Talk:Gayatri Mantra/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Reason for separate article
The Gayatri Mantra is a common mantra to Hindu and Brahmo religions. As Brahmo religion is non-idolatry, inclusion of image of deity Gayatri in the article and some other aspects are problematic. Yvantanguy (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Headings of Different Interpretations
It is irrespnsible to write that some interpretations of the mantra are "Western" and that others are "Hindu". This is beacuse there is no standard hindu interpretation as they change from sect to sect. Therefore a more academically correct heading would be the actual source credited with the interpretation. Rijul.puri (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Other interpretations
There seems to be some debate over what interpretations should be included. I have reverted the page to avoid the addition of one person's interpretation replacing and/or representing many interpretations. Please feel free to share any comments or concerns before further material is added in bulk again. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would tend agreement with you. "Hindu" (?) interpretations is already on the Gayatri. non-Hindu interpretations cannot be on that page due to image controversies, name of deity controversies. Also Brahmoism is classify as a "religion", Arya Samaj as a "sect" (as per Gazetteer of India, 1912)Lillycottage (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

no external links section is on this page ? we can have some useful links on this page like http://www.allbhajans.com/gayatri-mantra/ this page has the gayatri mantra video, text in hindi, and downloadable MP3s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.186.138 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article today to a version by user:ism schism. The article needs to be balanced among various interpretations. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Split
If you insist we split the article, we can split it, but we can't just duplicate the content. Gayatri is a personification of the mantra. We can have Gayatri and Gayatri mantra at separate locations, but both articles are so brief, and their topic so closely related, that I would perfer a merge. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The translation should be
It is not a dictate, nor a call for prayer. It is only a description of the eternal truth of life and how it is connected to the universe. Hence a more general translation would be:

"When we comprehend that the energy from a star percolates to all realms of life, sustaining it, we attain a deep understanding of God (and His creation = Himself)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.206.78 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

enough
people keep removing encyclopedic content and instead keep adding random linkspam and unreferenced "interpretatinos". This has been going on for years, this article is notoriously unstable and prone to deterioration from anonymous IP. I have semiprotected it for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The semi-protection is a good idea. I think that better referencing and a bit of reorganizing (see below) will also help with the lack of stability. Priyanath talk 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

'Translations', reorganizing
I propose reorganizing the article into a short section on the use of the Gayatri Mantra by different groups (Gayatri Paravar, Vivekananda, Brahmo Samaj, etc.) and also it's evolution into use by non-Brahmins. The various 'translations' should be in a separate section, but these are more 'interpretations' than translations. What makes them notable or due weight for this article? The William Quan Judge version can only be found on the Theosophical Society website and in a turn-of-the-previous-century Theosophical magazine, for example. Priyanath talk 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag
I think that the Mantra has separate notability from Gayatri, and that this should be a separate article and the merge tag removed. Priyanath talk 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The Mantra has independent notability from Gayatri and has to be a separate article. Suggest an early close to the merge discussion. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 20:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the merge tag since there does not seem to be any consensus for merger, and both articles seem to be be decently developed by themselves. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Word for word explanation"
The "word for word explanation" appears to be Original Research based on unreliable sources. I couldn't find a single reference for it, though I did find some unreliable sources that supported different parts of it. Is a word for word explanation really needed for this article, especially since it's arguably a commentary instead? Priyanath talk 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a literal translation is fine for the reader, and since the word-by-word translation is anyway unsourced OR, it can be safely deleted. Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The word for word explanation is for readers who are not familiar with Sanskrit. Like, 99.999% of our reader base. Obviously, if you know Sanskrit you don't need it, and if you don't care about Sanskrit you also don't need it. I don't know which of these two sides you're coming from, but come on, the OR allegtion is just silly. --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I raise the OR concerns because, even after consulting a dictionary, one needs to decide which of the homonymns is applicable. Adding a source for this translation, would relieve the OR concern. Additionally, do you think the word-by-word translation provides much useful information beyond Griffith's literal translation ? Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would favor a word-for-word "translation" that was actually geared toward explaining this to English speakers. The deleted version, for example, says "bhuvas "atmosphere"antariksha", which doesn't explain much. For an English speaker, what is "antariksha", other than "original research" and "confusing"? That kind of 'explanation' is what prompted me to put the tag on the section. Priyanath talk 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

you should perhaps distinguish the actual word-by-word explanation which I added to this article years ago from random later additions (such as the "antariksha") by the proverbial drive-by Hindu editor spreading confusion. The actual explanation here was that bhuvaH is bhuvas- "atmosphere" in the triplet bhU, bhuvas, svar "earth, air, heaven". This was a perfectly valid and valuable explanation now missing from the article. antariksha, fwiiw, is indeed a Sanskrit synonym of bhuvas here, but I agree that its mention here doesn't do anything. --dab (𒁳) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: While I would still prefer a source (eventually, at least), if dab or Priyanath prefer to retain the previous translation, they are welcome to revert my deletion. Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dab, if you mean this version, then I'm all for it. That one does make sense. Can it be sourced is another question. It might be a stretch to source it to Griffith, but it essentially paraphrases his, so for now that would work for me. Priyanath talk 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"can it be sourced" may be a question, but its answer is yes. You only need to look as far as Monier-Williams. MW even has a discussion of bhur bhuvah svah under bhuvas. --dab (𒁳) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Prefix
Is there a technical term for the "prefix formula" (ॐ भूर्भुवस्वः)? Is it considered a intrinsic part of the Gayatri Mantra (GM), or just an appendage ? I ask because (1) with the prefix the GM is no longer in the 8-8-8 Gayatri meter, and (2) the papers I have seen so far provide only the text and translation of the 24 syllabic RV verse when talking about GM. Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think in the lead it would be more helpful to mention the actual Gayatri Mantra first, and then say something like "when recited, it is typically preceded by "oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ" (ॐ भूर्भुवस्वः), a formula taken from the Yajurveda." But I'm talking off the top of my head, so have the salt shaker handy. Priyanath talk 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your speculation is correct. See for example Mantra in Blackwell's companion to Hinduism; and I have changed the emphasis in the lede accordingly. I have also removed the bit about the verse being found in all Vedas, since as per a source (which I can't locate at the moment!), not all recensions of Samaveda contain the mantra. Once I relocate the source, I'll add this detail to the body of the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been asking myself the same question. There are actually three parts,
 * the om
 * the bhur bhuvah svah
 * the actual gayatri verse

