Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

URL[edit]

Added the URL for the Musical version of the Mandukya Upanishad composed by Pandit Jasraj

--203.118.135.21 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Ganesh[reply]

Translation[edit]

The exposition is largely from the Karika called "Sri Ramakrishana Deepa" published by the Ramakrishna Mutt. This Upanishad has only twelve verse, so it is possible to include a line-by-line translation. Can someone, preferably someone well versed in Sanskrit, do it? - Gopalan evr (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Does anyone know the source for the quote in the article: "who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself.... who is unseen and ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."? This quote is not from the next citation: Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett, A history of early Vedānta philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 285. This citation is, upon checking the book, really only directly for the last sentence, "It is referred to as atyanta-shunyata (absolute emptiness)." Arapacana 14:24, 7 December 2011

[POV Discussion] Strong Buddhist bias in this article[edit]

I noticed there was a very strong Buddhist bias in this article. The usage of declarative statements like, "It IS influenced by Mahayana Buddhism' and 'It clearly is inspired by Buddhism' significantly dilute the impartiality of this article and gives it a very Buddhist spin. I am leaving this note for the consideration of potential editors.

92.3.100.150 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddhist bias was prevalent because Mandukya Upanishad was confused with Mandukya Karika by an editor.
Mandukya Karika was written much later than the upanishad, in 8th century CE when concepts of Mulamadhyamakarika were well known.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Mandukay Upanishad dates to around 500 BC. So it isn't possible that it is influenced by Mahayana (much later than Hinayana). In fact, Samkhya, Vedanta, and Hinayana were all currents of thought prevalent in this area around 500 BCE. So it is wrong to say that it was influenced (by of all things) Mahayana, which was a much later development. You can read about its chronology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads#Chronology It is a grevious error to confuse it with the Karika's which were written centuries later. I shall delete this in 15 days unless someone objects.

