Talk:Svādhyāya/Archive 1

Rewrite

 * I have completed a rewrite in which all of the unsourced material was eliminated and replaced by a sourced definition of the basic term, along with a few mentions of notability in the Yoga Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and by Madhva. Because the study of scripture is an important part of orthodox practice, there are extensive commentorial views on exactly what the practice includes.  The article could be expanded easily by quoting some of the notable commentators to show a range of views, which would bring in two additional ideas that I have not yet sourced in.  One is that the practice includes japa and mantra recitation (recalling that most scripture can be considered mantra), and the modern Westernized view that it means "study of the self" (as opposed to "study on one's own", which is the traditional view).  I will add a few of the more notable variant views in the next week or so.  The redirect of Svadhyaya to Syvdhyay should be removed, and the direction reversed, as this is a Sanskrit technical term. Can someone help with that? Buddhipriya 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job Buddhipriya! I added a category and wikilinked a few terms so that an interested reader can be guided to related items. Do you think the navigational template will be useful for this article ? A possible benefit od adding it would be that it will prevent the article from gaining a bloated "See Also section sometime in the future ... Abecedare 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some sort of "first strike" approach to the See Also section is a good idea, but I am not sure if the Yoga template is a good one, as there is a vagueness about the Yoga category that bothers me. This term is really more a matter of day-to-day religious observance.  I am not sure what template would work.  Perhaps Indian Philosophy is an option.  I'm not sure what to do. Buddhipriya 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Yoga template is not necessarily the best fit since it pigeon-holes the concept, which I believe is more general - that is the reason I didn't add it myself. Anyway, this issue is not that important, so we can decide it if/when we need to. Abecedare 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues of sourcing and OR
Some recent additions to the article have added a number of scriptural references and statements about orthodox practices that I feel are generally correct, but I have a concern about the use of only primary sources to make these points. All primary scriptural sources are open to interpretation. Thus secondary sources must be brought into the mix to explain the interpretations given here. Since I believe that the content is generally correct, I have not removed the new material as WP:OR, and over coming weeks I will try to work on upgrading the sourcing to get a more verifiable academic version of it. However some of the sourcing will need to recognize that some of the traditional practices are not well-documented in the academic literature. If others have opinions about the use of primary scriptural sources I would enjoy discussion of them specifically for use in relatively poorly-documented areas such as this one. Buddhipriya


 * The problem of sourcing mentioned by Buddhipriya was twofold : (1)I had to cite from Sayan's commentary of Rgveda (in svadhyaya) which is world's best commentary but has been translated in no other Indian or non-Indian language as yet(as far as I know), excepting into German (by Max Müller). I know little German. Moreover, quoting German on English-Wiki is worse than to quote from an original source in Sanskrit. (2) My second problem is more complicated, in which I need help from other editors : as I had told to DAB, "I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals". Taittiriya Aranyaka and Taittiriya Upanishada have English translations, but I have always studied from the originals, and it is not possible for me to procure English translations of all Sanskrit works I quote from (although it is not difficult to find out English trasnlators and publishers to be added in reference). Hence, I quoted small clauses and gave literal translations which cannot be contradicted by anyone because all my literal translations (which are not my personal POV) are based solely on the Sanskrit-English Dictionary of Sir Monier-Williams who is regarded as the best English lexicographer of Sanskrit and worked for 50 years on it : this is not against Verifiability. Other editors may help in finding English sources which are easy to find with the help of any search engine, instead of removing important contributions made by me. Fortunately, Buddhipriya has acted in a cooperative way, but in future I anticipate problems from less tolerant editors. Instead of deleting my contributions, editors should add tags like "citation needed" and discuss the matter first on talk page.


 * As far as I know, the traditional meaning of Svādhyāya cannot be found in any English work except in that of Pattābhirām Shāstri whom I quoted. Pattābhirām Shāstri wrote in Sanskrit, but the publisher added two translated versions as well, in Hindi and English. I was fortunate to find this great book by Swāmi Karpātri, otherwise my contributions to this article might have been branded as OR, although all traditional pandits would support the statements made my me. Pattābhirām Shāstri was also a traditional pandit, one of the greatest Vedic scholars during modern period. Is it not deplorable that many important traditional concepts like svādhyāya do not find any place in Western works on India ? Wiki policies of RS, NOR &c do not mean that only Western sources can be branded as reliable sources. If one finds reliable sources in English, they are welcome, but if some areas crucial to Indic studies have been neglected by Western academics, we would have to rely upon either original Sanskrit sources or their translations in Hindi &c (otherwise, these important areas of Indic studies will have to be removed from Wiki, which is not advisable). In this article I have quoted from Sanskrit version of Sayan's introduction to his commentary of Rgveda published by an organisation which is most reliable as far as reliability of text is concerned (this organisation was established nearly a century ago merely for procuring all availavle manuscripts and find out the most reliable version fit for publication together with all other variants in other manuscripts, and it was published with government assistance); Hindi translation of this 'Introduction' has been published under the title 'Rgveda-Bhāshya-Bhoomikā', which is part of post graduate (Vedāchārya) syllabus of all Sanskrit universities in India. If other editors desire, I can quote this Hindi version also.


 * (citation needed) : It has been said countless of times by modern scholars that Vedas were orally transmitted till the end of first millenium AD when they were written down. Memorization was the only means through which this oral transmission could have taken place. That is why I added : "svādhyāya had a unique meaning for Vedic scholars and it was the principal tool for the preservation of the Vedas in their original form for millenia orally". Svādhyāya was the tool for memorization is made clear by sources cited in rest of the article. I am presently shifting this passage to a more appropriate place where citation will not be required : to the end of second para in the section 'Traditional Uses'. If this passage is to be placed in introductory section, citations will be needed which are not impossible to find but may be time-consuming. Such citations are necessary, and may be kept in a TO DO list by editors.


 * I generally do not like to change contributions by other editors and prefer to add mine separately. Secondly, I never take a recourse to reverting, unless vandalism is encountererd which I recently faced in brahmarishi.Changes made by Buddhipriya to my contributions to svadhyaya are fine, and I will add wanted citations. -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 08:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have raised a lot of points at once, which can make it difficult to absorb and react to your issues. As you settle in on this article you may find that picking one point at a time and working it out is the easier way to get results.  I will reply to just a couple of the points right away.


