-year old horse is an old horse (and far past its prime) and 100 years is a ridiculous age for a horse. IsaacSapphire 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Griffith reprint (again...)
Note the recent upload of Image:Griffithxxii1.jpg, Image:Griffith cover.jpg by "Wikipedia newcomer". I must say 6M of image data seems rather much for the presentation of maybe 200 bytes of text (which can be looked up in /archive1 anyway)... dab (𒁳) 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the large size of the image may have been needed to get the resolution sufficient. But seeing this example of an image upload makes me have a general question about what the rules are for copyright of this type of image.  I can think of various situations where I would like to be able to upload such an image to help with discussion or document a point.  What are the rules for copying pages out of copyrighted books for illustration purposes?  Buddhipriya 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the upload of the text page might make sense as "proof" if there had been dispute about the content. But there hasn't. I have given the relevant passage back in November 2005(!), here (I own the book myself). It's text, just quote it. As for the riduculously large scan of the tattered cover, I really don't know what on earth we might be able to use that for. Wikipedia isn't a repository for random imagery, sheesh. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has no authentic references or verses in sanskrit! why?


 * See the footnotes, and the transliteration here. Paul B 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

in propaganda
fwiiw, it is true that Dalitstan and similar websites try to taunt Hindus in this way. The question is, of course, how notable is this? Either way, there is no reason to wield a sock-war over it. Dalitstan is just some defunct hate site, and to mention them here is probably giving them far too much credit. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
In the section entitled “The Vedic Sacrifice,” one paragraph begins “The priests performing….”  The following sentence beginning “According to a commentator…” has a dependent clause beginning “while the Adhvaryu…”  This dependent clause is incomplete. It sounds like it is supposed to tell what the recompense of the Adhvaryu is.76.123.203.164 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ashwa medha
hi

i am from south india and we have been practising ashwa medha as a tradition and i have never seen a horse being killed and i do not know why this false propaganda came up i am seriously upset that this is tarnishing the name of hinduism. vedas state that "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." (Yajur Veda, 12.32)

Having well considered the origin of flesh-foods, and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh. - Manusmriti 5.49

as far as me or fellow hindus concerned horse is not sacrificed i request you make changes and do not post which u do not have evidence and by the way

there is a problem with Sanskrit in pronunciation the very reason the Vedas were also passed through teachings rather than books is different pronunciations will give different meaning i believe what Griffith did was an unintentional mistake.

i thank u for u r patience

hinduism does not preach voilence unless u r life threatened

god bless u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.124.169 (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the article and the sources. Paul B (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some things about the article
It would be a propaganda if any content about dalitstan was still here. There isn't any, and there's no information implying any propaganda, so the relevant title should be changed to "Controversy and Criticism". Secondly, the section title "Arya Samaj" also mentions AWGP so the title is better changed to "Hindu Revivalist Organizations". Also; some parts of the article request for citations when the verse number has been specifically mentioned. leaflord (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambedkar also used it for propaganda, but you are right that we would strictly require a source stating as much. Let's just say it stands to reason, but I don't insist on the appearance of "propaganda" in the section title. --dab (𒁳) 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper Translation
Below is the actual traslation of one of the Sanskrit verses from yajur veda that has been mistranslated to give it sexual connotations.

tau ubhau chaturah padah samprasarayava swarga lokam prasuvava vrshavaaji raghu rathau dadati

Yajur Veda 23/20

tau = we two ; ubhau = both ; chaturah = intelligent ; padah = subject ; samprasarayava = reach out ; swarga lokam = heavenly planet ; prasuvava = command ; vrshavaaji = horse ; raghu = Lord ; rathau = chariots ; dadati = provides

Translation: We both command the intelligent horse as our subject to reach out for heaven (where) the Lord provides (us) the chariots. The real meaning here is that by performing Ashwamedha yajna, one can get the blessings (written as chariots) of the heavenly King, Indra. [emphasis mine]

The other verses that have been misunderstood in this context can be find in the follwing link as a rebuttal to article on Women in Hinduism.