Tcat64 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcat64: The information in the article is 100% correct. The reference does say the Mandukya Upanishad itself was influenced by Buddhism. There is no confusion with the Karika's, which were also influenced by Buddhism.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: The reference has some serious mistakes and inconsistencies. It claims that Mandukya Upanishad is a "short prose work of eleven paragraphs" (Pg 283), when in fact there are twelve verses in this Upanishad. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article now claims that many "terms and expressions" like Shunyata are found in this Upanishad, which, anybody who has actually read the Mandukya Upanishad can tell you, is not true.Nilagriva (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: I agree with Nilagriva. The MU considerably predates Mahanaya teachings. And yes, the MU speaks of Turiya, not Shunyata.
Tcat64 (talk)
I'm afraid that your personal readings are not relevant here; scholarly sources are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Which part needs to be referenced--I had put a link in to the dating of the Upanishads (from the wikipedia itself) that shows it dates to pre 500BCE, well before Mahayana. What more reference are you looking for--this is not my personal opinion. This shouldn't devolve to a religious "competition," no one is demeaning Mahayana by pointing out the true origins and meaning of the MU Tcat64 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That Upanishads article needs to be corrected. The scholarly reference Nakamura says Mandukya Upanishad dates to "about the first or second centuries A.D." on page 286.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: Check out the Upanishads article--it refers to three scholarly works, all of whom agree on the dates being before 500 BCE. These three scholars are widely known to be authorities on the vedanta and include Deussen, Ranade, and Radhakrishnan. Very kindly note that a commentary on an upanishad is not the same as the actual upanishad, and may well be influenced by other schools of thought. I am not aware of the reference you quote as being credible. As Nilagriva notes above, it makes a fundamental mistake by saying the MU has 11 verses. If it makes so basic a mistake, how credible can it be? Tcat64 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference says the actual Upanishad itself dates to "about the first or second centuries A.D." The assertions of other Wikipedia editors like Nilagriva are meaningless. By the way, are you Nilagriva?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: Discussion continued below with Jonathan. No, I am not Nilagriva. Tcat64 (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"500 BCE" has to be sourced. Wikipedia is not accepted as a source at Wikipedia. The Upanishads-article uses "Shubhra Sharma (1985), life in the Upanishads, Abhinav Publications, p.17-19" as a source. He refers to Deussen, Radhakrishnan and Regarde. Deussen (late 19th century) is outdated, as are Radhakrishnan and Regarde. Nakamura does indeed state "eleven verses"; I don't know why, but he's a WP:RS, while you're WP:OR is not. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and here's Olivelle: "Finally, we have the two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, which cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era." (Olivelle (1998), "The Early Upanishads", p.13
Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite frustrating...why is one reference + another flawed one, more credible then the other three mentioned in the Vedanta article, i.e., Deussen, Ranade, and Radhakrishan. I think this is a big mistake, a blunder, and discredits this page. Sankhya, Vedanta, and Theravada were well aware of 'turiya' or 'shunyata' around 500 BCE. Thus in Theravada, there is the concept of Shunyata, (and Theravada itself predates the Mahayana anyway). See for example Bikku Bhodih's translations of the earliest Pali Scripts (referenced below). Further, if you read the actual Mandukya Upanishad, it uses a different concept than shunyata. It uses the concept of turiya. It is like a half full glass of water. The pessimistic Theravadans saw the glass as half empty (the void/shunyata, the absence of any phenomenal content) while the Vedantists saw it as the glass half full (Pure Consciousness, the Atman). This is very frustrating--that two persons who between them have seem to have a bias towards Mahayana can control a page--where is the alternate view expressed?. Sorry for the emotions. And mine is not OR (original research?). It can be found in many of the history books, the one below being the handiest reference I have, showing that the Theravada predates the Mahayana in discussing Shunyata (which anyway is different than Turiya, the subject of this Upanishad). Also note the reference in the actual page to the book by Radha Krishnan. He was the President of India, chosen for his knowledge of the Upanishads. His book (ref: S. Radhakrishnan. The Principal Upanishads. George Allen and Unwin. 1969) is world famous, considered a classic in the Vedanta. In this he dates the upanishad (like the others) to 500 BCE or earlier.
Bodhi, B. (2005) In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha)Wisdom Publications; First Edition editon, 512pp.
Also, kindly do check out the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618602/Upanishad
Tcat64 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating indeed... Deussen is from the late 19th century; Radhakrishnan is also outdated; and Regarde isn't even being used as a scholarly source in contemporary research. Olivelle, on the other hand, is a contemporary authority, who has summarized the scholalrly concensus on the dating of the Upanishads.
Regarding the EB-entry (written by Olivelle...), he does indeed state there:
"Thirteen known Upanishads were composed from the middle of the 5th century through the 2nd century bce."
Curious. Nevertheless, 500 BCE for the Mundakya is not supported by WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the Encylopedia is not WP:RS (not sure what that means). Also, note that the date of the EB article is 2/25/2014, i.e., very current. Olliville's book may represent her personal opinion (which she may have since revised), whereas the EB entry is vetted by peers before it is published and so should be more credible then a "single author" book. Also I note you have failed to address the whole question of Theravada having the concept of shunyata as early as around 500 BCE. The book by Bodhi has a foreward by the Dalai Lamma himself and so should be considered credible. Can the Budhist entry be removed till we sort this out? yours kindly Tcat64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EB is also WP:RS, but be sure that Olivelle's book is thoroughly scrutinized. It does not simply represent a "personal opinion." Regarding Theravada and sunyata: sunyata is a typical Mahayana concept. Oldest Buddhism (that's not the same as Theravada; there was no "Theravada" at 500 BCE) speaks about "anatta". When you state "Sankhya, Vedanta, and Theravada were well aware of 'turiya' or 'shunyata' around 500 BCE" it reads like your personal understanding; I think I need a reference to a source to understand what you mean. Did you read the policies on WP:RS and WP:OR? Try; they're informative. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, I was wrong to call it theravada. It is the "oldest" buddhism that Bikku Bodhi is discussing in his book. So here we have it in 500 BCE being discussed. As best I know, Theravada is the closest to the oldest buddhism. Anyway, again, the concept of shunyata and turiya are differnt. To claim that Mahayana influenced the upanishad is wrong. Bikku Bodhis writings are about the buddhism that predated Mahayana. I am not sure what exactly will convince you...you seem to have "favorites" as to which references count, but I suspect I am wrong to say that...its just that there are references but I am no Vedanta scholar so I leave it as is, but from what I know you are incorrect to state that Mahayana influneced the MU. I would NOT take out the POV comment till this issue is resolved. Let me go to my library and see if I can find alternate sources that meet your requirements. Tcat64 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also check out this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Vedanta-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526/ref=tmm_pap_title_0) It too says (as do most books other than the one doubtful reference you cite and the dual rference by Olivelle, that the Upanishads ALL date from 500 BCE to 1400 BCE. Not sure what more I can do to convince you. peace. Tcat64 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: This issue remains very much unresolved and seems to reflect your POV. Please DO NOT REMOVE the POV tag. Tcat64 (talk)