 * According to WP:OWN, none of us has the luxury of writing content just for ourselves. Anything anyone adds can be removed or changed by anyone else.


 * According to WP:RS, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source." There is no requirement that editors give any grace period for removal of unsouced content.  Some editors consider it wise to put a fact tag on things first, others simply have a "shoot on sight" policy.


 * According to WP:OR we do not get to do original research here. Our job is to report on what WP:RS say.  Primary sources, such as scripture, cannot be used for purposes of interpretation of what they mean, who wrote them, or when they were written.

Before adding much more content, I think it would be wiser to concentrate on trying to get decent sourcing for what is already there. Otherwise some other editor will simply remove it as WP:OR, and they would be within their rights to do it, since all of the new material is a synthesis of primary sources. I have begun adding some citations to the first section, and have already added one reference regarding the traditional use. On your talk page I asked a specific question about citations to the lexicon. Can you please check the answer on that for me and give the defnitional verses by number as numbered in the online version that I gave you the link to? I will try to react to your other points in the next few days. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia and sometimes the best thing is to do nothing for a few days and let other editors react. Making large numbers of changes at once invites mass reversions when someone else comes along and is faced with massive changes that are too complex to absorb. Buddhipriya 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mādhavācharya
Please help me in finding quotation (from some English translation) from Sarvadarshan-sangraha of Mādhavācharya from which the following passage was taken by Raghavendrachar whom Buddhipriya quoted :"...study (svādhyāya) and teaching (pravacana)". Relying upon secondary sources is necessary for Wiki, but primary sources should at least be mentioned in short if possible. I have seen instances when secondary sources, even from reputed scholars, give wrong interpretations, often in good faith but sometimes due to prejudice. Many Wiki editors working in articles related to Indic studies do not even try to see primary sources, which often results in serious errors (not in this case). -Vinay Jha


 * The question arose: "please help in finding quotation (from some English translation) from Sarvadarshan-sangraha of Mādhavācharya from which the following passage was taken by Raghavendrachar whom you quoted :'...study (svādhyāya) and teaching (pravacana)'. The quotation was cited from a secondary source, as you noted.  The edition from which it was taken appears to have been: Mādhava. Sarva-darśhana-sangraha. Edited by Uma Shankar Sharma. Varanasi: Chowkhamba, 1964.  I have not see that work and do not know if it includes an English translation.  I would like to find one if we can hunt it down. Buddhipriya 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am adding references to Mādhavācharya. The last reference from Kessinger Publishing does not carry the name of the translator because I have seen only only two pages of this book (including the cover)in which translator's name was not mentioned, but the language suggested that the translator must be a serious person. I am not going to buy these translations, because originals are cheaper and more reliable. -Vinay Jha

Vedic versus Āryan
Buddhipriya asked me to "omit over-used word Vedic, and source the statement about the practice from Arya" in the tag of edit made on 06:16, 2 August 2007. Svādhyāya is not an Āryan but a Vedic term. The name 'Sāyana' itself is believed to be Dravidian in origin. Pattābhirām Shāstri was a Dravidian. Today, Dravidians are making equal or perhaps greater efforts to study the Vedas than the North Indians. According to academics, Āryan is a linguistic branch of IE comprising of 'Indo-Iranians', and in the present context this term should not be used at all, because it cannot be proven that the pre-historic Indo-Iranians had anything to do with Svādhyāya. The traditional meaning of the term Svādhyāya is purely Vedic, which included Āryan as well as Dravidian s. -Vinay Jha  09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you misunderstood my edit summary. "Arya" is the last name of the author of the book that I used for the citation, which now appears in the References.  The comment had nothing to do with the term . Buddhipriya 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry.  - Vinay Jha 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Titles of Sections
The Vedic meaning of Svādhyāya is twofold ; I have given the first one under "Traditional Uses" which ought to be labelled "Karmakāndiya Meaning" or "Ritualistic Meaning". The second meaning should be titled "Jñānkāndiya Meaning" or "Yogic Meaning", which may or may not include non-Vedic usages, if any. There is no contradiction in these two meanings but they are quite distinct from each other. This planned section should include references to Yoga too. Much remains to be added. -Vinay Jha 10:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some adjustment in the titles needs to be done. I think "Yogic meaning" is vague and will be a magnet for the Westernized uses of this term, which should be added as a third section.  In some modern Western groups they have appropriated this term to mean "study of the self" in the sense of introspection and similar Westernized meanings.  I have not yet added this in because I think it is important to document the traditional meanings first.  The Western interpretations are notable, but they clearly are a different use of the word entirely.  The word "Vedic" is so overused that it is almost meaningless.  It has come to be applied to almost anything that has anything to do with Hinduism.  I think it would be better to use descriptive titles that clearly state what the function was that was being done with the help of this, such as "Use for memorization", etc.  What do you think? Buddhipriya 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen many misuses of the term Vedic, such as in some websites of Vedic astrology which have no connection with anything which could be called Vedic. But the traditional "Karmakāndiya or Ritualistic Meaning" of the term svādhyaya is strictly Vedic and I have no proof that it had any connection with other traditions, e.g., Buddhist or Jain, for instance. The "Jñānkāndiya Meaning" also originated from purely Vedic roots, but later almost all Hindu and non-Hindu traditions got associated with it due to increasing popularity of Yoga among Buddhists and Tantrikas too. Therefore, I tentatively propose four sections :(1)introduction, (2)"Karmakāndiya / Ritualistic Meaning" (strictly Vedic) ,(3) "Jñānkāndiya Meaning" (Vedic in origin but gradually widening in scope due to Yoga), (4) "Uses in Yoga" or "Yogic Meaning" (which has wider implications than originally suggested by Patanjali). A modern meaning "self study" does not need a separate section and may be included in intruduction.