[1]http://vivblogs.blogspot.com/2009/02/rebuttal-of-so-called-derogatory-verses.htmlVinodk2111 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not citable. Incidentally, this one's claims goes beyond the standard accusation of mistranslation. It suggests that the original Sanskrit was altered! Paul B (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs can't be cited as they are purely personal opinion but sometime their factual accuracy can be verfied.For example ,anybody (even an illiterate person) in india will tell that 'rathau' stands only for chariot not for anything related to sex .Your accusation of alteration does not hold ground if it is assumed that the verse as desribed above was not altered ,if it was then there arise two accusations either mistranslation or earlier intentional alteration (giving one the sexual meaning).It will be helpful in further discussion if you can provide actual verse which gives one a sexual connotations or you can support your accusation of alteration.

One more thing is that the work of those translating authors from where one withdraws a sexual meaning is not accepted by all scholars. Vinodk2111 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is accepted. The suggestion that the blog makes - which is a new one on me - is that the actual Sanskrit was somehow altered. I've never heard that from any of the many previous imaginative arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please clarify what is accepted: my argument or work of the scholars and your conclusion about accusation of alteration is still unwarranted as you have not provided any support for your argument. Going by your argument that original sanskrit was altered then the word let's say 'rathau' should have been having multiple independent meanings (in india) but that is not true.So this implies that the verse could have been mistranslated. And please ,if you can't provide any facts for your argument then you can't write anything rubbish on this kind of issue.

Vinodk2111 (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is accepted by all independent scholars that I know of. Your blog claims nothing about imaginary 'multiple independent meanings' of 'rahau'. It claims that the word 'rathau' was somehow replaced by retau ('The word rathao (chariots) is replaced by retau, which means ‘semen’.'), a claim that no other writer has ever made before. BTW, British authors didn't actually translate these passages at all out of prudery. Read the Griffith and Keith translations for yourself. Paul B (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But you have to admit, the passages would make a lot more sense with the above translation than they do as interpreted in the article/sources. Instead of ritual gimmickry, the whole yagna has a context in these verses. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also interesting: the criticism section notes that Griffith and Keith did not translate the passages at all. Then how are we citing their translations throughout? Nshuks7 (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The ceremony is described in great detail. They only left out a few verses. See the archive Talk:Ashvamedha/archive1. In context of the passage as a whole the ratau version makes no sense. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw the archives. The points raised above are not mentioned anywhere. Secondly, I don't know how ratau makes more sense to you than rathau. A chariot is more appropriate to Ashwamedha than the present interpretation of the "untranslatable". Nshuks7 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context these words are spoken when the queen is lying with the sacrificed horse. There is no chariot around. In any case, find a scholarly edition that states that the word for chariot is used in any known versions. All this has nothing to do with "British" translations; it's to do with internet disputes mostly between Islamic and Hindu websites, blogs etc. The British hardly ever mentioned the Ashvamedha. It's been picked up by Muslims on websites to ridicule Hinduism, leading to internet memes created by Hindus to counter it. It's often impossible to locate the actual origin of these claims. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My dear pualb,i could barely stop laughing when I read word by word translation.Even a person like me who has studied sanskrit long ago in preliminary school can identify mistakes. For example take the words chaturah and padah of the verse .This 'h' in the end makes a lot of differnece.In devanagri it is written in from of colon.The word chatura means intelligent while if it becomes chaturpadah(single word) it means four legs.In sanskrit four is written as chaturtha and legs as pada so if we combine chaturtha and padah it will written as chaturpadah.But one can't combine chaturah and padah as legs can't be intelligent.The word for intelligence is chatura but by grammer rules a 'h' will be placed at the end of word. One more thing is that in english,the word caturah will have a tild placed over 'c' so that it gives a implication of 'ch'.That's why I said the work is not accepted by all scholars.If you are really interested in indian sanskrit literature,please learn abc of sanskrit.I beg for your pardon if it sounds arrogant to you. Vinodk2111 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can snigger as much as you like, but until you find an actual scholar who agrees with you, your opinion is worth nothing. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statement itself show your prejudicial attitude.And believe me,even if I quote any actual scholar ,you will not agree with him as he does not fit in your definition of actual scholar.As per my opinion,kanchanmala was probably right for whatever she said about native scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinodk2111 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't bother continuing to discuss this, since you have provided no evidence at all that the actual Sanskrit was altered by anybody or that any scholars at all - native or other otherwise - have ever claimed it was. Your last reply didn't even address this substantive issue. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not only about alteration ,but also about mistranslation as i have shown above by example i.e chaturah padah and if necessary I will quote only those scholars who have proper knowledge of sanskrit including grammatical one.Moreover,meaning of a word can't be changed just to suit a single verse.Plz read the blog and its hyperlink once again.Vinodk2111 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

