Talk:Mamuni Mayan

Maharshi Mayan or Brahmarishi Mayan
Thanks for your wonderful article. I have heard of Mayan being a Brahmarishi and not just Maharshi. Can any one kindly verify the same.

I can see that here .... http://www.google.com/search?q=Brahmarishi+Mayan&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en

BalanceRestored 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the article is cobbled together from online sources. I believe I have found enough evidence that the topic deserves separate treatment, but we badly need authoritative references. Most of them will probably be in Tamil, and we'll need a Tamil speaker to dig them up for us. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure it will take me more than 1 month to read Tamil. I am sure I will get lot of details. I hope Shree Ganesha helps me with that... BalanceRestored 11:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of ancient material relating to Maya (Mayan in Sangam literature of Tamil) is in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, and this is also more archaic with respect to Tamil. Mamuni Mayan (<*Mahamuni Maya) is no different from Mayasura.VJha 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WHO WAS MAMUNI  MAYAN ?
Surya Suddhanta(SS)says that it was given to Maya Asura after he appeased the Sun-God through excruciating tapasya (physical mortification), at the end of Kritayuga (Cf.translation of SS by Burgess,chapter 1,verses 2-8). According to Surya Siddhanta,this date goes back to 2160000 years before Kaliyuga started in 3101 BCE (Burgess,i,17). In Ramayana, Maya Asura is mentioned. If we reckon the tradition date of Ramayana, it was near the end of Treta-yuga, i.e., around 864000 years before Kaliyuga or 867101 years before Christ. Maya Asura was active during Mahabharata War too, which took place slightly before 3101 BCE according to traditional Hindu view. Thus, Maya Asura does not seem to be a human being at all. Qualities and qualifications traditionally associated with him are also superhuman. Surya Suddhanta states that it is 'Brahma-samjnatitam-rahasyam', i.e, secret and sacred knowledge or Brahmajnana (last verse of SS). In SS,i,8 it is said that SS was given to Maharishi ('a great sage') only. A maharishi possessing Brahmajnana can be called a Brahmarishi, hence the Tamil tradition that Maya Asura was a Brahmarishi is in conformity with Surya Siddhanta, as well as with traditional meanings of associated terms. A Brahma-rishi or a Maha-rishi can also be called a Maha-muni('a great monk'). Ma-muni is a Tamil adaptation of Sanskrit word Maha-muni. Earlist refences to Maya is found in Sangam (or Sangham) literature, e.g., manimekalai ( mani-mekhalai). The titles of many ancient Tamil works like Jeevak Chintamani and a lot more are Sanskrit words. The word Sangam / Sangham is itself Sanskrit. These words are related to other cognate words of Indo-European family. These words were borrowed from Tamil into IE family cannot be proven, because IE or tamil shows more archaic proofs of these words than sanskrit. The opposite seems to be true. The word Maya is also derived from Sanskrit root *ma, which means to measure. Hence, etymological meaning of Maya supports his qualifications as a great builder or a great jyotishi. The implication is that Tamil and Sanskrit had mutual relations from pre-historic times. Many Tamil words in Aryan languages can also be found. But all the words related to Maya or Mayan Tamil origins. Even today, Sanskrit names like Surendra, Rajendra, etc can be found as Surendran and Rajendran in Dravidian territory. In the same way, the Sanskrit word Maya became Mayan in South.Thus both words Mamuni and Mayan are Sanskrit in origin. The bulk of Sangam literature(most ancient Dravidian literature, when Malayalam was not distinct from Tamil) belonged to early centuries of post Christian era, but the most archaic portions dated back to last centuries of BCE., according to mainstream historians. Even Tamil historians on the board of India's syllabus-making apex body NCERT support this view. But some stories mentioned in the most archaic portions of Sangam literature may be related to prehistoric folklores. The story of Maya is one of such stories. It is impossible to date accurately such prehistoric stories which took the shape of mythologies. The claim that Mayan existed 13500 years ago is a figment of imagination, because Dravidian territories do not provide any proof of architecture or other activities associated with Maya or Mayan. Vastuveda.com belongs to an influential commercial enterprise dealing in astrology (of which Vastu is a part), and its views about Maya is part of its commercial advertisement and propaganda. Ganapati Sthapati and his associates may be great sculptors and architects, but their views about Maya Asura are certainly right. Some people in Tamil Nadu today believe that since Aryans worshipped gods, Tamils should take the side of demons (Asuras). But the Tamil masses still worship Hindu gods. Maya was a reformed asura, and a follower of God/gods, like Prahalaad or Vibhishana, and no Hindu has a bad opinion about Maya. - Vinay Jha.VJha 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * what you say is perfectly correct, Vinay. This article is about folklore and "figments of the imagination". Of course, the Mahabharata war taking place in 3101 BCE is just as much a "figment of the imagination" as a Mayan living 16,000 BCE. That's alright though, since this is what we are discussing here. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like the figment of imagination that a illegitimate son of a carpenter went around babbling about his hallucinations. It's funny how many 'people' (asuras) are taken in by this jewish carpenter's boy..