 * You have asked "what the function was that was being done with the help of this, such as "Use for memorization" ? The use of "Karmakāndiya or Ritualistic Meaning" of the term svādhyaya was to learn the mantras of one's shākhā "during svādhyaya-kāla" (according to Sāyana, p.18 in my ref. to Sāyana) in order to perform Karmakānda (yajna and other rites associated with Vedic tradition) "during Karma-kāla" (according to Sāyana, p.18). Vinay Jha 11:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to do a sourcing cleanup for all of the mentions of Monier-Williams, and that may help clarify some of the possible headings. I agree that the distinction between Karmakāndiya and Jñānkāndiya meanings is potentially useful.  I also feel that the modern Western notion of "self-study" need not be discussed in detail, but how to cite it and describe it is still to be determined.  I have some references that can be used for it, and some of them are by Hindus who are writing for a Western audience who are unlikely to be familiar with the traditional uses.  Regarding the issue of it as one of the Brahmanical duties, I fully agree, and feel that issue can be expanded to help the Western reader understand what it is talking about, as the context will be unclear unless explained briefly.  I have not found a Wikipedia article on the duties, but perhaps it is out there somewhere.  There is also a less formal interpretation of Svādhyāya as any type of spriritual study that leads toward deeper understanding of scripture or religious ideas.  Thus under that view, studying the Christian Bible may qualify as fulfillment of the duty under the broad definition of Svādhyāya, insofar as it helps understand how the same ideas have appeared in many cultures.  This broad usage of the term can be cited in more detail and is already briefly mentioned in the lead, where it mentions that some authors simply define it as "study" without qualification.  Buddhipriya 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All your views expessed above are correct, but their implementation will require caution and patience. Bible had many variants even in a single society, for instance in England till the Authorised Version was accepted. Outside the Vedic tradition, the Karmakāndiya meaning of svādhyaya as mastering one's own shākha of the scripture especially with a view to preserve the orally handed down tradition of unique pronunciation according to that shākha is nowhere to be found in the whole world. In all societies, people learnt only their own version (i.e.,shākha in a loose sense) of the scripture, but in India svādhyaya was made a religious duty, a part of nitya-karma as Sayana explicitly mentions (-p.18 in his introduction to RV,Pune edition). This unique meaning should be highlighted. Many indologists had wondered at this unique method of orally preserving an ancient and extinct language (please try to find citations), but perhaps no one mentioned the term 'svādhyaya' in this context. Vinay Jha 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that caution and patience are advisable. If we set a goal of getting at least the section titles clear over the next month, I think we will have accomplished something, because that would reflect better understanding of the range of meanings.  I also agree that the concept of mastering ones own shākha of the scripture is an important idea that probably will be unfamiliar to the average reader.  I suspect that the idea is not unique in human history, however, and suspect that some aspects of Jewish study may have parallels.  In the past I have had the benefit of informal conversations with Jewish colleagues about this, but until today have not found a book that specifically addresses parallels: [].  I am exited to find that reference, which was just mentioned by our esteemed colleage User:Abecedare on the talk page for Vedas.  I would not be in a rush to add anything about it, but the Jewish practices of scriptural study look very interesting as a comparative method. Regarding citations for the use of svādhyaya to preserve the Vedic texts in oral form, I already added the reference to the book by the author Arya, who discusses the method. That part of it is not very obscure, and additional citations will be added over the coming month on that point specifically.  Keep in mind that the average reader of this article may know absolutely nothing about Hinduism, so the concepts of shākha transmission, the duties of a Brahmin, etc., mean nothing unless briefly explained and sourced well.  If you examine the edit history on shākha you will see that I tried to clean it up some time ago, but eventually stopped working on it due to other demands. Buddhipriya 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove unsourced OR
I have moved the following unsourced WP:OR to the talk page so it can be examined more closely. According to WP:V, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The information given here may be true, but it is unverifiable because no source is given. The parts of this which are based on examination of almanacs is WP:OR and thus violates a basic policy against such content. Please provide citations to reliable secondard sources to support this material:

The list of anadhyāya days accepted by almost all traditional almanac makers are based upon a mediaeval work 'Muhurta Chintāmani' by Rāmācharya (cf. reference), but no Jyotishi has ever been able to prove the mathematical basis of Rāmāchārya, and recently Rāmāchārya's list has been declared to be wrong in six almanacs of many Hindi speaking states of India, including the Bihar Panchanga (cf. reference) in which a different list of anadhyāya days has been published based upon Surya Siddhanta. Anadhyāya days are determined on the basis of tithi (lunar elongation), and in most parts of North India and some parts of South India pandits still accept tithis computed on the basis of some form of Surya Siddhānta. The computation of anadhyāya days involves finding tithis during the entire Srishti (Creation) of 4.3 billion years and is, therefore, highly complicated. Starting tithis of all 14 manvantaras together with all 4 yugas of present manvantaras and a few more inauspicious tithis are anadhyāya days on which Vedas should not be studied in any form according to traditional belief of Hindus. Buddhipriya 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove uncited books from References
According to WP:LAYOUT, the "References" section should contain a list of books that are actually cited in specific inline references. It is not a general list of books which may have been read by someone at some time. As specific citations to these works are added with inline references, they can be reintroduced into the References section one by one, if there is agreement that these are WP:RS for this subject. The problem with the article now is that it contains a lot of poorly sourced statements that need to be either removed from the article or properly cited. Buddhipriya 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please verify citation
I am trying to clean up some of the referencing to use standard formats. Please take a look at this reference, shown below as it was originally entered:


 * Vedārtha-Pārijāta by Swāmi Karpātri, introduction by Pattābhirām Śāstri, Śri Rādhā krishna Dhanuka Prakāśan Sansthān, Calcutta ; Sañchālaka : Vedaśāstra Research Centre, Kedārghat, Vārānasi,1979 (Sanskrit and Hindi, the introduction has an English translation as well).

I have put this into one of the book reference templates, and now it looks like this:


 * Introduction by Pattābhirām Śāstri. Sanskrit and Hindi; Introduction has an English translation as well.