look, Vinodk2111, you are, ahem, beating a dead horse. We have been through all this. We know the Arya Samaj have their own interpretation of things. We have a section on that. It is unclear what you are trying to argue the article is missing. You are perfectly welcome to quote 'scholars who have proper knowledge of sanskrit'. Just make sure that as long as you are quoting Arya Samaj scholars you add them under the Arya Samaj section. If you think that "chaturah padah" literally translates to "intelligent subject", I daresay you do not have much "proper knowledge of sanskrit". Consult a "proper" dictionary please. Regarding your hilarious comments on the visarga, you may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of sandhi and inflection. This sort of clueless "argument" is why we have a strict WP:CITE policy, otherwise, we'd be forced to give free Introductions to Sanskrit to any passer-by who happens to feel like disagreeing. Also, there is no "Yajur Veda 23/20", there is only "VSM 23.20 = TS 4.19.1.5". You don't need to be a great pundit to know that, you would just need to read this bleeding article before you comment. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dab, your comments are welcome.But you have still not made it clear that how come the meaning of chaturah padha is not intelligent subject.Your citations do not provide any understanding to me.It will be easy to understand the exact meaning and use of sanskrit word if one can read devanagri script.Why can't you point out my mistake.By the way ,I never claimed to be great scholar of sanskrit.Vinodk2111 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Devanagari has nothing to do with it. If you had spent 30 seconds looking at our Devanagari article, you would realize that the script is about 2000 years younger than the text under discussion here.

The literal translation of 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 

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

there are of course variant possibilities. Task: You can verify this by using any Sanskrit grammar and dictionary of your choice. Optional task, you can also spend 20 minutes rendering the above transcription in proper Unicode Devanagari. Make sure you get the accent marks right. Make sure your devanagari transcription uses the accentuation convention proper to the Vajasaneyi recension. If you are still into it, you can do the same exercise, this time using the Taittiriya convention. Once you are done, you may have an idea why we usually just prefer romanization for accented Vedic.

Now please go and read the articles on the topics that interest you, and come back once you have a scholarly source you can quote, and a definite suggestion on how to improve the article based on your source. If you want to know why this is required, go and read WP:TALK, the page explaining that Wikipedia talkpages aren't for random translation requests. If you have any genuine question you would like answered, go to WP:RD/H. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there *are* some differences in the vedic samhitas, although they have traditionally existed and not fabrications of western indologists as suggested.. I do not have the citations for that sadly. leaflord (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * of course there are, they are known as "recensions". The White Yajurveda has two surviving recensions, VSM and VSK. This article gives the relevant verses for VSM. I did not check if there are any differences in VSK. But the differences are usually minimal, the real difference between the shakhas lies in the Brahmana texts. --dab (𒁳) 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the differences in shakhas were to a greater extent; nevertheless it's just that I think I've seen this "original mantras" elsewhere; and I don't think it belongs to the other shakha. leaflord (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the Black Yajurveda has three surviving recensions. But usually "Black YV" just means "TS" and "White Yajurveda" just means "VSM". But you should be able to find VSK and MS if you look around online. --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Age of horse? part 2
I was a complete noob on wikipedia when I wrote the following (which is why I stuck it in the wrong place. I'm sorry), but the question remains.