Now om is just om. bhur bhuvah svah is in the YV. It turns out the technical term is mahAvyAhRti,
 * "the mystical utterance of the names of the seven worlds (viz. bhUr, bhuvar , svar , mahar , janar , tapar , satya the first three of which , called 'the great Vya1hritis'  , are pronounced after om by every Brahman in commencing his daily prayers and are personified as the daughters of Savitri and Prisni" (MW, s.v. "vyAhRti")

so it turns out that the first two parts are connected already outside the Gayatri mantra. The remaining question is, when did the om+mahavyahritis become permanently attached to the Gayatri mantra? This must have happened as the mantra left its original sphere of Brahmanic liturgy and became "everyman's mantra", when, as the article puts it, 'Modern Hindu reform movements spread the practice of the mantra to include women and non-Brahmins'. But we still need a source as to when and where this first happened. Another question would be, when and by whom was this first identified as a triplet of triplets, viz. ((a-u-m)(bhu-bhuvas-svar)(padas a-b-c)) identified as "summarizing" the three Vedas (RV, YV, SV) --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. The one Brahmin I could ask in person just now tells me that when formally initiated, what he received as the "Gayatri Mantra" included the prefix, which was recited with the other three lines each time it was recited (as opposed to just once at the very beginning of multiple repetitions). It certainly leaves unanswered the question of when, why, and how the Mantra began to include the prefix as a seemingly integral part. I'm only guessing that my friend is typical, and that it's been included in tradition for a long time. Reliable sources, or confirmation from others, would be helpful in that regard. Priyanath talk 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dab, good find on the vyāhṛtiḥ !
 * I am now convinced that the prefix formula is not an intrinsic component of the Gayatri mantra. However, I think that om and vyartih were attached (or at least linked) to the Gayatri Mantra much before the modern reform movements. For example, I found the following tantalizing hints (the IAST is lost in my cut-and-paste):
 * None of this is conclusive, but combined with the propensity to count and link triads, I wouldn't be surprised if the link is drawn during Upanishadic times. Worth adding to the article if we can find some more concrete sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This quote may be most conclusive (although it still does not establish if this was the first link):
 * Will add this to the article later. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this is conclusive, but combined with the propensity to count and link triads, I wouldn't be surprised if the link is drawn during Upanishadic times. Worth adding to the article if we can find some more concrete sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This quote may be most conclusive (although it still does not establish if this was the first link):
 * Will add this to the article later. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will add this to the article later. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the addition of om+mahavyahritis, Rammohan Roy's treatise on Gayatri (mentioned in the article) quotes the Maha Nirvana Tantra: "If the Gayatri be repeated with the Om and the Vyahriti (viz. Bhuh, Bhuvah, Swah) it excels all other theistical knowledge, in producing bliss." And he also quotes Raghunandan Bhattacharya (15th century?) as saying, "By means of pronouncing Om and Bhuh, Bhuvah, Swah, and the Gayatri, all signifying the Most High,...." Priyanath talk 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This English translation of Vishnu Samhita gives the following:
 * Pranava of course being Om.
 * And some interesting background:
 * Priyanath talk 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And some interesting background:
 * Priyanath talk 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Priyanath talk 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And from Manu Samhita:
 * Priyanath talk 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Priyanath talk 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