[POV Discussion Continued II--Strong Buddhist bias in this article][edit]

How do we resolve your POV tag @Tcat64:?VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tcat64 will have to find WP:RS which
  • give a reliable, alternate dating (in which case Olivelle will still stay, as being a reliable source)
  • responds to Nakamura, and argues that the MU is not influenced by Mahayana-Buddhism (in which case Nakamura will still stay in the article, as being a relevant source)
Otherwise, it's Tcat64's personal understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he did not revise these dates, is because they are the correct dates...so I am not understanding your point at all. If I write a true fact in 1972 why would I need to "revise it" in 2015, if it still is correct? Again, every book out there, with the exception of the flaky reference by Nakamura (who hasn't seem to have even read the original Upanishad), and the dual reference by Oliville which s/he appears to have corrected in 2014, all say the MU dates from before 500 BCE. Please note, the Mandukay Upanishad itself is only 12 verses long, each verse only two lines, i.e., a total of 24 lines, in terse Sanskrit. You can find a link to it here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html)--do read it. Now in case you say this is a one off case, do google it, there are several other links that will bring you to the original Mandukya Upanishad. You will see that it contains NO Buddhist terms. If you see a Buddhist term, do identify it and let me know. I am not understanding why you rely on a flawed reference, plus a dated book by Oliville (note that he corrected him/her self in the EB and reverted to the standard, accepted dating viz. 500-1400 BCE). The answers to your two questions are as follows:
  • give a reliable, alternate dating (in which case Olivelle will still stay, as being a reliable source)
EVERY book ....see above (tired of repeating myself).
  • responds to Nakamura, and argues that the MU is not influenced by Mahayana-Buddhism (in which case Nakamura will still stay in the article, as being a relevant source)
Instead of a pedantic reliance on commentaries (especially a flawed one like Nakamura's), please do read the actual Mandukya Upanishad. Again, Nakamura is a fatally flawed reference. He does not seem to have even read the original Mandukya Upanishad and and even (absurdly) seems to confuse a COMMENTARY on the Mandukya Upanishad (Guadapada's Karika) with the actual Mandukya Upanishad. Again, if there are Buddhist terms in the MU, tell me which they are--again, here is the link to the MU itself: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html. I think you both are confusing Vedanta comentaries with the Mandukya Upanishad. They are two separate things, seprated by about a thousand years. Thus while Vedanta and its base Karika's may indeed have been influenced by Buddhism, the actual core Upanishads were not, as they are standardly understood to largely predate Buddhism. So I sense, an honest misunderstanding here.
Tcat64 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami-krishnananda.org is not reliable. Also please stop citing your own personal opinions. You were warned numerous times about this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: The personal opinions appear to be yours...in this case that there are buddhist terms in the MU. I asked you to google other sources of the MU. They are all the same. I can give you numerous versions. There are no, i repeat, no Buddhist terms in the MU. It is only one flaky reference, the flawed reference by Nakamura, that says so, and this reference makes the amazing blunder of saying the MU has 11 verses. I can keep giving you more references to the MU but it appears you seem to think they are "personal opinions." So I ask you, show me an MU that has Buddhist terms in it. Stop accusing people of things like "personal opinions," especially if you are the main person with the "thing" in question. I have given you four references and seem to meet the test of WP:RS much more so than you. Tcat64 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[POV Discussion Continued III--Strong Buddhist bias in this article][edit]