I don't claim to know much about Hinduism, but I do know horses and I just wanted someone to check that "The horse to be sacrificed must be a stallion, more than 24, but less than 100 years old." is the correct age. Horses normally live no more than 30 years max and a 24-year old horse is an old horse (and far past its prime) and 100 years is a ridiculous age for a horse.

Are Hindu horses really long-lived or something? IsaacSapphire (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, someone needs to check this. I realize 100 years is ridiculous for a horse, but that's me quoting Griffith directly. I did not check the Sanskrit text, nor did I research further Indological literature. Figuring out the source of this figure (is it a mistake?) is an open task for this article. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find I cannot verify this easily. Perhaps we should take it out altogether until somebody figures it out. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Among Vaishnavas
From page 512 of A history of ancient and early medieval India by Upinder Singh: "Ahimsa was an important aspect of the Vaishnava sects. The Narayaniya section of the Mahabharata states that in the horse sacrifice performed by king Vasu Uparichara (a devotee of Vishnu) no animals were slaughtered; the only offerings were products of the wilderness. The Vishnu Purana states that a devotee of Vishnu does not indulge in any sort of violence.  It is possible that the element of ahimsa was a result of the influence of the Buddhist and Jaina traditions." Hokie Tech (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some Googling, and I tracked down the reference in the Mahabharata. From Book 12 (Santi Parva), Section 337:
 * "King Uparichara, otherwise called Vasu, became a disciple of Vrihaspati and soon became the foremost of his disciples. Admitted as such, he began to study at the feet of his preceptor that science which was composed by the seven Rishis who were (otherwise) known by the name of Chitrasikhandins. With soul cleansed from all sorts of evil by sacrifices and other religious rites, he ruled the Earth like Indra ruling the Heaven. The illustrious king performed a great Horse-sacrifice in which his preceptor Vrihaspati became the Hota. The sons of Prajapati (Brahman) themselves, viz., Ekata, Dwita, and Trita, became the Sadasyas in that sacrifice. 2 There were others also who became Sadasyas in that sacrifice, viz., Dhanusha, Raivya, Arvavasu, Parvavasu, the Rishi Medhatithi, the great Rishi Tandya, the blessed Rishi Santi, otherwise called Vedasiras, the foremost of Rishis, viz., Kapila, who was the father of Salihotra, the first Kalpa, Tittiri the elder brother of Vaisampayana, Kanwa, and Devahotra, in all forming sixteen. In that great sacrifice, O monarch, all the requisite articles were collected. No animals were slain in it. The king had ordained it so. He was full of compassion. Of pure and liberal mind, he had cast off all desires, and was well-conversant with all rites. The requisites of that sacrifice all consisted of the products of the wilderness."
 * Hokie Tech (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What Does "Seed" Refer To?
I took a look at the very first section of the Thirteenth Kandha of the Satapatha Brahmana. That is where the description of the Ashvamedha Yagna begins. This is what it has to say about "seed": "1. He (the Adhvaryu) cooks the priests’ mess of rice: it is seed he thereby produces." Hokie Tech (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sekharnet, 2 February 2011
Ashwamedha has other meanings which are not depicted in the descriptions. Ashvamedha was conducted by Kings to mark/confirm the borders of their Empire/Kingdom. The Stallion used by the king is generally sent out on the Ashvamedha. The Ritually sanitized King's Horse would be sent out along with the King's army with an inscription that any one who dares to stop the horse shall suffer the wrath of the king be establishing they do not accept the kings Ruling over their City/Village/Kingdom and shall fight the King's army accompanying the Horse to ascertain their disobedience. Letting the Horse pass through their City/Village/Kingdom shall mean that, the particular City/Village/Kingdom agrees to be obedient under the rule of the King (and pay any taxes imposed by the king). The inscription would be generally placed on the forehead of the Horse (along with being placed both sides of the horse) and thus the name Ashva+medha (Inscription on Horse forehead)

Sekharnet (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a reliable source, please make a new edit request with that information.Qwyrxian (talk)

Edit request from 120.63.4.64, 29 September 2011
there is no mention of simulating copulation with animals. Istead there is touching of animals as in "petting" as a ritual while ceremony embarking nourishment of animals who are empire's military and economic assets.