excellent research, we really have a couple of solid sources on this now. So the prefix is Upanisadic, then, and the triplet thing also seems to be early, appearing in the dharmasastras. A point that strike me as worth noting are that the Upanisadic sources still seem to care about meter, i.e. they take care to get eight syllables by making the vyahrti bhumir antariksam diyauh rather than the metrically defective (well, non-metrical) bhuur bhuvah svah, but the Dharmasastras seem to settle for the non-metrical mahavyahrtis. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, a lot of this discussion section seems to be collaborative Original Research. Protozoan (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AV
We have "the AV calls it 'the Mother of the Vedas'", referenced to Panikkar, p. 40 (viz. an esotericist, not a scholarly publication). This raises a bit of a red flag. Are we talking about the AV samhita here? Does the AV text refer to "Gayatri", or "the Gayatri mantra"? How do we know it is talking about this mantra, and not, for example, the Gayatri meter? This needs substantiation. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. It seems the Vedas have many 'Mothers' :-). Here Maurice Bloomfield writes that "According to XIX 14,15, (Bhav.)=11516 Brahman created the first tristich called Gayatri, the mother of the Vedas, and afterward the four Vedas." ("Bhav."?) Here Barbara Holdrege credits the Harivamsa with "a number of passages" that explain how the "Vedas emerge from their Mother Gayatri/Savitri". Griffith also credits Gayatri in this way, from Harivamsa: "After framing the world, Brahma "next created the Gayatri of three lines, mother of the Vedas, and also the four Vedas which sprung from Gayatri." " Supporting the many Mothers theme, in the same pages Griffith provides sources for Saraswati, and "Vach (speech)" separately being the Mother of the Vedas. I couldn't find a better source to support Panikkar's statement from the Atharva Veda. I'm not opposed to that particular statement being removed if there isn't a better source found. Priyanath talk 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this quote in Gonda's Indian mantra long the same lines: "For instance, the so-called pranava, i.e., the 'mystic' syllable Om- originally a 'numinous primeval sound' which is still uttered with the utmost reverence-is throughout many centuries regarded as a positive emblem of the Supreme. It is said to have flashed forth in the heart of Brahma, while he was absorbed in deep meditation. It unfolded itself in the form of the Gayatri, which, in its turn, became the mother of the Veda's"
 * Gonda does not identify a specific text or verse, but I suspect the idea itself is widespread. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Raimon Panikkar: He was a professor at Harvard and University of California, Santa Barbara and the book The Vedic Experience: Mantramanjari was originally published by the University of California press and widely reviewed in academic journals, ,. However the reviews themselves are polite and critique it for mixing in "tolerably reliable" translations with "juicy" devotional elucidation. So while I wouldn't dismiss Panikkar's claim out of hand, it would be best to find a better source if the AV factoid is thought doubtful. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of that addition to this article was simply to show the widespread praise of Gayatri Mantra in Hindu scripture and tradition, which is notable. So to replace it with Griffith and his Harivamsa "mother of the Vedas" quote would be perfectly fine by me (or a similar alternative). Priyanath talk 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, but the AV samhita is very old (1000 BC). I will believe the mantra is called the Mother of the Vedas in the Harivamsa or any other text of that period, but the AV claim will push this idea back by a full millennium, and that isn't to be taken lightly. But there may be something interesting in there, we should check what the AV actually says, and perhaps this will turn out the nucleus upon which the idea was later built. --dab (𒁳) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand. Since I was trying to show the breadth of support in Hindu tradition and scripture, rather than the age of that support, I'm happy to replace AV with Harivamsa. If we can find something in AV, then that would also be interesting and notable for a different reason (namely, 'very old' support). Priyanath talk 00:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Griffith translates AV 19.71 as:
 * Let my libations, giving boons, adoring, further the Twice-born's song that honours Soma.
 * Go ye to Brahma's world having enriched me with life and
 * breath, with children and with cattle, with fame and wealth,
 * and with a Brāhman's lustre.
 * The "Twice-born's song" could refers to Gayatri Mantra, but it's hard to read in "Mother of Vedas" into the rest. Of course this may just be a matter of translation, but I have looked and haven't found any other reference to AV calling GM the MOV. So for now, it may be best to leave that out, as Priyanath has done. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ! On http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_mantra appears a significant update about the gayatri mantra. According to S. M. Hamsananda, (Le yoga de l'Amour dans la Force, nouvelles révélations, Albin Michel, 1990, 343 p., p. 215-226) quoted in the article, the mantra described and used untill now, know as the brahman's mantra is the Gayatri of the Iron Age (Kali Yuga) humanity has left in 1986 to enter in the Golden Age (Hiranya Yuga). The delivering of the new Gayatri of the Golden Age, remained secret untill now is also revealed, the translations, significations, and effects. The referring to Savitur is here, the changing part of the new mantra, replaced by "HAMSAH MANARAH MIRCHOAN", which meaning is close to the ancient one. This is no more referring to the Sun (Savitur) but, the Divine Breath (HAMSAH) of the Absolute (similar to the expanding breath of Brahma), of the Column of light MANARAH, (bridge between Celestial and Physical realms, between God and Humans) and Synthesis of God's lights as one (MIRCHOAN). So this still refers to the same thing, principle, but given an other name, according to a cosmic change of age (yuga). I think such an updates needs to be considered and the french wikipedia article be translated to complete this wiki english article (about the same subject !) Ishadawn (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindu reform movements
(Protozoan's comment moved here by Priyanath from his talk page) re: Hindu Revivalist movements, and in context of Swami Vivekananda, you may recall the consistent stand of RK Mission that they are NOT "Hindus" (which claim the Supreme Court of India struck down in 1995) and even today most RK Mission adherents continue to claim that they are not Hindus. The mere Chanting of Gayatri Mantra by non-Brahmins (which Mantra by almost every Ved is restricted only for worship by Brahmins) cannot constitute 'worship' which is prescribed in the Vedas, and neither can the mockery of wearing of sacred threads by lower castes. Whatever Swami Vivekanand propogated form 1898 (??) on these 2 issues (GM and sacredotal thread) was political and not religious. I wish to clarify that these are not my personal views, but precepts well settled in hoary reliable sources such as Vedas, Smritis etc. Protozoan (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Protozoan, Wikipedia articles depends on reliable sources (WP:RS), not on what you or I think, or on our personal complaints and hurts regarding 'our' religion, whatever it may be. Reliable sources put Vivekananda well within 'Hindu reform movements'. This one, just for example, calls the Ramakrishna Mission "the best known of all the Hindu reform movements". Also, please stop inserting your personal opinion into the article, as you did here. Neither your 'reference' or the opinion provided in your edit summary support the continual re-adding of your opinion that non-Brahmins cannot 'worship' but only 'adore'. Priyanath talk 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) I recall that there are Vedic (Upanishadic ?) injunctions against the Gayatri Mantra being revealed to, or uttered by non-Brahmins/non-twice-born and we can mention this to the Brahminical usage section. I think this is worth including, since it provided the motivation for the Hindu reform movement to extend the Mantra's use. Of course, we need sources for these statements and I'll try to find them later today. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be a helpful addition to the 'Brahminical usage' section. A neutral/academic interpretation of the primary source would also be helpful. Priyanath talk 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"only by Brahmin males"
Just saw this article; it's great. A point which may not be worth fussing over: It seems (from reading the sources, also what I've heard) that technically, chanting was traditionally restricted to those who had been initiated it the sacred-thread ceremony, which is not exactly identical to "Brahmin males". The respective sources say (emphases mine): "The ritual of reciting this hymn is restricted to those who have been invested with the sacred thread, which essentially limits this practice to Brahmin males"

- Rinehart, p.127

"Though the Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas had a right to it, they do not all seem to have exercised it"

- Radhakrishnan, p.136

Similarly, the mentions of "twice-born" (=those who have had the ceremony) in the other references, and Vivekananda's initiation of the ceremony and the mantra together. (And Brahmin males too were not supposed to recite it before they had had their upanayanam, I think.) This is perhaps a bit pedantic, but it would make some things clearer. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not at all pedantic - that's exactly what needs to be made clear. Rinehart seems the most explicit about even saying that essentially it's limited to Brahmin males. Others seem to indicate that it's forbidden by tradition only to women and shudras. Of course nowdays everyone seems to chant it, and it's a favorite ringtone and doorbell recording. I think we need good sources to show not only what the traditions have been regarding who can recite it, but where those traditions might have originated (vedas, upanishads, or ?). The Radhakrishnan quote is a good one, and perhaps should be in the article, with attribution to him. I hope to do more here in the next few days. If you want to begin by making the changes you mention, that would be an improvement, imo. Priyanath talk 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is worth clarifying and getting right, with good quality sources. In particular, we should use terms like "traditionally" with care, since the traditions in Vedic, Upanishadic, Puranic, post-Hindu reform, and modern India can differ significantly.
 * Shreevatsa, you may also be interested in the related discussion on my talk page. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: As per my reading, the "it" in Radhakrishna's quote refers to "wearing of the sacred thread", and not Gayatri Mantra per se (see context). Am I missing something ? Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point about "traditionally". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any sources explicitly saying what I said earlier, though it is implicit in several of them. I read Radhakrishnan's "it" as referring to upanayana/initiation, of which "wearing of the sacred thread" is a symbol and imparting of the Gayatri mantra is the "essence". It should be possible to find other sources (e.g. by searching for 'twice-born', 'dvija', or 'upananaya' etc.) that say that some Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were initiated into the Gayatri mantra too. I did some random googling, and found some sources that might be relevant (to the earlier remarks):
 * Ambedkar's Who were the Shudras? has a line in passing that says "Why the Gayatri Mantra is regarded as so essential as to require the ceremony of Upanayana before it is taught is difficult to say."
 * This book (Gayatri Mantra by S. Viraswami Pathar) says "According to Manu, women too chanted Gayatri mantra in olden days, after they were initiated in Upanayanam ceremonies."
 * And this book (The Hindu world) has this: "The Gayatri is considered so sacred that precautions are taken to prevent this sacred utterance from reaching the ears of the uninitiated. In some upanayana ceremonies, this secrecy is guarded by draping the father (or teacher) and initiate with a white cloth. Underneath the cloth the father whispers the mantra into the son's ear, asking him to repeat it syllable by syllable." :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, I've edited the article to be ambiguous about the brahmin question. At some point I would like to do better, but the sources are so various and vague at times that it's going to take more serious researching, which I can't do at the moment. If anyone want to revert, refine, overhaul, vandalise, trash, or just edit what I've done, feel free to do so :-). Priyanath talk 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of further interest
"The Vedic Gayatri is a standard mantra given to all boys of the upper three castes and was seen as an initiation that allowed him to master the Vedic knowledge needed for successfully entering the role of a householder. In Vedic times girls also were initiated.(14)"