I think I should add my views,in summary, about Mamuni Mayan in the main article, because some people are deliberately publicising wrong views. I will say that the date of Mahabharata War is an unresolved issue. I have worked on it extensively, scanning every verse of original text as well as views of scholars, but I found drawbacks in every view, and I was myself also unable to find out a reliable date, on account of considerable interpolations in the text of Mahabharata. The date 950 BCE is as much imaginary or biased as 3101 BCE or any other date. A scholar should not rest his opinion on lopsided views. This issue is controversial and will continue to be so for a long time. - Vinay Jha.


 * How is Maya (Mayan) associated with the gotras that the hindu Vishwakarmas follow? and then why there are differences between the Black and White Yajur Veda when they quote the linage of Vishwakarma? BalanceRestored 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are decades we have been talking about Vishwakarma, but suddenly all the narrations of the deity suddenly disappears from the shukla yajur veda? But, clearly the Krishna Yajur Veda mentions the linages. So, either of the one is apparently wrong. There's something really deep to get to.BalanceRestored 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've seen repeated narrations where probably the Shukla followers where trying to equate the Deity Vishwakarma to a demon. That's clearly shows some kind of rivalry that the 2 schools had and it looks like there's something I need to study from the History of Aryans and Dravidians. I need to also check what the TS is all about. Again, everyone there can only be one truth and not two, according to a prophesy that I've heard all the hidden secrets will be opened up one by one and everything will be clear when the end of kaliyuga reaches. I am seeing the same happening :)BalanceRestored 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the above irrelevant citations which was due to all junk I kept reading at times. Please do not consider them.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

to VJ, the 3101 BCE date is a 6th century calculation. There is no "correct" date of the Mahabharata War since it is a legendary event. No, you should not add a "summary of your views", since, as you admit, they are original research. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic crypto Jewish guys shall understand if Tamil is a Sanskrit word, then why the heck Sanskrit doesn't have ழ which is the uniqueness of thamiழ்‌. My dear hindian dog,it's not dramila it had to be thamiழ் if it was. Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:714F:6631:6C9D:462D:E652:806F (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Relation Between Mayan and Visvakarma
It is well known fact among the vishwabrahmins that Mayan was the son of Visvakarma. What Dr Ganapati was referring was that, vyasa adored his creations to be as good as his father's and referred the later to by his father's name. BalanceRestored 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology, I misunderstood earlier that Dr Ganapati was referring to Maya, i.e. son of Vishwakarma which is why I cited "by his father's name". But later after referring to both Ramayana and Mahabharata it is clear that Dr Ganapati is referring to Maya Danava son of Diti and not Manuni Mayan who is son of Visvakarma.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mayan Lived Long and Prospered in Knowledge and Skill

The conversation regarding Mayan seems to be based upon mythology rather than existing facts. Who should one go to to come to understand the efficacy of an architect/sculpture named Mayan? How about traditional architects and sculptors? Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati is on eof the handful of living architects/sculptors who come from an ancient family lineage of Vishwakarman Brahmins (architects, sculptors, goldsmiths etc.) These families are aware of the life of Mayan and have used Mayan's texts (vaastu shastras) for thousands of years-  to them, there is no mystery about who the man was and what he did.

One commenter above stated that there was no real evidence regarding Mayan. I'll have to say that that is completely inacurate. One of his texts has been translated into English and it is clear that it is written by him and when. It states it was written by Mayan during the first Sangam(in the last few verses the author states that he Mayan is presenting this text to the ruling King at that time and hopes that the King will understand and accept it - the Aintiram). It is a treatise on the five fold manifestation of energy into matter, the tw fold OM -the concept of OM light and OM sound, the manifestation of language, the eighty four grid cube called Manduka Mandala (Vastu Purusha Mandala), the finest particle of unmanifest energy called microabode (six sided cube), the mathematical order in which consciousness,(Brahmam) transforms itself into the material world,and the use of all of this knowledge of manifestation in architecture, dance, music, sculpture, and poetry. Mayan asserted in the Aintiram that there was one force, substance, consciousness that he called Brahmam that, in an effort to savour it's own beauty (being its infinite potential) it manifested itself as the material world. Mayan, being and enlightened Siddha (asura actually does not mean demon in technical tamil - it means one of great power)had the capacity to go into his own inner being and perceive this One Force and its' manifestation process. Then Mayan was able to perceive how to replicate that process for the well-being of humanity.

In addition to the Aintiram, Mayan wrote what Veda Vyasa called the first Veda - the Pranava Veda. The Pranava Veda elucidates in more detail the One source, the two fold OM, the Five fold manifestion process and what he calls the Five fold Veda which Pranava Veda is the first (as stated in the Pranava Veda). Mayan calls the vedas on architecture (Vaastu Shastras or Sthapatya veda), dance, music, and poetry the other four Vedas. If one understands Mayan's cosmology then the entire concept becomes clear.