120.63.4.64 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No mention where? Paul B (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  06:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 120.63.4.64, 29 September 2011
Actually the meaning of the Ved mantra are produced by rishi who has done hard practice of Yoga philosophy and has studied all Vedas. Because Rigvedamantra 1/164/16 says, "NA CHIKET ANDHSAH" I.E., he who is not a yogi and has not realized God cannot know the real meaning. Within five thousands years the false statement against the Vedas are being spread and people being innocent, accept the false. In Atharvaveda kand 9 sukta 4 it is said that bull must be nursed carefully because he will give the calf to the cow with the result there will be plenty of milk, butter and ghee in your houses. But intentionally the meaning has been changed that while performing Yajna the bull must be slaughtered and its meat should bedistributed. Same case is of Ashwamedh word.

Yask Muni who was philosopher of Vedas and Yoga says in his Shatpath Brahmin Granth 13/1/6, "RASHTRAM WA ASHWAMEDHAH" i.e., meaning of Ashwamedh is Rashtra i.e., nation. So to perform Yajna for the benefit of the nation is called ashwamedhaha and the king who rules over the public and does justice and performs Ashwamedh Yaj, he is true king. So here ashwa means Yajna and not horse. Because there is no place of violence in Yajna.

So purpose to perform Ashwamedh Yaj by a king is to look after his public well and is to give peace and fearless atmosphere. Process is mentioned in the book named, "YAJ KARAM SARVSHRESHTHA ISHWAR POOJA". So dueto wrong/false meaning the public has left the yajna within past two to three thousand years or after Mahabhart war.

120.63.4.64 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the book "YAJ KARAM SARVSHRESHTHA ISHWAR POOJA". It describes ashwamedha's meaning. British historians did not know Prakrit-Sanskrit. THought they have translated lot of books well, meaning of ashwa itself varies from Prakrit-Sanskrit times. The ceremony does not mean sacrifice but to embark protection and nourishment of these animals as they are productive to economy and military.

In Shatpath Brahmana (13.1.6) it is stated "Rashtram va asvamedhah" i.e. asvamedha means to manage or run the affairs of the rashtra (country) in a befitting manner. In the Shantiparva of Mahabharata (3.336) there is mention of asvamedha of the king Vasu in which numerous risis and learned men participated. In this context it is clearly mentioned "n tatra pashughato-abhoot" i.e. there was no killing of any animal. Further in this Parva at 3.327, the following is stated in context with 'ajamedh':

I request you to delete the lines which mention inhuman sacrifice of animals. It is grossly wrongly interpret. It is creating a unproved blot on Hinduism. Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Medha means killing?
Wikipedia should either stop writing on the topics of Sanskrit or hire\employ\deploy people etc. who are really well versed in Sanskrit; this is a grave concern for every Indian where misinterpretations are causing lots of trouble and sending wrong messages to the intended readers. I seriously doubt the capabilities of western authors who can really understand the meaning of Sanskrit words in its real sense. Panini's Ashtadhyayi/ Maheshvar (shiv) Sutram must be their first book to start with. To comment on any Sanskrit topic one must be well versed in the following six areas 1.Chhand (knowledge of the Meter which entails the use of syllable) 2.Vyakarna (Grammar - including meaning of the each syllable in the structure of the meter ) 3.Shiksha (learning /knowledge of the matter) 4. Kalp (use of the topic in various ways - multitude/ nuances of the topic) 5. Nirukta (developed sense of understanding of "what is not said") 6. Jyotish (an insight)

clearly the present writers of the article lacks one or more aspects of vedic learning which obviously destandardize their presentation in this article including citation of the western authors in references.