I don't know how reliable the source is, and I can't see the footnote page in Google Books to see where the "girls were also initiated" came from, but it's not the first time we've heard this. Priyanath talk 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Gayathri Mantra
The section 'Text' mentions 'Savitar the god'. There's no such thing as savitar the god in the first place ! The actual meaning is more like " Oh God! Thou art the Giver of Life, Remover of pain and sorrow, The Bestower of happiness, Oh! Creator of the Universe, May we receive thy supreme sin-destroying light, May Thou guide our intellect in the right direction." 

I think that it is necessary to edit the text section immediately.

jash121 talk 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Links
Here are few link for Gayatri Mantra. It is an Discourse series given by Shri Bannanje Govindacharya in Kannada lang. http://www.kannadaaudio.com/Songs/Discourses/home/Gayathri-Chinatana.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unjayapra (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for providing gayatri mantra with swara markings
Could someone provide the mantra with swaras?

Iyer arvind (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gayatri Metre
By Raimundo Pannikar's logic every hymn in the Gayatri metre can be described as Gayatri Mantra. The citation seems to be original research, or alternatively, poisoned by some common source. Annette46 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are in fact other "Gayatri verses" dedicated to other deities, but the one addressed to Savitra is the most well known, and Gayatri Mantra usually refers to the RV 3.62.10 verse. See Frits Staal, The Sound of religion Numen, Vol. 33, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1986), pp. 33-64 for discussion and examples. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this {http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_V-14a.html }, as well as E.V.Arnold {http://www.archive.org/details/vedicmetreinitsh00arnouoft } which do not exactly fit your hypothesis. Annette46 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you see any contradiction. I am well aware of other Gayatri mantras, other Savitr mantras and other "Gayatri" mantras in Anustubha meter - see for example this discussion, where this topic and sources have been previously discussed. This article follows wikipedia policy of WP:COMMONNAME, and uses the name Gayatri Mantra to discuss the topic of RV 3.62.10, since that is what most of the reliable sources do (including the ones you linked above!). Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Savitra Interpretations
In Brahmoism, the hymnn is not addressed to the Surya Deva Savitr, and neither is it called Savitri. Please see reference no 23 - Appendix C of Shiv Nath Shastri's book. And also reference 15 - Rammohun Roy's exposition - where various alternative interpretations are considered. Annette46 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The verse is literally addressed to Savitr, which Brahmosim interprets as signifying the creator. This is already explained in the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brahmoism does not admit any "devas" ( God"lets" / Aspects of Supreme Being etc.) or that there is any deva named Savitr. It is only explained in a footnote, whereas the impugned text conveys misleading POV impression of only a single interpretation. You may kindly address these concerns and rework the phrase to make it NPOV. Annette46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC).


 * The Gayatri Mantra, is a Vedic hymn addressed to a Vedic deity; this is absolutely non-controversial. Now some can interpret Savitr as symbolizing some force, entity or creator, but that does not change or contradict the previous fact. All this is already explained in the article (which is where I assume you are getting your information from). Note that as a small and (relatively) recent religious movement, Brahmoism, commands only a small weight in this article, which summarizes its interpretation in a section of its own. The details of Brahmoism's beliefs are best discussed in wikipedia article on that subject. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not referring only to Brahmoism interpretations. The Arya Samaj interpretation is also similar. In fact it is a content dispute between Monotheistic interpretations of the Vedas versus other interpretations. Let me be specific where the controversy is --> "Deva". It is your interpretation that "Savitr" refers to some "Deva" (not exactly corresponding to the single "deity"). "Deva" is not the same as "GOD" (all caps) or "Supreme Being". There is no basis for your conclusion that Savitr must correspond to "Deva" (one amongst a plurality of gods). I will not enter into any controversy now on the encyclopedic scope of religions like Brahmoism and Arya Samaj which were the first to codify (as best possible) the Vedas into a written form (from dubious oral traditions / scattered texts) and interpret them scientifically and objectively. Insofar as UNDUE is concerned, this is not fringe theory .The sources I have referred to are over a 100 years old by well respected scholars. Annette46 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked other regular editors of this article to weigh in, since I don't know how I can explain my above points better, at present. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no "controversy". Annette46, I am glad for you that you are aware of the various implications of the term "deva" but why on earth do you come to this talkpage to tell us about it? If you have a good reference on Brahmoism or Arya Samaj, cite it and we'll certainly put it in the article under the section discussing modern interpretation.
 * Certainly, I shall do so in the Brahmoism and Arya Samaj sections. Annette46 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claims regarding the "first codification" and "scientific and objective interpretation" of the Vedas is utter nonsense by the way. Your claim that "There is no basis for your conclusion that Savitr must correspond to 'Deva'" is almost mind-bogglingly surreal in the face of the fact that the very text of the mantra says "savitur devasya". Did you not even bother to read the mantra text itself?? --dab (𒁳) 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Devasya means "divine" and not "deva". Your claim that the Mantra says "savitur devasya" is hokum and Original research. 1st pad (in Gayatri metre of 8 syllables) = "Tat Savitur Varenayam" means "That (Tat) Supreme (Varenayam) Being / Light (Savitur)", 2nd pad = "Bhargo Devasya Dheemahi" means "Meditate (Dhimahi) on the Purifying (Bhargo) Divinity (Devasya)". <--- These are the similar interpretrations cited in the article by Ramakrishna Mission (Vivekanand), Araya Samaj, and Brahmoism not to mention S.Radhakrishnan (for Hinduism). No mention in any of these interpretations of the Mantra being an invocation to the deva Savitr == Sun God. Annette46 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I clarify that I am not opposed to any interpretation of the Mantra as being an invocation to the deva Savitr. I am merely pointing out that there are many significant alternative interpretations which do not gel with the phrase I edited. Annette46 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, dab should look before he jumps. there is no "savitur devasya" in this chant. Dieter, this is a case where you flippancy richly deserved by Hindutva brigade is unwieldy. Your interlocutor might be a new-fangled enthusiasts, but certainly not one of the parivar ilk, as it appears. Don't push him against the wall and over to the other camp.--117.204.93.135 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no "savitur devasya" in this chant? It is original research to claim that it does? "Devasya means "divine" and not "deva""? I am sorry, but I cannot argue with people who are quite obviously from some parallel reality. Please describe your parallel Gayatri Mantra in some parallel Wikipedia. You may note, Annette46, that Sanskrit in this universe is an inflected language. Before you plunge into theological detail, you may want to begin by learning how to identify a genitive.

