Talk:Niyoga

Untitled
Please discuss anything about Niyoga article here.

Bodies covered by ghee
Swadhyayee, without starting a controversy, I want to ask you the source of this claim. I am glad that you are looking at my contributions and trying to contribute there as well. But this "ghee stuff" I have not read at all anywhere. Thanks. --Apandey 10:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC) If Pandu, Dhritarashtra & Vidura were born with the help of Niyoga where in another man is involved (here, Vyaasa) then how were they the heirs of Kuru? -- Revathi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.235.108 (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Which caste?
The word Hindu is not quite precise, and has no definite meaning.

Which caste did practise this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.3.202 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sacred texts is not RS.
Sacred texts dot com is not Reliable source to write Wikipedia article. Please provide RS to add content. — Harshil want to talk? 09:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Its a reliable source as it has written down clauses right from manusmriti. If wiki page of niyog doesnt have clauses then what will. If you have any comtradictory proof that these clauses doesnt exist in niyog of Hinduism then say. Edward Zigma (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OR is not allowed.-- Harshil want to talk? 10:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what I am talking about. . This person removes every edit I made againsr him. Says provide relible source like he is obsessed with reliable source. I am Clearly citing manusmriti one of mythological text of Hinduism and he is in constant denial mode. Same thing is happening in Payal Rohatgi page where he is removing her controversies which I am adding with proper citation but he keep removing it. Same on The Wire wiki page where he is using defaming tactics on liberal news portals of India. Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (responding to ping), At first, both of you please read and strictly follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. I reckon it will really help both of you. User:Harshil169 on what basis are you claiming that this site is not reliable ? Do you have an example where it is unreliable ? or did you just assume it ? As Edward Zigma stated this content is sourced from Manusmriti. So Manusmriti is the source here. The site sacredtext here should be considered as an online Archive/mirror site for the actual source Manusmriti. Harshil, if your only objections is on the site, and nothing else then you should probably allow this content to be added into the article. Edward Zigma I am sure there will be many books on Manusmriti as well which you can add in addition to the sacredtext site.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sacred texts is using books which have been thoroughly rejected by consensus on WT:Hinduism. Also, this content was added by one anonymous IP. I removed it, Zigma reinserted and keep reverting. — Harshil want to talk? 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Using primary source in the article!
please go through the article and share your opinion regarding the primary source, Manusmriti! I have removed such sources earlier from many articles, especially contentious ones! You may check my last edit summary in the article's revision history! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Sacred Text and Ayramantavya are reliable sources to begin with. Ayramantavya about us page talks about two professors प्रो. राजेन्द्र जिज्ञासु and डॉ. धर्मवीर, who aren't scholars. राजेन्द्र जिज्ञासु's article mention him as a freedom fighter, Arya Samaj worker and a Hindi litterateur, not a historian. Secondly, the source is from the Arya Samaj, hence would have inherent bias towards the movement. The following excerpt: "इस वेबसाइट को बनाने का उद्देश्य यह है की 'मनुस्मृति' को लेकर जो भी भ्रांतियां वामपंथियों, मुगल आक्रान्ताओं और भारतीय संस्कृति को मिटाने का स्वप्न देखने वालों ने फैलाई है, उन भ्रांतियों को मिटाकर मनुस्मृति के वास्तविक ज्ञान को आप समस्त जिज्ञासुओं के समक्ष उसी स्वरूप में उसके सही गलत श्लोकों की विवेचना के साथ प्रस्तुत करना है"
 * Translated as -
 * - Proves the inherent bias of the source. I'd say, look for WP:HISTRS compliant scholarly secondary sources for the job. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, these sources are WP:Primary, should be avoided as far as possible. Admantine123 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ekdalian! The source is not only primary but also fails to follow the HISTRS. I absolutely agree with all of you. Thanks, — Satnam2408(talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ekdalian! The source is not only primary but also fails to follow the HISTRS. I absolutely agree with all of you. Thanks, — Satnam2408(talk) 18:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Too many issues with this source as everyone pointed out.WP:PRIMARY applies here. Agree with you, and others. LukeEmily (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian, I think you can make a request at AIV for a block against this user for disruptive editing at multiple articles 2404:3100:189C:E8B1:1:0:8449:47C1 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues
The article may have several issues, including content and source mismatches. For example this claim is a copy-paste and the source was also not properly cited. It should be volume III of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy. Furthermore in the source, the word "Niyoga" may have been used in a different sense. I believe the article may have some copy-edit issues as well. Thanks, — Satnam2408(talk) 09:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant quote - {{Blockquote|Brahman, apparently, according to your admission) is only known through verbal testimony as pramäna', thus verbal testimony is an independent pramäna specifically in regard to niyoga. Answer : Ordinary injunctions (e.g., "eat this fruit") must then require Vedic texts to make them known ! Objector : The difference is that in ordinary (non-Vedic) injunctions the injunction relates to something about which we have knowledge by other pramänas ; not so in the case of Vedic injunctions. Answer : Precisely; so Vedantic statements are not dependent on other pramänas, since they are not about things about which we have knowledge by other pramänas. Objector : No, it is the Vedic sentences involving words governed by niyoga, which are independent pramänas. Answer : No—the same words and meanings apply in the Vedas as elsewhere; the optative case can't mean one thing in the Vedas and something else in other places. Objection : Anyhow, the reason why we must construe Self-knowledge as enjoined is that we cannot understand the meaning of Vedic sentences providing it unless we postulate a verb governing all Vedic contexts. Answer : A verb, to be sure, but not any particular kind of verb; declarative statements have verbs. In "that thou art" we have a verb, but it doesn't designate any action enjoined, since there is no expected result—jlva doesn't become the Self, nor does this sentence speak of any relation between them other than identity. Thus scriptural texts teach the nature of the Self directly, through secondary meaning [laksana), even though the Self is beyond the scope of words. 39 (ET 371-379) 706-719. Even if reality could be made known by other pramänas than scripture, scripture doesn't depend on those other pramänas. When what it says is understood, it has validly made known its subject matter, and no further pramänas are needed, any more than understanding niyoga requires another pramäna to make known its nature. A pramäna only makes something known; whether something is to be done or not depends on the object, not the pramäna. Objection : But niyoga is something to be established (sädhya), not already established (siddha) like Brahman; so your analogy fails against me. Answer : Either niyoga gets established by action or it doesn't. If it does, your argument is wrong; if it doesn't, performance of actions is useless. 40 (ET 379-397) 720-755. Brahman (unlike niyoga) is only made known by verbal testimony (i.e., scripture), since other pramänas. only make known things on the presumption of their difference from the knowing subject. Objection : But scriptural texts cannot constitute the pramäna unless something is adduced to explain how the several word meanings in a Vedic sentence conspire to yield a sentence meaning. In the case of other words conveying the knowledge made known by other pratnänas, the production of sentence meaning from the word meanings arises from the speaker's intention, and so in the case of Vedic sentences, since they have no author, unless we postulate an injunctive sense (to relate the word meanings) they will be nonsense. Answer : Why so ? Perhaps a verb must be postulated, but why an injunctive one ? Objector : Only injunctive verbs indicate niyoga independently; other words are restatements (anuväda) and cannot independently explain how sentence meaning arises from word meanings. Answer : Do you mean that the meaning of an injunction will be known even if we do not understand the words ? That can't be right. Objector : Yes. It is only the sentence that has the meaning associated with niyoga, not the words. Answer : Then each sentence means something entirely different from any other, unrelated in any way, which is absurd. ''Bring the cow" would be unrelated to "tie the cow." But "cow" is meaningful only when cowness qualifies other things than this one, and "bring" is meaningful only when things other than this one can be brought. Objection : Still, we see that sentence meanings are learned this way : the grandfather gives a command to the father, and the son, seeing the connection between the command and his father's action, understands the relation between the optative mood and the niyoga. Answer : The niyoga in this case is inferred from the father's acts— so it is not gotten from verbal testimony alone. Indeed, the inference is the critical aspect, as it must precede activity. We conclude that niyoga is not necessary for anything. Words when properly related by expectancy (äkämksä), fitness (yogyatä), and proximity [samnidhi) give rise to sentence meaning without postulating an injunctive sense or niyoga. 41 (ET 398-401) 756-761. Objection: There are two kinds of injunction, originative (utpattividhi) and injunction as to eligibility {adhikäravidhi). In the karmakända we find originative injunctions such as "Sacrifice !," in the jnänakända such as "The Self is to be seen." We also find the other kind of injunction, as in "He who wants liberation should gain knowledge." The former kind makes known|{{cite book|first1=Karl H.|last1=Potter|title=The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 3: Advaita Vedanta up to Samkara and His Pupils|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ydf_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA443#v=onepage&q&f=false|publisher=Princeton University Press|date=14 July 2014|isbn=978-1-4008-5651-0}}}} — Satnam2408(talk) 10:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)