At present, the English translation of Aintiram is out of print but it is available through Dakshina Publishing in Chennai. In addition, there is a project underway to translate the Pranava Veda into English sponsored by the American University of Mayonic Science and Technology www.aumscience.com

It is common knowledge among the traditional Sthapatis that Mayan and Vishwakarman are one and the same. Mayan was called Vishwakarman because he was able to replicate the manifestation process of the One creative force. He was able to create forms that had a life of their own by using the mathematical order employed by consciousness itself as It journeyed to manifestation. The term Vishwakarmin Brahmin refers to one who has the ability to create forms that radiate the vibrant stillness of Brahmam.

Mayan had twelve main disciples and an Academy through which he taught. In fact one of his disciples was named Maayan. This is the Maayan who most likely went to Central America and Mexico to spread this knowledge of Pranava Veda and whose name was taken for the Maayan culture. Another disciple, Bodthan, went to Russia and to other places in Europe. Many cities are named after him. Mayan had a known father (not Vishwakarma), mother, daughter, wife, and sons. All of this information is available in Tamil literature.

References:

Aintiram Pranava Veda Building Architecture of Sthapatya Veda ((Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati) Fabric of the Universe (Dr. Jessie Mercay, Dakshina Press, Chennai) Numerous articles and books written by Tamil scholars including Dr. S.P. Sabarathanam of University of Madras in Chennai) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.193.7 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Manuni Mayana and Mayasura
In UTTAR Ramayana Mayasura is stated as son on Kashyap rishi and not Vishwakarma. Which is why these two individuals seem different. While Manuni Mayan is the son of Vishwakarma It will be great if someone checks the validity of MayaAsura being the son of Kayashyap risi since Dr. Smith cites "so many people think that the entire seventh or last section of Valmīki's version is a later interpolation". As either Mayasura being Kayashap risi's son or Vishwakarma's son should be a fact. There cannot be two truths at the same time. Or, Brahmarisi Mayan and Mayasura are two different people. Again, another striking similarly between the two is both know the ultimate truth Brahmajnana assuming Vinay Jha's comments above with regards to Mayasura from Suryasiddantha are correct. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see reference with regards to children of Vishwakarma. The Maha Muni Maya we are trying to talk about is him. Mayasura is on the other hand a child of Kashyap Rishi.
 * Kindly remember VISHVAKARMAN (The eldest brother among the children of Brahma) is "One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis" as per Rig Veda Book 10 Hymn 82 and Mamuni Mayan is his son. While MayaAsura is son of Kayashyap risi (A much later born child of Brahma, so a younger brother among the children of brahma) and Diti as per citations in Valmiki Ramayan 7.12 and Mahabharata Sabhakriya Parva
 * "Hailing from the southern part of the world, where thrived the Asuras, who excelled both in intellectual and physical prowess,Mayan was called Mayasura, who later came to be known as Mayendran." taken from http://www.vastuved.com/mayan-memorial.html
 * Dr. Jessie Mercay (probably it is her) "Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati’s family also holds that Ahura Mazda was Asura Maya." cites here http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/asuras-and-slavery-the-indic-disconnect/
 * Dr. Smith cites "...after having lived 10000 righteous years of rule, only then does the Uttar-kãņḍa start in Valmīki. This is the reason so many people think that the entire seventh or last section of Valmīki's version is a later interpolation".
 * Also the current known version of SuryaSiddhantha by Mayasura is in Sanskrit and Mamuni Mayan's Pranava Veda is in Tamil. So, there is a great possibility that the two individuals are different. Again, there can be shifts upon translations. GOD only knows the truth Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Eka eva pura vedah

pranava sarva van mayah - Bhagavtapuranam 9.14.48

Can u define these words in simple english? From this i think both of them are same.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain, what are you talking about... What is Bhagavtapuranam 9.14.48 to do with "From this i think both of them are same"? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Going as per Dr. Sthapati's http://www.vastuved.com/mayan-memorial.html it is Mamuni Mayan itself who is credited for authoring both Pranava Veda and Surya Siddhanta. So, some of my comments and some edits to the article seem incorrect and I would be fixing the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to have individual pages for both. I don't agree that this page should be merged. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is There Any Chance of Article Legitimacy?
Is there any chance of making this article remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia? The absolutely absurd time frames that the article refers to clearly make the article very questionable, as to any authenticity, whatsoever. 10,000 years ago, 16,000 years ago, 2,160,000 years ago? What? There was no written language for the cultures of the Indian subcontinent 6,000 years ago, let alone on the planet. Does anyone want to try to make this article even remotely plausible? Right now, as it stands, it is absurd and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mamuni Mayan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130105042435/http://www.vastuved.com/publication.html to http://www.vastuved.com/publication.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)