The literal translation by Griffiths we cite goes ""May we attain that excellent glory of Savitar the god: So may he stimulate our prayers." If that is good enough for you, you can stop there. If you want to understand why Griffiths translates it this way, you will have no choice but to learn the first basics of Sanskrit inflection and sandhi.

The "deva Savitar" invoked may be interpreted polytheistically as "the sun god", or it may be interpreted monistically as "the Divine Light". This is extremely trivial and completely undisputed, and it is a point of theology that does not alter the plain fact that the mantra addresses the "deva Savitar" however you may choose to interpret that term. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kindly desist from making ad hominem attacks on your fellow editors. The fact of the matter is that there is no "deva savitr" or "devasya savitur" (or "savitur devasya") in the mantra we are discussing. That is not to say that there are not other verses /combinations which implicitly address "devasya savitur" (such as "tattvaà savitur devasya vareëyaà bhargo dhémahéti" or "devasya savitur devo vareëyaà hi turéyakam" . If you take a verse with only 9 words you can form 72 (n*n-1) 2 word combinations and interpret them any way you want and claim every other person is an imbecile (from a parallel reality). Annette46 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * is awkward on Talk pages. The reference (found here) is to  a transliteration of the Gaudiya scholar Jiva Goswami's commentary on a passage in the Agni Purana, purporting to explain the Gayatri mantra (in strictly Vaishnava terms, of course.)  And, as it happens (not surprisingly), the two "verses" cited, tattvaṃ savitur devasya vareṇyaṃ bhargo dhīmahīti (sic, the iti at the end is noteworthy, sheesh) and devasya savitur devo vareṇyaṃ hi turīyakam, do not occur anywhere in Vedic literature.  In fact, the second is a direct quote from the Agni Purana (see Section 16 of the vyākhyā.)  They have nothing to do with the matter at hand, especially since the exact genitive phrase devasya savitur occurs 5 times in the RgVeda, and the nominative devaḥ savitā over two dozen times. rudra (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rudra, appreciate your taking time out for this. I also smiled (grimaced ?) at the ending iti of the first cite. I will of course comment (leisurely) on your other posts below, but need to ask this up front - do you go with dab's championship of the Griffith translation, or do you acknowledge that all the other "modern" free translations (Jones, Vivekanand, Shastri etc.) in the article may not be entirely devoid of merit ? We can save a lot of time that way.Annette46 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for dab, but in my reading he was not "championing" Griffith's version. Rather, he was suggesting, and I agree, that it was as good as any.  Regardless of whether dhīmahi is taken as the 1st plural middle present imperfect of √dhī (as Radhakrishnan does) or the 1st plural middle present optative of √dhā (standard since Sayana at least), the fact remains that it is completely uncontroversial that devasya savituḥ is unitary here.  What it meant in its original Vedic context is also completely uncontroversial.  What it might mean to latter day interpreters is a dime a dozen.  As long as reliable sources are provided, they can be worked into the article. rudra (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks that clears it significantly for me. I personally go for devasya as genitive of deva "agreeing (??)" with savituh. In the context of RV-3.62.10 its a no-brainer. But what does one do when some modernists decline to acknowledge that the Gayatri originates (?) from RV.3.62.10. Since Sage Yajnavalkya was the last sage to understand the Gayatri fully, I suppose we ought to include what purports to be his Gayatrt-Vyakarana somewhere in the article. Annette46 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest seeking Rudrasharman's opinion on this. dab, your impatience and personal remarks are self-contradictory considering an old logic of your own. What's your wikimotivation, nowadays? 117.204.93.40 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion: dab is 100% correct. The Sanskrit needed is far from rocket science.  But somehow it seems that lessons simply must be given for free before there is any chance of sanity prevailing.  So here are my two cents.


 * Since Vedic/Sanskrit is a fully inflected language, word order is often not important, as the grammatical relations are carried in the forms of the words themselves. In poetry, moreover, words can also be rearranged for metrical reasons even when otherwise, just as a matter of idiom, there might have been a normal order.


 * The major grammatical facts of the mantra are that it is a single sentence, with one finite verb, dhīmahi, and a subsidiary clause introduced and governed by the standard correlative construct tat...yad ("that...which/who").


 * The third pāda has the subsidiary clause: yad appears in the form yo, due to external sandhi, and the clause is dhiyo naḥ pracodayāt ("thoughts" + "our" + "stimulate"). Putting that together should be easy.


 * The first two pādas, introduced by tat, have the main clause with the finite verb. The four other words, savitur, vareṇyam, bhargas (in sandhi form bhargo) and devasya  all have known grammatical cases: respectively, genitive, accusative, accusative and genitive, all in the singular (i.e. neither dual nor plural).  The two accusatives in the singular therefore identify a single object, vareṇyam adnominally qualifying bhargas.  The two genitives in the singular are similarly related, devasya adnominally qualifying savitur, and both pertain to the object identified by the accusative endings.


 * Probably the hard part here is understanding these adnominal relations. The point is that if you have a multi-word construct, e.g. two words of the form "adjective noun", then all words must separately take the same case ending (nominative, accusative, dative, whatever) in a sentence. The only way to have only one case ending for the lot is to compound them first. This is why devasya savitur is a single entity in the genitive case: deva savitṝ + genitive ending.  It is completely irrelevant that the words are not next to each other.  Everything follows from the facts that there is a single finite verb with a single object in the accusative case.