Tcat64, you mean p.3-4? "While we would be inclined to look upon the Revelation as a more or less continuous series of texts, spanning close to a millennium from ca. 1400 BCE to 500 BCE" The first edition is from 1972, and it looks like that this piece of info has not been updated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reason he did not revise these dates, is because they are the correct dates...so I am not understanding your point at all. If I write a true fact in 1972 why would I need to "revise it" in 2015, if it still is correct? Again, every book out there, with the exception of the flaky reference by Nakamura (who hasn't seem to have even read the original Upanishad), and the dual reference by Oliville which s/he appears to have corrected in 2014, all say the MU dates from before 500 BCE. Please note, the Mandukay Upanishad itself is only 12 verses long, each verse only two lines, i.e., a total of 24 lines, in terse Sanskrit. You can find a link to it here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html)--do read it. Now in case you say this is a one off case, do google it, there are several other links that will bring you to the original Mandukya Upanishad. You will see that it contains NO Buddhist terms. If you see a Buddhist term, do identify it and let me know. I am not understanding why you rely on a flawed reference, plus a dated book by Oliville (note that he corrected him/her self in the EB and reverted to the standard, accepted dating viz. 500-1400 BCE). Also, checkout yet another book by a scholar on Indian texts that dates the Upanishads to the fifth century BCE--"Beyond Immortality: Complete texts, translations, word transliteration, philosophical commentary, mythological analysis and notes of Ganapati , Isa, Katha and Mandukya Upanishads." Paperback – May 20, 2012 by Pasquale J. Simonelli Ph.D. Again, I can keep finding numerous references to this effect--as compared with the single reference from the flawed Nakamura reference and the dated and since revised Oliville reference.Tcat64 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami-krishnananda.org is not reliable. Also please stop citing your own personal opinions. VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: Again, as I said above, the personal opinions appear to be yours...in this case that there are buddhist terms in the MU. I asked you to google other sources of the MU. They are all the same. I can give you numerous versions. There are no, i repeat, no Buddhist terms in the MU. It is only one flaky reference, the flawed reference by Nakamura, that says so, and this reference makes the amazing blunder of saying the MU has 11 verses. I can keep giving you more references to the MU but it appears you seem to think they are "personal opinions." So I ask you, show me an MU that has Buddhist terms in it. Stop accusing people of things like "personal opinions," especially if you are the main person with the "thing" in question. So I have given you five references, all saying that the MU was before 500 BCE. In turn you have given one FLAWED reference(Nakamura), and the outdated reference by Olliville. It seems I meet the standard of WP:RS much more so than you. And repeat, your claims of Buddhist terms? Opinion it seems, yours or "Nakamura's I don't know. WHERE IS/ARE THE BUDDHIST TERM(S)? I also observe that you do not address my Simonelli 2012 reference, that as do all the others but for the flaky Nakamura, says it dates to 500 BCE.Tcat64 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is your personal opinion that there are no buddhist terms in the MU. Read WP:VNT.
  • It is your personal opinion that the MU has 12 verses. Read WP:VNT.
  • You haven't provided a single reliable source that supports either of these 2 opinions of yours. Read WP:VNT.
  • Nakamura is a detailed scholarly academic reference.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: I am tired of pointing out that I have given you four references that meet the requirements of WP:RS. The one flaky Nakamura reference does not meet the requirement of WP:RS. Check out the following references for 12 key verses of MU. It is not my personal opinion. Again, which are the Buddhist terms--I have repeatedly asked you to tell me which are the terms, but you refuse to answer this question. Nakamura isn't the only scholar in the world, and his blunder indicates he has not read the MU. The entire MU is an exposition of the word OM. So to claim Budhist influences is simply absurd...AGAIN: SHOW ME THE PARTICULAR BUDDHIST TERMS!!! So here are three more references to the MU, each with 12 key stanzas--these are authentic sadhus from India--your Western/Mahayanist POV bias not withstanding.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/Mandukya_Upanishad.pdf
http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/Mundaka_and_Mandukya_Upanishads%20-%20Swami%20Sarvanand%20%5BSanskrit-English%5D.pdf --after Page 72, the
exposition of the Mandukya starts (you may not know this but Shri Ramakrishna Mutt is a center of Vedanta and Hindus scholars)
http://www.swamij.com/pdf/enlightenment-without-god-swami-rama.pdf (considered a seminal document by the late Swami Rama)
Again, please point me to this fabled version of Nakamura's with the 11 stanzas? Simply quoting wiki tags is not sufficient justification for your trying to strong arm this page!!! Tcat64 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to cite nonreliable sources. Moreover none of them say anything like "Mandukya Upanishad has 12 verses."VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: You have failed to read the contents pointed to by the three links above--they contain the actual MU and list the 12 verses, counting them out verse by verse. Shri Ramakrishna Mutt in particular is a center of Vedanta. You are showing that in reality you are not a scholar of the MU by making the bizarre claim that the MU has only 11 verses (a very embarrassingly wrong statement that you should not make in any discussion on the MU) and/or that you have a Western bias to Indian scholars. If you open these three links, you will find in them the ORIGINAL SANSKRIT MU and yes, they are counted out--one through twelve, with an explanation following each verse. Again, after asking three or more times previously, you have failed to provide the link to the 11 verse MU. You have also again failed to provide the specific Buddhist terms. It seems that it is your Nakamura reference is unable to the test of WP:RS. I have provided three new reliable works by scholars (Olivelle, 2014; Eliot Deutsch, 2004; Pasquale J. Simonelli 2004;) in addition to the earlier sources Deussen, and Radhakrishnan. My sources meet the test of WP:RS much more so than yours. Unless you are able to provide the reference or link to the eleven verse MU and unless you are able to provide the Buddhist terms in question, I am afraid you do not meet the WP:RS criteria and the Buddhist part has to be removed from the wikipedia article. Tcat64 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Counting to 12 verses is WP:OR. You need a reliable secondary source that says MU has 12 verses.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, Olivelle does not asy 500 BCE; Deussen is outdated; and Radhakrishnan is almost by definition unreliable. Vic, let's stop the discussion here; this guy is not going to get it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan: You don't seem to get it (or don't understand English). I have given you five sources for the 12 verses. Olivelle corrected himself in 2014 (get it?) It is not I that is counting the verses. Open the MU and the commentaries I gave and read for yourself that in the first few pages these authors say it has 12 verses. Also, WHERE IS THE VERSION THAT HAS 11 VERSES? WHERE ARE THE BUDDHIST TERMS? The Nakamura reference does not meet the test of WP:RS because there is NO version with 11 verses and there are NO Buddhist terms. This is the reason why you avoid these two questions and do not answer them. If the MU has 11 verses and Buddhist terms, it should be straightforward to locate this 11 verse version and the Buddhist terms. But no, despite my asking for it five times, you avoid the question, and do not provide this information. It seems you are pedants stuck on a secondary source reference, not willing to pursue this reference to its sources, not willing to read the original MU as well. I get the impression you do not know how to do research. Rather you seem dedicated Mahayanists trying to push an absurd agenda--one that scholars will laugh at. By so doing, you corrupt the wikipedia and render it flawed. Vic, what is so hard about providing me these answers. Don't sound like a stuck record. Move to this new area--loacate this fabled MU, locate the Buddhist terms. Tell us what they are, instead of repeating like a stuck record this "the references don't meet WP:RS when in fact, the Nakamura reference is but erroneous--else you would be able to point me to the source documents and terms. So again, in simple English that a five year old should understand: WHERE IS THE VERSION THAT HAS 11 VERSES? WHERE ARE THE BUDDHIST TERMS?Tcat64 (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. is WP:OR. Translations are primary sources.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: Show me the 11 verse MU. Show me the Buddhist terms. Nakamura is wrongly making these claims, else you (or me or anyone else) will be able to find this fabled, mythical eleven verse MU or the Buddhist terms. The fact you are not able to is that Nakamura has pulled this misinformation out of thin air. As such, the Nakamura reference fails to meet [WP:RS]. And I am not "counting." If you bother to read the first pages of these references that I gave you, you will see that they WRITE there are 12 verses in the MU. Tcat64 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV Discussion IV: the Nakamura reference does not meet standard of [WP:RS][edit]