When we are reading any vedic hymn one must pay attention to the Rishi, devta and meter and finally who compiled that meter in the book. Following this approach "Asva" means the wandering nature of manah (http://en.mimi.hu/esoteric/manas.html / http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/m/manas.html ) which is required to be "medh" busted. Just in a common sense why an enlightened yogi / rishi would would advise to kill an animal for someone's mundane glory? aren't these people missing the point?59.95.111.0 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012
This article is factually and logically immensely incorrect. The description is based on the analysis of some western scholars who had little or very restricted knowledge of vedic core philosophy. That is why we can very evidently see that a flat literal meaning has been brought out where a queen has been said to imitate copulation with a horse. This fact itself looks so stupid. The author of this page has blindly copied the information from these sources mostly authored by some westerners. The description in this article is factually, logically and textually incorrect and the resource from where the interpretation of vedic text related to this topic is referred is highly incorrect.

The interpretation of Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Various Advaita Groups is quite authoritative in this respect and should be considered absolute rather then considering western authors.

Gvsdikhit (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Requests to change the page need to be in the form of "please change X to Y," not simply "please change X."  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not "western scholars" who invented the idea of interpreting it literally. It was Indians. AFAIK, no-one came up up with the claim that it was somehow purely symbolic until Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the late 19th century. That's millennia of Indian "misinterpretation", presumably demonstrating "restricted knowledge of vedic core philosophy". Paul B (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Purushmedha and "killing the man"
I think this info needs to be cleared up as it's along the lines of interpretations made by scholars whose views are now defunct. The general consensus is that, while human sacrifice is hard to either prove or contradict given the time frame that is being examined, even by the early vedic period this was an entirely symbolic sacrifice in which no human was killed or consumed. It even states as much in the Purushamedha section. Rig Veda (10.87.16) specifically notes: "yaḥ pauruṣeyeṇa kraviṣā samaṅkte yo aśveyena paśunāyātudhānaḥ,yo aghnyāyā bharati kṣīramaghne teṣāṃśīrṣāṇi harasāpi vṛśca" ("The fiend who consumes flesh of cattle, with flesh of horses and of human bodies, Who slaughters the milk producing cow, O Agni, tear off the heads of such with fiery fury")[taken from the History of Brahmin Diet page). Similarly I think it is worth mentioning that while the Horse and 21 cows were sacrificed, none of the meat was consumed by the sacrificers, as was normal custom with other sacrifices with the Hotar and Adhvarya receiving particular parts of the animal. Otherwise a good page, hats off to the editors. 142.59.203.143 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Rajimus123


 * If someone can source this material properly per WP:RS, I see no problem with improving the article.  Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The ashvamedha in the Ramayana
P. Chierichetti, The ashvamedha in the Ramayana: a way to re-establish the primordial unity of the sacrifice, in Il sacrificio alla base della costruzione dell'identità indiana: due studi specifici, a cura di Pietro Chierichetti e Alberto Pelissero, Edizioni dell'Orso, Alessandria, 2011, ISBN 9788862742795. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pch78 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014
Bibliography

S. Fuchs, The Vedic Horse Sacrifice in its Culture-Historical Relations. Inter-India Publications: New Delhi, 1996.

P. Koskikallio, The horse sacrifice in the Patalakhanda of the Padmapurana,

P. Chierichetti, The ashvamedha in the Ramayana: a way to re-establish the primordial unity of the sacrifice, in Il sacrificio alla base della costruzione dell'identità indiana: due studi specifici, a cura di Pietro Chierichetti e Alberto Pelissero, Edizioni dell'Orso, Alessandria, 2011.