Is there an ISBN number for this book? Please verify if the conversion is correct. Note that not all details are in the template itself. Buddhipriya 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This book was published from Calcutta and not from London as you mentioned. The address of Sanchālaka was given by me, which you removed. You will be able to procure this book from the Sanchālaka only, whose complete addess is given in the book; a complete postal address of the publisher is not given in the book. Hence the format of Harvard reference will not enable people to procure this book. Vedārtha-Pārijāta is merely an introduction to the Swāmi Karpātri's commentary of Vedas which were separately published, and this introduction runs into two giant volumes (Sanskrit and Hindi, no English). An introduction to Vedārtha-Pārijāta was written by Pattābhirām Shāstri which was published in three languages, including English. There is no need to verify the authenticity of translations because the original authors were alive and had reviewed the translations themselves. Vedārtha-Pārijāta was followed by a commentary on Yajurveda by Swāmi Karpātri which has been published too.
 * Swāmi Karpātri's greatness lies in the fact that he was a master par excellence in the traditional pattern of pandits, and had a first hand knowledge of modern commentators too, including Max Müller, whom he challenged in the style of śāshtrārtha providing proofs in the traditional pattern of pandits, which need to be viewed by all researchers. It is another matter whether one accepts all his views or not, but it is to be borne in mind that many tradititional topics essential to Indic studies were neglected by Western commentators due to lack of interest or ignorance. To absorb all of the statements made by Swāmi Karpātri, one must be well versed in all Vedas, Vedangas, darshanas, etc. That is why the publishers published Hindi translation by Vraj Vallabh Dwivedi together with the original Sanskrit of Swāmi Karpātri. Vedārtha-Pārijāta is a living example of the style of śāshtrārtha used by ancient scholars like Ādi Śankarāchārya ; but Ādi Śankarāchārya or any other ancient pandit has not left the detailed account of their style of logic. Vedārtha-Pārijāta is a detailed example of the ancient logical style and language of śāshtrārtha. But over-westernised readers may not like the orthodox views of Swāmi Karpātri, in spite of his unparalleled scholarship in traditional wisdom of India. Vinay Jha 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Harvard reference tag is used to standardize some aspects of a book reference. Additional details can be supplied as comments following the actual reference template, as I have done in this revised version for your checking:


 * Introduction by . Sanskrit and Hindi; Introduction has an English translation as well. Available from:,  Research Centre, , , India.


 * As it reads now, is that book citation correct? I simply cannot follow some of your comments and am having difficulty figuring out what books are being used to support each statement.  I am not disagreeing with what you say, I am trying to understand what you are saying.  Please help me by focusing attention on one point at a time, as you would with a slow student.  I regret that I am not familiar with these sources, and thus like a good guru you will not overwhelm the student but rather will take a patient approach and build the temple one brick at a time.


 * I am not challenging the inclusion of this work. I am trying to get clear on what the work is and where someone could get it if they wanted to.  That is a basic issue for verifiability of references.  Regarding the issue of an article for Rig Veda mansuscripts, please take that idea up on the talk page for the article on Rig Veda.  A manuscript of the Rig Veda, in Sanskrit, is a primary source.  There are various published editions of the Rig Veda, and for reference purposes they are generally referred to by publication date and name of the editor who put the edition together.  Wikipedia wants us to cite secondary sources, not primary sources.  As we have previously discussed, you can quote the Bible to establish what the Bible says, but you cannot cite the Bible to prove a fact.  To do that you must cite WP:RS on the subject of the fact. Buddhipriya 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please verify Rgveda-Samhitā Srimat-sāyanāchārya virachita-bhāṣya-sametā citation
I am trying to convert the RV edition to a formal citation. Please verify the conversion of this original version:


 * Rgveda-Samhitā Srimat-sāyanāchārya virachita-bhāṣya-sametā,Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala,Pune-9,1972 (totally in Sanskrit).

to the template-based version:



Is there an ISBN for this book? There must be an editor. Who is it? Normally the work would be cited by editor's name to distinguish it from other RV editions. Buddhipriya 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there are only three publishers of Sāyana's commentary. The first was by Max Müller, which you may find in any library of any good university. I had read Max Müller's translation of Rgveda in my student days, besides Sāyan's original commentary published by him (in Sanskrit), but I have not seen his German translation of Sayana's commentary (it is mentioned in Wiki article on Rgveda). After Max Müller's publication, many manuscripts of Rgveda were discovered and a heated controversy arose about the authenticity of original text of the Rgveda. It was to solve this problem that 'Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala' was established in 1928 by Tilak Maharashtra University. The editorial board comprised of V. K. Rājvāde, Vasudevashastri Abhyankar, N. S. Sontakke, and T. S. Varadarajasharma. They were reputed shcolars. V. K. Rājvāde wrote an incomplete book on the origin of Indian institution of marriage(in Marāthi, later translater into Hindi) which resulted in burning of the press by orthodox Hindus where it was printed by late S. A. Dange in 1925 (who later became chairman of Communist Party of India,CPI). I do not adhere to any of Rājvāde's views expressed in this incomplete and sketchy badly/wrongly sourced book (reprinted by CPI's publisher People's Publishing House in 1986 and eulogised by leftist historians of India just because it abused Hindu deities and rishis in an explicitly obscene language) and I was initially apprehensive of 'Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala' also due Rājvāde's name on the editorial board (who died just after he was inducted into this board and could not vitiate the work of other editors), but I found that the version of Rgveda (with Sāyana's commentary) published by it is indeed world's best, because it procured copies of all extant manuscripts of the Rgveda from all parts of the world and carefully mentioned the variant spellings of each individual manuscript for every mantra ! Thus, you can get all extant manuscripts of the Rgveda from this single publication ! Citations from all extant manuscripts of Sāyan's commentary were also published for (each mantra)! Government of India and of Maharashtra provided assistance for its reprint in 1972 which I possess. This publisher's sole job was to puiblish the Vedas ; it has perhaps not published any other book. Therefore it did not care about ISBN. If WP rules are blindly invoked, this publisher will have to be removed from Wiki. But the value of this publication as well as of this publisher is such that it deserves a separate Wiki article titled 'Manuscripts of Rgveda' (linked to Rgveda &c), because many researchers of Vedas will certainly need it due to its authenticity and comprehensiveness. This publication deserves publicity. If you agree to starting a separate Wiki article 'Manuscripts of Rgveda'  I will supply the complete list of all extant manuscripts of Rgveda from all parts of the world, besides other relevant information.  Vinay Jha 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The information you provide is very interesting, and I suggest that you take it up on the talk page for the Rig Veda. I am not sure if you answered the question I asked, which is regarding the accuracy of the following book citation:




 * Can you please tell me the name of the editor of that book? All of the background information on the editoral board is interesting, but I would like to know the name of the primary editor for that specific book as they may be listed on the title page of the book. Buddhipriya 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All the editors I mentioned were equals, but N. S. Sontakke had three additional charges of (1)'Managing Editor' of that 5 volume book and (2)'Secretary Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala' ( T.N. Dharmādhikāri was another secretary), and (3)both these secretaries were named as Publishers in their capacities as Secretaries, and 'Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala' is also mentioned as the publisher. But it does not means that N. S. Sontakke was a senior or a better scholar in comparison to other editors.
 * I had purchased this book from Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd,PO Box 5715,54 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-55 two decades ago. You may not succeed in procuring this book by writing to Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala,Pune, perhaps (I am not sure).


 * I forgot to mention the name of third publisher of Sayana's Sanskrit commentary of RV, Chowkhambā, because the editor was not as reliable as those of Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala or Max Müller. It is available, and summary translation of original mantras are also given in it. But Sāyana's commentary is available only in Sanskrit (three editions I mentioned above) and German (Max Müller) only. Chowkhambā's owner once told me that Sāyana's Sanskrit commentary together with a Hindi or English translation will be too voluminous to be published ! Vinay Jha 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Śāstri book reference
Another conversion to verify, from:


 * with Hindi commentary by Hargovinda Śāstri, Chowkhambā Sanskrit Series Office, Vārānasi-1,1978.

To:



Is there an ISBN number for this book? Buddhipriya 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NO. Chowkhamba is a major publisher. Please ask it to use ISBN, explaining the causes. Vinay Jha 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

by Chowkhambā
Can you give a better citation for the  by Chowkhambā? Whenever possible, if these have ISBN numbers please give them as that allows for additional citation verification via bibliographic lookup systems. Buddhipriya 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a readily available book. But I will not be able to move out of my house for a few days more due to devastating floods which has paralysed my town completely for over a week. All my phones are dead too. Wait for a few days.  -Vinay Jha 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ISBN
India's national ISBN agency was established in January 1985, and the website http://www.isbn-international.org/en/agencies/india.html informs that only 40% of India's publishers were registered with it till Oct 2003. Even these registered publishers often misuse or disuse ISBN allocated to them. Most of the remaining 60% publishers would perhaps like to get ISBN numbers, provided the mechanism of allocation is publicised and made easier. Many books cited by me were published before 1985 and therefore could not get ISBN numbers. Allocation of ISBN number makes it easy to find the book, but it is wrong to assume that books lacking ISBN are not genuine. Vinay Jha 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the statement "it is wrong to assume that books lacking ISBN are not genuine" I completely agree. All I said was, if the book has an ISBN number, please give it. Buddhipriya 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE 'Blatant advertising?
The statement by Buddhipriya "This article appears to be blatant advertising for a specific group." refers to the previous (moved) article, but now readers may think this statement of Buddhipriya refers to the present article. Hence the entire section 'Blatant advertising?' (together with the present talk headed  'REMOVE 'Blatant advertising?') should be now removed/deleted/archived from this talk page because it may cause confusion to newcomers. Vinay Jha 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it look ok now ? Abecedare 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! I had not seen the cleanup method you used before, it looks very useful.  Regarding the sourcing issues, as you can see I am trying to keep much of the material that is being added but gradually convert the sourcing to a more verifiable form.  This is slow going and any help with it would be appreciated.  I will do the Monier-Williams conversions next, but am trying to simply identify what sources are actually being quoted.  Since some of the scriptural references are to difficult-to-obtain works, I plan to add additional references to more accessible versions that include English translations.  Fortunately I have some small familiarity with the actual content of the article and thus can recognize some of the content even if the initial presentation is not very clear. Any help you can give would be most appreciated. Buddhipriya 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
Regarding the sourcing issues, as you can see I am trying to keep much of the material that is being added but gradually convert the sourcing to a more verifiable form. This is slow going and any help with it would be appreciated. I will do the Monier-Williams conversions next, but am trying to simply identify what sources are actually being quoted. Since some of the scriptural references are to difficult-to-obtain works, I plan to add additional references to more accessible versions that include English translations. Fortunately I have some small familiarity with the actual content of the article and thus can recognize some of the content even if the initial presentation is not very clear. Any help you can give would be most appreciated. Buddhipriya 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You said earlier "I simply cannot follow some of your comments and am having difficulty figuring out what books are being used to support each statement." Instead of making general remarks, if you cite one specific problem at a time, it will be easier for me to provide whatever solution I have. Some of the comments made in talks above can be included in the article.
 * To ward off confusion, it may be mentioned in short that Aghamarshana is also the gotra name started by a rishi of that name existing in many principal branches of modern brahmins. It is not mentioned in Wiki article List of Brahmin gotras and Brahmin gotra system where it is mentioned that the list is partial and it is totally unsourced too; I possess a better and sourced list, but I need time before I organise it properly and improve these articles besides Brahmin communities.
 * Citation about Vedic gurukuls may be found, but it will take time. I know some personally.
 * I had tagged 'citation needed' for my statement "the Vedas had not been committed to writing in ancient period". I have the citation, but it will add a short (useful) para distinguishing Śruti from Smriti.  -Vinay Jha 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
Whatever I wrote in the passage on anadhyāya removed by you was quoted from two sources : (1) 'Muhurta Chintāmani' by Rāmācharya and (2) Bihar Panchanga. There are many treatises on Muhurta, but Rāmācharya's book is most popular among pandits,being the earliest perhaps, and is part of syllabus in sanskrit universities. The passage I quoted from Rāmācharya is from the last (57th) shloka of the first chapter of his treatise. I gave four publications of "Muhurta Chintāmani", one has ISBN too. 'Muhurta Chintāmani' has a large number of translations in many languages, including English, which you can find by just typing "Muhurta Chintāmani" in  google search.