The Nakamura reference stands alone in that it makes singular claims that sets it apart from the mainstream references on the Mandukya Upanishad (MU). In particular, it makes unverifiable claims. This reference is being backed tooth and nail by VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonathan and repeated requests to these two individuals to substantiate Nakamura's claims have gone unanswered. This indicates that there is very strong POV (agenda to push Mahayana Buddhism) that may be motivating these two persons. The specific claims that Nakamura makes, which to date have not been validated, and which set it apart from the rest of the writings on the MU are as follows:

  • Dates claimed by Nakamura are "about the first or second centuries A.D." Further, the reference in the article to Olivelle is disingenuous, as it is from 1998, a claim Olivelle since corrected in 2014 (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618602/Upanishad) where he writes: "Thirteen known Upanishads were composed from the middle of the 5th century through the 2nd century BCE.". Note also, this Encylopedia Brittanica (EB) article is a "checked" EB article, i.e., it was thoroughly vetted by the EB.
  • There is no 11 verse version of the MU on record--repeated requests to VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonnathan to backup Nakamura's claim with a reference or link to this 11 verse version of the MU have gone unanswered. Every available reference shows the 12 verse version, including references by noted authorities of Vedanta learning including the "vatican of Vedanta" i.e., the Shri. Ramakrishna Mutt.
  • Nakamura claims there are "Buddhist terms" in the Mandukya. He is unique in making this claim. Repeated requests to substantiate this claim by specifying which are these "Buddhist terms" have gone unanswered.