 * Now, if only blog-warriors would do their homework first. rudra (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. That settles the matter for me. Thanks, Rudra. Sorry that I doubted dab's mastery for a brief while. Still, he could have done without the scorn he throws at the other party. --117.204.93.212 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One more point, which may qualify as WP:OR only because it's the kind of thing not really discussed except in very specialized works. Why is the phrase deva savitṛ split in this mantra?  The answer is practically certain to be metrical constraints.  The same reason also points to the fact that the word vareṇyam was almost certainly not the original form.  The metrically restored version of the Rgveda has vareṇiyam.  This is needed to bring the syllable count of the first pāda up to the regulation 8.  (It's somewhat ironic that the eponymous Gayatri mantra, in the form received in latter days, is actually a defective example of its meter!)
 * Now, in the gāyatrī meter, pādas tend to have an iambic cadence (i.e. end with a dah-DUM-dah-DUM rhythm, where the last can also be -dah instead of -DUM, known as "anceps").  This is true for (the metrically restored) vareṇiyam and pracodayāt in the first and third pādas, and would be true for the second pāda if the ending dhīmahi were preceded by a "light" (laghu) syllable.  Only the word devasya among those available provides this (even with rearrangement). rudra (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, a) how do you translate dhīmahi in gaytri mantra ? b) cannot dhiyo naḥ pracodayāt be translated as direct our intellect ? c) do you interpret savitṛ as Creator/Cause or as Aditya ? d) How many occurrences of devasya savitur or ''devaḥ savitā' in RV breakdown into Creator/Cause versus SolarGod/Aditya ? 85.10.197.167 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (a,b,c) My translations/intepretations are irrelevant. All that matters here is that versions be properly sourced.  WP is about notability and verifiability, not truth; and Talk pages are not the comment sections of a blog. (d) The "creator/cause" stuff might come up, if at all, in the 10th mandala only. If you want to investigate it, the nominative form devaḥ savitā is found in: 10.17.4d, 10.27.18c, 10.31.4b, 10.87.18c, 10.100.3a, 10.100.9c, 10.158.3a, and 10.174.3a.  (This information is from Bloomfield's concordance, available electronically here.  Further research, such as for other case forms, is up to you.) rudra (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rudra. Apparently it is expected to post basic introductions to the topic on talk just for the asking, these days. Talk about Experts are scum -- not that it takes an "expert" to perform the feat of identifying a Sanskrit genitive. I do apologize to Annette46, who does show a willingness to learn about the topic, but next time you want to discuss such basic questions it may be better to use WP:RD/H where people usually fall over themselves to be helpful. Talkpages are for discussion on how to improve the article, informed by the material that we already have in the article. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brahmoism
Also to Annette, can you please stop pushing references to Brahmoism into this article? It is straining WP:DUE to mention Brahmoism at all, but there is definitely no place for this outside the "Brahmoism" section. Brahmoism is a new religious movement of very limited notability. In fact, the Brahmoism article fails to establish any kind of notability short of the fact that they have a website. You may want to turn your attention there if you are interested in helping improve coverage on this group. --dab (𒁳) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability of Brahmoism is even more limited than I imagined. The last known headcount is from the 1931 census when adherents had dwindled from 6,400 to 5,400 over the past decade (population of Bengal at the time: >70 million). There is a final note from 1969 known to adherents.com, stating that the movement is "fading out". The appearance that there is a recent revival is entirely based on on-wiki pov pushing. Adherents.com is unaware of the continued existence of the movement, or at least no estimates are known. For the purposes of this article, I don't think it is arguable to include more than a passing mention of Brahmoism under a wider discussion of the Hindu reform movements. --dab (𒁳) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I just figured out that apparently, the 2001 census of India counted 177 remaining adherents of Brahmoism. Brahmoism is certainly notable as a 19th-century reform movement, but discussing their view in any detail on the Gayatri Mantra article is clearly problematic under WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Bachman. You have been altering too many Brahmoism articles today. You should be knowing that ever since 1951 census the "TRUE Brahmos" (earlier known as the anusthanic Brahmo) are listing themself under "Adi-ism" or "Adi Dharma" etc. The 2001 census shows 29.8 million Adis in India of which 7.83 millions are following the Adi Brahmoism (of which about 2 million in Punjab are also with Arya Samaj)  which is now called "Adi Dharma". For your kind information the census data on religions with less than 10 million persons (minor religions) is not as yet fully compiled or officially publish by census registrers Government of India, also because there is a stay order by Delhi High Court since 2003 to publish census data about Adi Dharmis till case is decided. 212.227.114.174 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP, If you can substantiate your information with reliable sources, that would be useful addition at Brahmo, Adi Dharm, Arya Samaj and related articles. This talk page, though, would not be the right place for such a discussion.
 * Dab, I didn't realize that Brahmoism had dwindled to be that small a movement. I think a brief mention of the movement would be warranted in this article mainly because (1) the centrality of GM in their liturgy, and (2) their efforts to spread the use of the mantra beyond Brahmins. Such mention should, per WP:DUE, be included in a Brahmoism subsection/paragraph, and the main body of the article should reflect the more mainstream views on and history of the mantra. Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are certainly some issues about the census data. 177 simply cannot be the figure of Brahmos - the source cited for this in the Brahmo article is vague. The regular paid up membership of the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj was over 12,000 at the time of their last elections in 2009. The fortnight long Maghotsab festival (program here ) celebration has 4,000 adherents participating each year just at one Brahmo Samaj in Kolkatta. There are about 40 Brahmo Samajes in this list  of the Brahmo Conference Organisation (1890) which is active in East and South India. The larger Brahmo Conference Organisation of 1881 has about 100 other Samajes which are mainly located in North India. Annette46 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vedic cross-references
The Bloomfield concordance entry for the first pāda (tat savitur vareṇyam) is huge. Broken down into sections, it looks like this: There's some material about this in Jan Gonda's monograph "Indian Mantra" that's probably worth tracking down. rudra (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RV.3.62.10a; SV.2.812a; VS(M).3.35a; 22.9a; 30.2a; 36.3a; TS.1.5.6.4a; 8.4; 4.1.11.1a; MS.4.10.3a: 149.14;
 * AB.4.32.2; 5.5.6; 13.8; 19.8; KB.23.3; 26.10; GB.1.1.34; DB.3.25a; ŚB(M).2.3.4.39a; 13.6.2.9; 14.9.3.11;
 * TA.1.11.2a; 10.27.1a; TA(A).10.35a; BṛhU.6.3.11; MahānU.15.2a; MU.6.7a, 34; JUB.4.28.1; ŚvetU.4.18;
 * AŚ.7.6.6; 8.1.18; ŚŚ.2.10.2; 12.7; 5.5.2; 10.6.17; 9.16; ApŚ.6.18.1;
 * ŚG.2.5.12; 7.19; 6.4.8; Kauś.91.6;
 * SMB.1.6.29a (KhG.2.4.21); ApMB.2.4.13 (ApG.4.10.9-12); VārG.5.26; BDh.2.10.17.14a.
 * Ps: tat savituḥ ApŚ.20.24.6; MŚ.5.2.4.43; ApG.4.11.9; MG.1.2.3; 4.4,8; 5.2; tat MDh.2.77; Rvidh.1.12.5.
 * Designated as sāvitrī, or gāyatrī, throughout Vedic and Sanskrit literature. Cf. vedāś.