P.E. Dumont, L'asvamedha, description du sacrifice solennel du cheval dans le culte vedique d'après les textes du Yajurveda, Luovai, Paris 1927

Pietroch (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Added in Further reading section - may be challenged, and have no ISBNs - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Queen mimicking sex and maids hurling obscenities?!
Here are numerous links to the electronic version of the book in question: http://www.archive.org/details/vedablackyajuss00keitgoog

Show me one sentence which proves the dubious claim!--70.64.16.48 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That translation is of the Black Yajur Veda. The White Yajur Veda is the one that contains bestiality.
 * Hokie Tech (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The word AswaMeda is comprised of two parts Aswa and Meda, Rig Vedic sanskrit being different from the literal sanskrit, we need to look into "nighantu", "nirukta" and "Shatapatha Brahmana" to understand the meaning of the words (from their Root)used in the Vedas.

The word "medha" does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect and Aswa as per vedic glossary meas a "Nation" so an pious act done for the consolidation of a Nation is "AswaMedha"

Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah; Annam hi gau; Agnirvaa ashwah; Aajyam medhah (Shatapatha Brahmana 13.1.6.3)

A Yajna dedicated to the glory, well being and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna.

“To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna”.

“The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna”

“The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoulAnkur (talk • contribs) 07:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable what is the source of this information? I dare anyone who has written this horrible lie about Ashwamedha yagna to prove or else remove this now!

here is the truth - The emperor seeks to check out if any of his vassal kings want to challenge his supreme authority— in public. The horse is guided by the Emperor’s generals and chosen ministers. They generals follow the white horse on their own horses. The horse with clanging bells is made to travel through the vassal kingdoms. Any vassal king can kill the horse and thus declare war on the Emperor, which will happen pretty soon. If he just captures the horse, there may be room for negotiation. The horse is even taken to enemy kingdoms, and there is “diplomatic immunity” for the Emperor’s men not the white horse. Any tough acting intentions are gauged out.

When the horse returns safe and sound, it means all is well-- and the emperor's supreme authority is unchallenged.

The question of queen coming into this doesn't arises and yet here i see a balant lie being propagated under the disguise of false propaganda.

Even the pictures are taken from Muslim texts? How can Sahibdin explain Ashwamedha?

Remove this article which is filled with lies,deceit and malicious intent immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.170.238 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone lie? Just look at the original. Stop living in a childhood fantasy world. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by original? who is the creator of original? if i stand from your point of view you will refer to a malicious misbegotten translated book the translator's intentions in question! show this in the actual text in Vedas or Upanishads do not take us to be fools we are well aware of this modus -operandi show this essence of ashwamedha yagna in Sanskrit text which means the exact if translated in english give me the exact hymn or shloka or passage or description. I'm not living in childhood fantasy infact you have taken it on yourself to discredit the very essence of performing Aswamedha yagna pray tell me why will an ashwamedha yagna be conducted in the first place? go ahead and get your facts right pappu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.77.223 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is look at a scholarly edition of the text, which you haven't. Infantile ranting about imginary "translations" just shows that you you have done no research at all. The passage is VSM 23.20–31. I've no idea what your question ("why will an ashwamedha yagna be conducted in the first place?") is supposed to mean. It's an assetion of political power, which is symbolically represented by the horse - an emblem of virility and dynamism. Paul B (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Suneeldurve (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC) suneeldurve@gmail.com, on 3rd April 2014

The description of the entire procedure is horrible beyond imagination. However I shall not question about its source. Most probably it could have emanated from the extremist cults like ′Haththyogi′ (हठयोगी प्रथा) practices or 'Patanjali'Yoga (पातंजली सूत्रे), or from similar practices. However it should be understood that such practices were frown upon by almost everybody in the past also, and were not openly admitted (hush hushed) by their supporters. These are akin to black magic voodoo in Africa or witchcraft of 16th or 17th century in Europe. The reasons some people went to profess these are same as for which reasons some Africans or some Europeans practiced such. People are same all over the world and such practices must have come at some time or other,in the past of entire humanity I suppose.