'Bihar Panchanga' is edited by many topmost pandits of three universities of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and is published by a government institution 'Bihar State Sanskrit Academy'. I had cited from an article at the last page ( no. 46) of this year's 'Bihar Panchanga'.

It is unfortunate that you regarded the sources cited by me "unsourced". Chowhkamba is world's biggest publisher of indological books, but even its publications normally lack ISBN. Same is the case with a majority of publishers. Some indological publishers care about ISBN and we ought to find such publications.

Computation of anadhyāya days is crucial for svādhyāya and upanayana even today and all Hindu almanacs are required to mention them. I try my best to find English versions, but it is not always possible to get one on topics which are of little value or interest to Western or westernised scholars but are crucial for some fields of Indic studies. I am not going to enter into an edit war : I am just leaving the judgment upon you. I am sorry for your definition of 'source'. No one will regard an Indian's interpretation of The Bible as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Vinay Jha 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have fewer problems with reversions if you study how to provide citations in ways that are clear and verifiable, or material will be removed as unsourced. I am trying to figure out your sourcing and am slowly converting it to the more formal methods used on Wikipedia.  Please read WP:CITE and try to add inline citations for each assertion you make, when you make it.  Otherwise the material will be removed, in accord with WP:V.  I am not challenging the sources, or even the facts of what is being said in many cases.  I am simply calling for compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE, which are core policies of Wikipedia.  Also please read WP:OR.  The material you are adding is worthwhile and gradually can be integrated into the main article as the sourcing issues are worked out.  You may want to slow down a bit and concentrate on one point at a time that you want to make.  Adding large amounts of unsourced material at once invites bulk reversions.  There are no emergencies on Wikipedia, so we have the luxury of working slowly and carefully, always testing to see if we have consensus for changes before making more changes.


 * Regarding the content issue itself, I agree that days are listed in various panchangas and that multiple systems of determining the days are used, resulting in conflicting versions. The problem is that the the conclusions you have drawn about that are based on WP:OR and not on the use of WP:RS, and the long discussion of this mixes up the subject of the article on Svādhyāya with various conflicting notions in Jyotisa, which only results in confusion.  Probably someone has written about this, so finding a reference should not be impossible.  Once one is found, the material can go back in. Buddhipriya 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement "conclusions you have drawn" is is a misunderstanding. I did not draw any conclusion and did not state my POV anywhere, but my method of presenting might have confused you. I quoted one side of the story from 'Muhurta Chintāmani'(-chapter 1. shloka 57 ; i.e., 1.57) by Rāmācharya which exists in many Indian and European language, and the other side from p. 46 of Bihar Panchanga published by the leading Sanskrit body of the government of Bihar (I could also quote from five other private publishers which supported this second side, but I left them out because too many sources is not advisable). It did not give rise to any controversy because, as I mentioned, the computation involved is so difficult that even if you produce a final solution no one is going to crack his brains over your solution. Instead of taking sides, I gave both views from their sources, but you call it "conclusions you(I) have drawn" ! -Vinay Jha 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the whole issue is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned here. If you think it is important, can we find some WP:RS for it? Buddhipriya 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sayana quotes
For the material that is sourced by an original translation from Sanskrit as a primary source, I think we should at least include the actual Sanskrit text as better than nothing for verification purposes. Can you please add the actual Sanskrit source for the first English quotation, following the example given for the second English translation? Hopefully we will be able to later get a WP:RS for the translation, but in the short run I think it is best to keep the primary source in rather than remove all of it as WP:OR, but other editors may have a different view. Here are the two quotes as they read now:

The commentator Sāyana discusses this term in the introduction of his commentary on the ', in which he quoted ' Smriti as saying that "All vedas ought to be studied, and if all the Vedas cannot be studied then three or two or at least one Veda must be studied, because one Veda is handed down by one's own forefathers as a tradition (i.e., one's own shakha)". also says that  is the cause without which vedic rituals (yājnika karmakānda) cannot take place.

Replace "Sontakke 1972" with  "Sontakke et al 1972" as a tribute to other editors.I can give Sayana's quotes, but few will understand them. Let the floods recede from my town and I will provide a secondary ( Hindi ) source; there are only two translations of this passage : one in Hindi by Chowkhamba and the other in German by Max Muller which is not available to me. -Vinay Jha 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry to hear of the flooding in your town, and pray that those troubles will be overcome completely. There is no rush on any of the sourcing, as we have the remainder of our lives to finish this effort, and with god's grace that will be many years.


 * I am still unclear on the correct editorial citation for "Sontakke 1972" because in your remarks above you described three other parties in the roles of "secretary" or "publisher" but did not refer to them as "editors". Can you please relist the names of any additional parties that are actually listed in the printed book as "editors", or if a "secretary" is listed in the title page, and that person has the role of an editor as described in the book, please note that.  The issue is that for a library-quality citation we must try to reproduce the information that appears on the title page of the book. I am sure that all parties connected with the work are esteemed scholars.  However if they were not "editors" we cannot list them as "editors".  Many books of substantial size are produced with contributions by multiple scholars, but in general there are always only one or two of them that have the final responsibility for what goes in, and that is the "editor", whose role is normally listed as such on the title page of the book.  If you feel that it would of benefit to do so, you could upload a scan of the title page so that the reference can be examined more closely, but of course this is not necessary unless you think it would be helpful to assist with clarification.