this is interesting, thanks for taking us back to actually discussing philology. --dab (𒁳) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the above information should be added to the article in some form, instead of simply being lost in talk-page archives ? Another feature of note may be it's virtual absence from Samaveda, which Staal highlights ("It [GM] occurs everywhere, with one exception: it does not occur in the Samaveda. Or rather, it is placed at the beginning in some collections (in some manuscripts and in most of the printed editions), remaining outside the systematically numbered sequences and all classifications, while in other collections it is simply not found"; Bloomfield and Griffith do list one occurrence). Staal also talks about the difference in enunciation of the mantra by Brahmins aligned with the different Vedas ("The Gayatri mantra itself is pronounced differently by Nambudiri brahmans belonging to the Yajurveda or Samaveda and Nambudiris belonging to the Rigveda: the former pronounce the visarga "h" at the end of "nah" in (11) as an "f," a sound that is generally believed not to occur in Sanskrit.")
 * Note sure where in the article, such information would go, so am asking here. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'f' sounds like the Nambudiris' approximation of the upadhmaniya (optional) variant of the visarga. See this, e.g. rudra (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Frits Staal traces the variant to Panni's rule 8.3.37: see . Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a new section, tracing the historical influence. Gondas's "The Indian Mantra" has some useful information.  (He also gives two references to CHI Vol.4; one, to Venkataraman's article "Śakti cult in South India", seems pointless, but the other, to Ravi Varma's article "Rituals of Worship", is interesting.) The section could also work in stuff like the derivative Gayatris and maybe the issue with the meaning of dhīmahi. rudra (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let you explicate the root dhi vs dha distinction, since I am confident I'll get it at least partially wrong.
 * As yo say, the Gonda paper has other useful content that can be included in our article: for example the esoteric interpretations of the mantra in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Gopatha-Brahmana (pp. 287-88), and the Puranic personifications of Savitri and Gayatri devis (p. 286). Currently our article skips from the literal interpretation of the Rigvedic text to interpretations of the 19th c. Hindu reform movement - overlooking some 3000 years of history! Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to sort these references (see here) in an effort to summarize them efficiently. It looks like we can make summary statements about usage in the śrauta ritual (accounting for the samhitas, brahmanas, and srautasutras), and in the upanayana (the grhyasutras). Then, we have the esoteric interpretations (the various upanishads) which may need individual treatment.
 * Parallel to the upanishads would be the derivative gayatris: the ...dhimahi ...pracodayat formula, basically, on which Ravi Varma's article can also be cited; and, possibly, Gonda's citing of the same usage in tantra. That, in turn, could lead into things like Gayatri as goddess, etc. rudra (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

dhīmahi
Re my recent edit. This could be problematic. The basic point is that the word dhīmahi shifted meaning in the vedic period itself. The newer meaning, based on √dhī ("meditate, contemplate"), also became the traditional one in later times. (This root has problems of grammar, such as being principally intransitive, so that objects can only be indirect and thus should take the dative rather than accusative case -- cf. the later "gayatris" of the Taittiriya Aranyaka and the Maitrayani Samhita.) The original meaning, given in the article, is based on √dhā. This is philologically certain, but finding a source to explain all of this in one place will be difficult. Gonda, in his "Indian mantra" monograph, references Whitney in a footnote, along with a synopsis of Sayana's commentary. A slightly longer rendering of this commentary is in Wilson's Rgveda translation. rudra (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of those derivative gayatris were quoted in this extended discussion. I've (re)acquired a copy of Gonda's monograph, and I see that he has discussed them in some depth, in particular the ... dhīmahi ... pracodayāt formula. rudra (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: dhīmahis shifting meaning. This is primarily why I buzzed you on the modern translations which invariably interpret dhīmahi as "meditate on". Similar issues crop up on the shifting emphasis of Tat. I don't claim to be an expert on ancient/Vedic Sanskrit, just 6 or 7 years of present day Sanskrit at school level.Annette46 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Sanskrit from school could be more hindrance than help if it wasn't specifically focused on Vedic texts. There is no substitute for reading up on the philology involved. If you don't know that dhīmahi is from √dhā, and that this is the only correct rendering of material in a Rgvedic context, you will simply have to do your homework. You can start by looking up the verb dhī in Monier-Williams, available here, and here.  You wlll find: "the forms dhīmahi and a'dhāyi belong rather to √ 1. dhā".  You can also consult Whitney's The roots, verb forms and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language, where under √dhī, dīdhī, "think" he notes "the form dhīmahi belongs here only as thus used later, with a false apprehension of its proper meaning".  rudra (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This essay by Harvey Alper has some useful discussion of the Gayatri Mantra, including the issue of dhi- reinterpretation. It essentially summarizes Gonda's work in the area, but may still be a useful and accessible reference. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alper doesn't seem to have gotten it right (dhyā is a derivative of dhī, so both are on the "wrong" side of the issue). And Google snippet view is utterly useless, so I can't tell if the problem is in Gonda's Visions of the Vedic poets book. (Possible, but unlikely, as he got it right in the mantra monograph.) rudra (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A trip to the library settles it. Alper got it wrong.  Here is the paragraph from Gonda(1963a, 291):
 * Footnote 22 cites Whitney (as I have just above on this Talk page), and footnote 21 refers to p.97f in the same book, where Gonda writes, on p.98:
 * (He then quotes Keith's deliberately "traditional" rendering of TS.1.5.6.4 as a contrast.)
 * It seems Alper missed the beginning of this chapter, on p.289, where Gonda writes, backed up by footnoting Mayrhofer and other experts:
 * Alper also cites Basham for a "traditional" version. Interestingly enough, I have the "3rd revised version", dated 1967, of Basham's book, and there (on p.163 now) he gives: "Let us think on the lovely splendour of the god Savitṛ, that he may inspire our minds".  The WP:RS variants are multiplying. rudra (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work, Rudra!
 * I think though we have a multitude of "translations" of the verse, they essentially fall into 3 classes:
 * The literal translation given by Griffith, Staal ("May we receive this desirable light of the god Savitr, who shall impel our thoughts."), Gonda ("that we obtain that desirable (excellent) radiance of god Savitar who is to impel our 'visions'") etc
 * The (mis)tranlations/later translations that interpret dhīmahi as "may we meditate"/"may we think". Radhakrishna, Balsham fall into this category.
 * The free readings of the mantra that accord further qualities to Savitar eg. Vivekanand's, Brahmoism's, Arya Samaj and Jones' paraphrases (listed in a subjective order of increasing latitude).
 * I'd suggest that we explain the essential difference between the first 2 categories (citing Gonda), with 1 or 2 examples of each, and then simply list the prominent readings from the third category. What do you think ? Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an intelligent approach and still within the kind of "synthesis" we are allowed, nay required, to make in presenting information in an ordered and accessible manner. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sāvitrī
Apropos of the comment in the Bloomfield concordance, there is in fact a subtle distinction between sāvitrī and gāyatrī. The reference is the Śāńkhāyana GS, 2.5.1-12 and 2.7.8-11. Oldenberg's translation of 2.5.1-7: So RV.3.62.10 is just the gāyatrī sāvitrī, so to speak. The triṣṭubh sāvitrī recommended is RV.1.35.2, and the jagatī sāvitrī either RV.1.35.9 or RV.4.40.5. rudra (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) After one year (the teacher) recites the Sāvitrī (to the student),
 * 2) (Or) after three nights,
 * 3) Or immediately.
 * 4) Let him recite a Gāyatrī to a Brāhmaṇa,
 * 5) A Triṣṭubh to a Kṣatriya.
 * 6) A Jagatī to a Vaiśya.
 * 7) But let it be anyhow a verse sacred to Savitar.