For these reasons, the Nakamura reference does not meet the test of [WP:RS].

It appears that only two people (VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonnathan) seem to be of this view. You will see above that there are three people other than me who feel like me that the Nakamura claims are wrong. As such, both VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonnathan, come across as attempting to strong arm this MU article seemingly in order to push a Mahayanist agenda. By so doing, they give the appearance of subverting the purpose of the Wikipedia. Rather than present a view that is in line with current understanding, they are making claims that would make the Wikipedia a laughing stock (1st or 2nd century AD, 11 verse MU, Buddhist terms).

The Nakamura reference does not meet the test of [WP:RS] and its novel and unverified claims should be removed from the article. Tcat64 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a clue who Nakamura was, do you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nakamura's "A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy" is a detailed academic reference. Tcat64 just doesn't like it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jonathan and VictoriaGrayson, to quote VictoriaGrayson's and your own comments back to you: "Also please stop citing your own personal opinions. You were warned numerous times about this." (see VictoriaGrayson's quote above). It seems while your selectivity blinds you to certain questions. It does not matter if Nakamura is a Bodhisatva. His claims come seemingly from thin air--they cannot be backed up. So, just as 1+1=2, the Nakamura reference does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Tcat64 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions have nothing to do with determining whether something is RS or not.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?[edit]

I've added the following text in a note:

"Older sources tend to give an older dating. William K. Mahony dor example, wrote in 1987: "The Upanis:ads of a third group (the Prasna, Maitri (or Maitrayanıya), Jbala, Paingala, and Mandukya Upanisads) return to prose form, but in a language that resembles classical Sanskrit much more than Vedic Sanskrit.

They probably emerged in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BCE although the dates for a few of them are uncertain.(Mahony 1987, p.9483) The most recent source he's referring to is from 1974." The Encyclopedy itself is from 2005; his contribution is from 1987; and his most recent source is from 1974. So, pretty outdated. This is as far as I wish to go for a compromise. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems unwilling to compromise. See above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, I am sorry but I don't agree. If you add the EB reference (with Olivelle) AND take out the Buddhist influence section, then I am fine. The two of you are undermining Wikipedia's effort to stick to known facts and mainstream understandings, and to not warp information based on some idiosyncratic reference, selected to meet some agenda. I am an academic myself, and I am very familiar with these personal biases. The facts as currently presented are an embarrassment to the Wikipedia. I understand that as devoted and passionate Mahayanists you are possibly attached to the view that Nakamura proposes. Nonetheless, what he proposes does not bear out on further investigation, even if otherwise, he is an internationally renowned scholar. That is not the way it works--just because one is a renowned scholar, does not mean that everything one (the renowned scholar) says is correct. She or he is subject as others, to backing any claims they make with verifiable references to sources. Tcat64 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who added this line--"Many Buddhist terms and expressions may be found in it, especially the concept of sunyata." It embarasses the Wikipedia--there is no concept of sunyata in the MU. It leads me to think you haven't even read the original MU in Sanskrit. The term in question is Turiya and it is not the same as Sunyata. Again, your doctrinaire and pedantic faith in a flawed secondary source (Nakamura), and your Mahayanist bias, leads you into error, resulting in your embarrassing both yourself and the Wikipedia. Tcat64 (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist influence[edit]

again seeing the trail of buddhism stamping on hindu subjects I do not see how a buddhist claim on mahayana as importance here ! Shrikanthv (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:RS: if a direct influence from Mahayana-Buddhism is not relevant, then what is? You want to censor Buddhism out of Indian history? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, you are being a Mahayanist doctrinaire. No one is taking Buddhism out of Indian history, one is trying to portray the truth. It seems you are relying on the single flawed reference (Nakamura) to back your thesis that the MU is influenced by Buddhism. I have given you numerous references, but you choose to ignore them. There is nothing I can do further, but do not remove the pov flag from the article please till this issue is satisfactorily resolved. Tcat64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You gave a lot of comments on the dating of the Mandukya Upanishad, not on the Buddhist influences. Here's another one:

  • Randall Collins (2009), The Sociology of Philosophies, Harvard University Press, p.963, note 17: "Its contemporarym the Madukya Upanishad includes phrases found in the Prajnaparamitrasutras of Mahayana Buddhism."