 * Regarding the quotes from Sayana, I understand that few will understand them. The problem here is that this is an English-language Wiki, and WP:OR is not permitted.  If you are making interpretations of what Sayana says, rather than citing a secondary WP:RS, the material is WP:OR and should be removed from the article.  I have not done that in this case because I am trying to understand what citations actually exist for the statements.  Because the materials are very difficult to obtain by the average researcher, if you at least provide the source text in Sanskrit for the quote, the accuracy of the quotation can be independently assessed by other Wikipedians who know Sanskrit, and there are some.  Buddhipriya 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy on non-English sources
Because this article currently is relying on a number of non-English sources, here is a summary of the policy of WP:V on use of such material. This will be a good opportunity to learn more about the best ways to integrate such material:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

The issue of use of Devanagari connects to this policy of verifiability. When I make a quotation from a Sanskrit source, if the actual source I am quoting from is in Devanagari, I generally reproduce the Devanagari in the note, since that is the writing system that the author used. However since most Western readers cannot interpret the Devanagari script, I often supply the IAST equivalent beside the Devanagari, which helps readers to at least recognize the words being used. Normally I would not show both Devanagari and IAST, because IAST is a lossless equivalent, and showing both is redundant. But mistakes are sometimes made in the romanization, and if the quotation is to a Devanagari source, it seems best to show the actual source. I see many variations in romanization methods on Wikipedia, but IAST is the academic standard. Buddhipriya 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gita 10.25 and svādhyāya
I have removed an interpretation of Gita 10.25 because it is an example of WP:OR involving interpretation of scriptures with no WP:RS provided. The remark draws a conclusion about what the two words spoken by Krishna mean ('', literally: "among sacrifices, I am the japa-sacrifice" ). The quote should be added to Japa if it is not already in that article, and it is a wonderful teaching, but the connection to the development of the idea of this article is not in those words. Gita 8.28 also seems irrelevant to me for purposes of this article. Regarding the content issue of how the Gita marks a turning point in the history of scripture by turning away from physical formal ritual  to other forms such as the major yogas, I am in complete agreement. That issue needs to be added to the article for Bhagavad Gita and I encourage you to take a look at that article as a possible one to put on your work list. Buddhipriya 04:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to natural and man-made calamities, I was not getting internet access and power supply. Therefore, I left a short note for you which I hoped will you to trace the development of svādhyāya from its narrow ritualistic meaning to the wider or yodic meanings. But now I see you misunderstood me, and I will have to write this section in detail, in which I hope you will continue helping in getting references and ideas.


 * Today I have added "svādhyāya as a variety of japa which later gave rise to non-ritualistic variety of svādhyāya best exemplified by the svādhyāya of Yoga-Sutra" in the end of second para of the section 'Other Scriptures'. This is a hint about the need of a whole new section on the non-ritualistic meanings of svādhyāya.


 * Your statement "Gita marks a turning point in the history of scripture by turning away from physical formal ritual" is a reflection of modern misconceptions about Vedic religion. Rgveda is nothing but a Book of Bhakti (prayers, cf. MW). YV also highlights the same ideas, in unequivocal terms, which Gita later emphasised.


 * Manusmriti and Mahabharata strictly prohibited the use of as a means of livlihood. But later, greedy brahmins distorted the original meaning of . Please do not translate '' as "sacrifice".  is derived from 'yaj' which means "to worship, to honour"(MW). Hence,  means "worship or honouring the deities (with oblations or sacrifices)". Sacrifice has a different meaning. It is true that certain people equate  with sacrifice, but it is not the whole truth.  Vinay Jha 11:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia our main goal is to cite what WP:RS say about these subjects. Thus the first step is to reach agreement on what sources are considered acceptable for use.  What you or I may believe about these matters carries no weight whatsoever in this environment.  It is all a matter of sourcing.  The view you express regarding the nature of ritual in Vedic times is interesting, but seems difficult to integrate unless some specific source can be found.  In most of the literature in academic circles, the interpretation that the Gita is a transitional work shifting focus from ritualism to bhakti is well-known.  Your comment that "This is a hint about the need of a whole new section on the non-ritualistic meanings of svādhyāya" seems appropriate to me, and I think this issue eventually should be worked into the article, recognizing that it is likely to be controversial and thus will require careful sourcing.


 * Regarding Manusmriti, I think the section on the general complementary duties of study and teaching needs to be expanded and clarified. Since some authors interpret the term svadhyaya in the general sense of "study", that is how the term gets mixed up with the six duties.  That is why I quoted the electronic text of Manusmriti so the actual language can be seen.  I do not have in hand a copy of the Sanskrit source for Manusmriti in Devanagai.  Do you have access to the Devanagari source for the passage cited in the text?  If so, please add it as eventually I thought to make this point more clear by referencing the actual text, but did not have an authoritative citation for the text other than the online database version. I have secondary sources to cite on this matter, however. Buddhipriya 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors of Sayan's Commentary of RV
I had mentioned earlier "The editorial board comprised of V. K. Rājvāde, Vasudevashastri Abhyankar, N. S. Sontakke, and T. S. Varadarajasharma. They were reputed shcolars.", which you missed. Now I am giving a true copy of what was printed on the book : "M.M." stands for 'Mahāmahopādhyaya', the highest title for a pandit goven by some king or by general assembly of pandits ; now it is not in vogue.

'Prin.' stands for 'Principal' of some institution and not for chief editor. The order of editors was perhaps according to seniority in age, but N. S. Sontakke had additional charges as (2)one of two secretaries (the other secretary was not an editor), as well as of (3)Managing Editor, besides being the (4)publisher (together with the other secretary) on belalf of the Vaidika Samśodhana. On the front page 'Vaidika Samśodhana ' is mentioned as the publisher. V.K. Rajvāde was a reputed scholar of Marāthi and Sanskrit, but he could not contribute much to this book due to his early death just after the constitution of this editorial board. N. S. Sontakke was in charge of four key posts and therefore you are right in according priority to him, but other editors should be named too. It will be better to send you the scanned copy to your personal email address, which you must tell me. - Vinay Jha 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this getting any better?


 * . The Editorial Board for the First Edition included N. S. Sontakke (Managing Editor), V. K., M. M. , and T. S. . This work is entirely in Sanskrit.