 * Agreed.. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I worked this into the article, but I can't shake the feeling that it reads somewhat clumsily. rudra (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try; but frankly copyediting is a secondary concern. For now, we should try to simply add in all the information we have gathered, so that we don't have to go through this research and discovery cycle again a year down the line! Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mantra IAST
There are no á - 'a' with acute accent in IAST. अ is represented as "a". त् is "t" and त ( त् + अ ) is "ta". Hence तत् is represented as "tat" in IAST. So the IAST for mantra is: ' '  Sahyogi (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you do not know about the Vedic accent, nor that IAST has had provisions for it from the beginning. Please see this documentfor a good exposition of the details.  The critical portion is a quote in French: "... quant aux accents, l'udātta serait représente par l'aigu, le svarita par le circonflexe ^, le anudātta par le grave `.” rudra (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to request that the interpretation by Mr. William Q Judge, which was removed in recent edits, be reintroduced. Here's the link to the online commentary: http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/commentary-on-the-gayatri.htm.

In the spirit of completeness and fairness, a very germane commentary on this very subject by a noted scholar, author and philanthropist should not be left unreferenced. I request you to please reintroduce the following text under the Paraphrases section: "Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole duty on our journey to thy sacred seat.". Additionally provide the above mentioned link in the references.

Ratreya (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Wikiblame (searching on several parts), that text certainly hasn't appeared in the last year, if ever. I'm going to defer this one to the people who have worked on the article, to form a consensus. I will inform them of this thread, and am cancelling the edit request for now. I don't want the article to become a quotefarm, which is certainly an issue here - we shouldn't just be quoting interpretations, we should be providing an encyclopaedic description of the topic.


 * If a consensus is formed in favour of the edit, please reinstate the tag. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I requested that the protection be lifted, and it has been.


 * Page is no longer semi-protected; you can edit it yourself.  Chzz  ►  09:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

I would like to request that the modern tranlation, which was removed in past edits, be reintroduced.

"Almighty Supreme Sun impel us with your divine brilliance so we may attain a noble understanding of reality."

Here's the link to my online translation analysis: http://www.spaz.org/~ktb/gayatri.html

It also seems that this translation may not be a modern translation after all. This Sikh website quotes Sikh Founder Baba Guru Nanak Katha using this translation at age 10 when talkling with his religious studies teacher. http://www.houstonsikhs.org/581

Gayatri
It is interesting that Gayatri is not mentioned even once in the article. Is Gayatri a personification (either originally or as a later development) of the Gayatri Mantra, as that article says? (Or a personification of the Gayatri metre?) Does the Gayatri japa involve a japa of Gayatri? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gayathri Mantra is a scientific formula and experiment to know the source
OM - Indication of experimental start point

(Observation phase)

Bhur - I observe the Physical World

Bhuvaha - I observe the Mental World of thoughts

Suvaha - I observe the subtle life force within me (in the form of breath, heart beat,etc)

(Hypothesis phase)

Tat Savitur Varenyam - These Three images that I observe should have been projected from a source (by virtue of them being observable images)

(Analysis phase)

Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi - I think deeply/contemplate about that powerful source

Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat- I seek from that very source the intelligence to understand IT

Thus the Gayathri mantra is a scientific formula - a question or seeking to understand the truth or the source. The experiment is based purely on observations of the experimenter who seeks to know the source of the observations made and does not require any prior assumptions or understanding. Therefore it is universal and can be chanted by any seeking mind irrespective of race,caste,sex, or religion.

A true scientist will relentlessly pursue the experiment until the result is obtained and repetition of this experiment(the Gayathri Mantra Japa) as in the case of any conventional scientific experiment will lead to continual better understanding of the results obtained. (in the case the continual evolution of the mind)

Here there are no external equipments for the experiment but the mind of the person carrying out the experiment serves as the equipment. Havesh (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Havesh (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havesh (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are close, but still wrong. Divya Indu Chakravarthi Gautama122.173.230.173 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Mantra meaning From shuklayajurveda.org
Word by word meaning of Gayatri http://www.shuklayajurveda.org/gayatri.htmlGanesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Om – the primeval sound
 * Bhur – the physical world, this earth
 * Bhuva – the mental world
 * Svaha – the spiritual world
 * Thath – That (the Paramatma)
 * Savitur – The Sun, Creator
 * Varenyam – the most adorable, highest
 * Bhargo – Luster, Effulgence, tejas
 * Devasya - Supreme Lord
 * Dhimahi – we meditae upon
 * Dhiyo – intellect, understanding
 * Yo – who
 * Naha – our
 * Prachodhayat – enlightens, guides

Incorrect
Of Course Totally Incorrect. For only the worthy shall decipher.122.173.234.60 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How would one pronounce this mantra correctly? Preferably without an accent.

64.203.5.138 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)