Check also this one:

  • Upinder Singh (2008), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education India, p.610: "Gaudapada was influenced by Madhyamika and Vijnavada Buddhism."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You speak a lot of Buddhist terms, and provide strange references by probably idiosyncratic researchers. But when I ask you a simple question--which are these terms, you are not able to answer. As a researcher, I am aware of the importance of good references and the key role they play to avoid idiosyncratic understandings. But common sense also plays a role. If someone who purports to be an authority says something, they should provide the evidence, irrespective of how learned they are--this is but an extension of WP:RS to the foundational basis of the claim made by the reference. So again, simple question--in the original MU (not the subsequent commentaries), where are the Buddhist terms? Tcat64 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak about "Buddhis terms," I speak about "Buddhis influences," reflecting what I read in Nakamura, and seconded by Collins. I don't know what "evidence" you're expecting to satisfy your "common sense"; you can read and check the source. If you think Nakamura or Collins are "idiosyncratic," you'll have to provide RS which state so. At Wikipedia, Harvard University Press, which published Collins work, is not a direct indication of "idiosyncratic understandings," nor is the Harvard–Yenching Institute, which provided funds to translate nakamura's work in English. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are "Buddhis?" do you mean the Vedanta concept of the Buddhi? (vs. Ahamkara?). I think your confusion if fundamental and so is Nakamura's, the flawed, idiosyncratic reference that is the sole basis of your argument. Turyia is NOT the same as the "void" of Shunyata! Do some more research to understand what Turyia is--read the actual Gaudapada Karika and some of the more modern commentaries instead of relying on a doctrinaire, pedantic approach that seems to parrot a flawed understanding from the sole Nakamura reference. Turiya is the experience of the Atman--it is NOT the Buddhist concept of the "void" (shunyata)--there are no influences...even so, if you mean "influences" then you should say so instead of writing in the actual page: "Many Buddhist terms and expressions may be found in it" Also, any influences can only pertain to commentaries on the MU, and not the actual MU itself. This line should be removed not just modified! Tcat64 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Buddhist," of course. See this in memorium, from the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies to gain a further impression of the credits of Nakamura. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan, your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with research methodolgy. Even a Nobel prize winner cannot make statements without providing evidence. Nakarmura may be a great genius, but that does not exempt him from the standard processes of research methodologies. Also, I note you have failed to answer the direct question--you have conceded there are no Buddhist terms, but have not commented on the wording that claims there are Buddhist terms. Can we correct that? Now coming to influences. What exactly is the Buddhist influence in the actual Upanishad? (not on commentaries--you may be failing to distinguish the actual Upanishad from later commentaries). Please do not tell me that shunyata is the concept you mean. Again, shunyata and turiya are not the same--and the numerous commentaries already listed in the article show this, it is not my personal opinion. So again, the section on Buddhist influence in an article on the original MU, should be removed. You have acknowledged there are no Buddhist terms in the actual MU; now let us focus on "Buddhist influences"--please list what you these influences are. A simple question that should be easy to answer should such influences be discernible in the actual MU.Tcat64 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 5 gives several quotes from Nakamura. Read WP:RS for the meaning of "reliable sources", and Wikipedia:Consensus to learn more about reaching concencus. We're not going to remove sourced info because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you think it's incorrect then try to find sources which say so. If you need help to do so, then say so, so I, or another experienced editor, can try to help you. Comments like "your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with research methodolgy" are not going to help here, and I'm politely asking you now to refrain from such comments. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going through your comments again, I finally saw what you meant, so I've removed this line: "Many Buddhist terms and expressions may be found in it." NB: one of the quotes in note 5 says "the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad." So, not "terms," as you insisted, but "concept." Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-re-revert[edit]