However it appears to me that Ashwamedha was meant to establish international relations for commerce and defense purposes by nations. Nations were small sized in those days and travelling for any purpose required crossing several boundaries. Since in those days, land travel was not possible and invariably involved using horses. Hence permitting a horse to come inside of a boundary of any nation (in Indian peninsula at least), must have been regarded as a notion of friendship, willingness for co-operation, while prohibiting it as indication of enmity. If we peruse the list of permitted items in customs department of any Nation,i.e. goods controls on borders, it will be observed that even today the first item listed happens to be "horse", followed by other livestock. As the items and varieties increased with technological developments, they were appended to these lists, so it appears that the first customs-controlled item was horse. The on going Yadnyas and Yagas appears to be a way to keep the masses engaged, just like the present day employment schemes of various Nations and various types, for example the Rojgar Hami Yojna (Guaranteed Employment scheme) in my country, India.Suneeldurve (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014
A Contemporary view of Ashvamedha Yagna

Source:http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/ So what is the truth about ASHWAMEDHA YAGNA?

The truth is the horse is NOT killed at all-- leave alone the queen having sexual intercourse with a dead horse's you know what..

A spirited horse is chosen, with white fur and no blemishes. A yagna ( Agnihotra homam ) is held BEFORE the horse sets out on a guided tour.

So why is the white horse on a guided tour? This is the essence of Ashwameda.

The emperor seeks to check out if any of his vassal kings want to challenge his supreme authority— in public.

The horse is guided by the Emperor’s generals and chosen ministers. They generals follow the white horse on their own horses.

The horse with clanging bells is made to travel through the vassal kingdoms. Any vassal king can kill the horse and thus declare war on the Emperor, which will happen pretty soon. If he just captures the horse, there may be room for negotiation.

The horse is even taken to enemy kingdoms, and there is “diplomatic immunity” for the Emperor’s men not the white horse.

Any tough acting intentions are gauged out.

When the horse returns safe and sound, it means all is well-- and the emperor's supreme authority is unchallenged. And all know it too.

In the POST Ashwamedha yagna all vassal kings are invited, and there are celebrations all around, for peace and prosperity  in future. Soldiers go home to their families.

Himu1978 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blogspot is not a reliable source, consider providing a summary and better source.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashvamedha the term
I would like to ask if the term ashvamedha is actually used in the Yajur Veda, the actual term ashvamedha. I checked the twenty second through twenty fifth books but I did not see the actual term ashvamedha being mentioned. I believe that the identification of ashvamedha with the horse sacrifice occurs in the Satapatha BrahmanaGrathmy (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to change certain lines from deformed to closer to actual meaning
With due respect I wish for your kind attention from line number 22 23 and 24 which states "The chief queen ritually calls on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walk around the dead horse reciting mantras. The chief queen then has to mimic copulation with the dead horse, while the other queens ritually utter obscenities." There were many translations of the lines in Ramayana (Baala Kanda Chapter 1-Sarga 14-Slokas 33-35) but none concluded any meaning coming closer to the above lines. It was took from 'Keith, Arthur Berridale (trans) (1914). The Veda of the Black Yajus School Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita, Oxford, pp. 615-16' but many recent translations deny this. Recently there came up a website of IIT Kanpur, India that gives a totally different meaning. (Refer to "http://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/"). There they have listed translations of these slokas by a various scholars which are thought to be closer to the actual meaning (Refer to "http://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_tid=1&field_sarga_value=14&field_sloka_value=33"). I think the meanings/details given in wikipedia are not the actual meanings of the respective slokas, and are twisted and deformed in a way which can hurt all the Hindus reading this. According to the IIT Kanpur website (http://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/) These lines should be changed to "The chief queen with immense glee has to go round and worship that horse, severe it with three strikes of scimitar. She in her devotion to duty and with a happy state of mind, passes one night near that horse. The priests arrange other queens and another woman known as Palakali to touch the sacrificial horse". I give respect to Mr. Arthur Berridale's work but I think it is time to update these lines with newer details and more coherent and plausible explanations. Thank you.

Sonai52 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The website you quote is not what we call a reliable source (WP:RS). There is an ideological imperative to deny the meaning of the words because it seems too "primitive". Paul B (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)