 * I prefer to keep all communications on-Wiki, but thank you for your offer of sending a scan. Let's see if this version is getting closer to what is correct. I appreciate your patience with me as a slow student. Buddhipriya 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

'Quality of Matter' and Sourcing
Wiki editors must aim at quality of material, and should elaborate the topic in precise terms with the help of reliable sources. Only those statements need to be sourced which may lead to confusion or controversy. I have seen many Wiki article which are entirely unsourced, which is bad. There are some articles which contain little matter and much sources, which is worse than an unsourced article. -Vinay Jha 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V says that " "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." In my view, a good article will have high-quality inline citations that conform to WP:CITE for virtually every statement made.  You are correct that most Wikipedia articles do not conform to that goal.  Most articles on Wikipedia are not very reliable.  The standards set for quality articles on Wikipedia are found at Featured article criteria, which say that "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate."  You are correct that the first goal is to cite anything which can be challenged.  For purposes of this article, that includes virtually every statement. Buddhipriya 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring &c

 * (1) I have restructured some passages with a view to present various meaning of svādhyāya in sequence of their historical evolution.
 * (2) Taittiriya Āranyaka has the earlist as well as the most important reference to svādhyāya, but it appears after the, which is a bad sight.
 * (3) I have added a section 'Conclusion', without sourcing, because all its statements have already been sourced. But if this passage is merged with the introduction then sourcing will be needed.
 * (4) The section 'Svādhyāya in Yoga & Gitā' may be further expanded to include ' (Vedic)' (which evolved into yogic svādhyāya).
 * (5) A new section 'Svāddhyādya in other religions' may be added. One para is ready, about Judaism. Qurān may be added, which still follows traditional pronunciation(I know it personally, because I had learnt the Arabic Qurān partially, but I do not possess secondary source of this truth). -Vinay Jha 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that the structure is a problem. I generally agree with the direction you are taking the organization, but the use of the summary section at the bottom is not in my view a good approach.  I would suggest that we first try to get the sections clearly defined, in the right order.  That will cause the automatic generation of a table of contents for the article that can achieve a similar goal.  An addition section yet to be added (a low priority in my view) is the modern Western view that it is "study of one's self" or something along those lines.  I would add that last, and perhaps put it with the proposed "in other religions" section if that can be sourced in a reliable manner.  I have a number of additional sources to add over the next couple of weeks, mainly to support what is already in the article.


 * A potential issue is that not all authorities are in agreement on the use of the term to refer mainly to study of one's one recension. We need to sort out the sections so that all of the citations that specifically support a particular view of the term are in once place.  If this can result in a time-sequence for the sections, it could show a logical progression of ideas from the oldest to the newest.


 * I do not agree with the merging of the Gita and Yoga materials into one section. Those citations will be from different sources, and the usage in those two scriptures is each notable.  Thus I think those sections should be broken out as distinct.  I can then add various additional views in each of them from commentators on those scriptures.  Most of what they say will have nothing to do with the Vedic study concept, but will stress the idea of scriptural and other beneficial study in general. Buddhipriya 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After the sections are clear, the lead can be written last, and can briefly give highlights of what is to come. For the lead we can also call in another editor to assist in determining what is most notable. Buddhipriya 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: While adding a summary section at the bottom, I had also proposed that it may be shifted to the introduction, because it will present a bird's eye view for newcomers. It may be merged with the introductory sentence so that all possible meanings of this term are at a single place for a beginner.The introduction can be revised later too.

Merging of the Gita and Yoga materials is a result of paucity of hitherto assembled material (you have only one sentence from Gita which is inadequate for a new section).

You said "A potential issue is that not all authorities are in agreement on the use of the term to refer mainly to study of one's one recension". The problem is that the karmakāndiya (ritualistic) meaning of svādhyāya is now known only to those who have a first hand knowledge of Vedic studies, esp the yājnic riuals and their studies. Most of modern commentatators are not interested in discovering these aspects of Vedic studies, which are of paramount importance to traditional sudents of Vedas,because the priorities of modern commentators are different. A yajna cannot be performed if one forgets his own recension, because using other recensions without using one's own is strictly forbidden in actual yajnas (I had cited Pattābhirām Shāstri, besides Sāyana who gave priority to one's traditionally received one Veda, ie, one's own recension, and had cited Yājnvalkya. Every traditional Vedic scholar will stick to this view, and you can ask any professor of Veda in India's Sanskrit universities. This traditional view must be presented in one section, and other views may be given in other sections. The misgivings will be cleared when you get the material on which I have not yet provided and which is the real heart of this article, but needs more patience and caution in writing and sourcing it up.

I said " (Vedic)' (which evolved into yogic svādhyāya)", but you say "Most of what they (from Yoga and Gita) say will have nothing to do with the Vedic study concept", because at present only the ritualistic aspect of Vedic study concept has been presented in this article. A lot of confusion has been spread about Vedic rituals by some interpreters who are not interested in first hand studies and are biased against these rituals. My aim is to present the facts and not to take sides.

At present, accumulation of well sourced material pertinent to the theme should be given a priority; reorganisation or addition of sections may take place later when there is enough matter. One or two references for an idea will suffice, too many references will not be advisable. Initially, you may be forced to give less satisfactory references, which may be relaced later with more reliable ones. Your methodical approach gives me a hope that your collaboration may help me to improve a lot of articles related to Hinduism &c which are lop-sided, badly sourced and often misleading at present. Vinay Jha 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You will get no disagreement from me that the vast majority of articles on Hinduism on Wikipedia are in terrible shape and are filled with nonsense of the most obvious type. The question is how to make this poor situation better.  There are different editing philosophies on Wikipedia.  My own is to edit rather slowly, and only add material a sentence or two at a time that has a supporting citation that is hard to challenge.  This builds the temple one brick at a time.  The problem with adding a lot of weakly-sourced or unsourced material at a rapid pace is that it often irritates other editors, who quickly revert all of it.  This is not an effective solution.  A limiting factor on the ability to improve these articles is the rate at which other editors can absorb and accept the changes.  I find that on many articles it may take me two weeks to get a single sentence stabilized if it happens to differ from the previous views on a page.  I think we are in agreement that the first priority right now is to shore up the sourcing on what is already in the article, and I would like to see improvement in structure as that takes place.  I like to see shorter but stronger articles rather than longer ones that will not hold up under pressure. I mention this simply in the interest of disclosing my own personal preferences in editing methods. Buddhipriya 08:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)