Shrikanthv is making a genuine attempt to edit woth the use of sources; shall we try first to discuss our objectives, and try how those edits can be further integrated? I think that that's better than wholesome reverts; I've seen enough fighting for the moment at India-related pages. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the direct problems with his sources as of now. What exactly is the issue?? Maybe one (The "Aum" book) seems a bit more 'primary' which isn't necessarily a problem in this case, but the rest don't seem to have glaring problems. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, your comments indicate you are a Mahayanist, intent on thrusting Mahayanist thinking based on the work of one (Mahayanist) researcher onto this whole vast area of the MU. As such you no longer are credible when it comes to this page or in guiding its reconstruction. Sorry. That is my sincere opinion. Tcat64 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think the fact that Joshua has a Mahayanist POV would exclude him from being involved in the page. I agree if he is being obstinate or unreasonable forcing a certain POV then he shouldn't be the one 'guiding' the direction of the page, but I don't think that makes him utterly lack credibility. Perhaps just listening and considering in a reasonable manner, but being aware of the potential influence? I don't like the idea of completely ruling someone out based on their POV though, unless its an obvious COI. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the topic JJ I see that you added Swami Rama statment once again in the body and point out to a book "englightment without god" but the said phrase is taken out from book called "OM the Eternal Witness: Secrets of the Mandukya Upanishad" is this some kind of push of mahayanist POV pushing ? (some thing in me tingles soo ) Shrikanthv (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
? I moved Swami Ram's notice of "direct similes" into the body, grouping it with his other statements, as being less relevant for the lead (I think). NB: Nakamura says the same. As for the other title: it wasn't added by me; I only copy-edited it. Something got messed-up? By the way: thanks for the poem! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrikanthv: ... I am completely confused about that last message. Clarify? Prasangika37 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prasangika37: Buddhism/Mahayanist reject the notion of God or its existence, although not immediately noticeable to normal readers, sublimely still I feel the articles tilts towards one point of view on the subject, but this could be my point of view lets see how others feel too Shrikanthv (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but someone can have that point of view and it not be an issue with the editing process? So you are conveying that the weight issue or non-neutral issue is the fact that JJ is swaying the point of view of the article towards a rejection of God? Prasangika37 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about Advaita Vedantins? After all, Brahman is regarded to be 'the Absolute', isn't it? Please explain more, and help us in gaining more knowledge and understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, per Nakamura, Buddhist concepts (*finally* after my spilling much ink and expending much effort, you agree that it is not "terms"!) have influenced the MU. I ask you a simple question. What are these "concepts?" Do not say shunyata. To say so implies a fundamental, basic lack of understanding of the difference between turiya and shunayata. What else? You use the plural "concepts." What are the other concepts that supposedly influence the MU that came from Buddhism. Unfortunately I note a very biased trend in your writings, much like that found in the Catholic school I grew up in--if a book doesn't meet your view point, you immediately label it as "not credible." Consider your posting that Bhikku Bodhi's book, one approved by the Dalai Lama himself, you consider as "not credible?" So *again* simple question--you use the plural "concepts" of Buddhism that influenced the MU. Name them, not including shunyata. Tcat64 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiTcat64. Please try to be more clear in your terminology: it's Nakamura who's being referenced and quoted, not me. You keep confusing me when you write that I use this or that terminology, while you mean Nakamura. And Nakamura writes: "many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it." (Nakamura 2004 p.284) Here are some of the terms Nakamura mentions (Nakamura p.215-218): adrsta, avyavaharya, agrahya, alaksana, acintya, prapancopasama. And yes, Nakamura does also mention sunyata (p.285). You are free to think that this "implies a fundamental, basic lack of understanding of the difference between turiya and shunayata," yet this is what Nakamura says. And he's a credible and reputed scholar, who seems to have had an open-minded interest in Advaita vedanta, so maybe you don't understand what commonalities there are between Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion with great interest and now am compelled to join in. It seems that either Jonathan's first language is not English, or he does not understand the difference between a "term" and a "concept." And as tcat64 points out, he tends to be pendantic and doctrinaire, comes across as biased, and covertly pushing Mahayanist ideology, and POV. If one wants to comment at this level of expertise, one should have at least a basic understanding of Sanskrit. A reading of the Sanskrit version of the Mandukya Upanishad will show immediately that none of the "terms" Jonathan mentions is even present in the Mandukya Upanishad. Hence one finds no mention of adrsta, avvayahrva, agrahva, alaksana, etc. in the MU. Jonathan, please distinguish between "terms" and "concepts." Earlier you agree as tcat64 said, that there are no terms in it. Then suddenly in your last post you are back to square one and claiming again that such terms exist, and absurdly cite terms that are not to be found in the MU itself. If Nakamura claims that these exist in the MU, then clearly, Nakamura does not have any idea of what he is talking about, no matter that you seem blindly devoted to him or no matter he is a great scholar in Mahayana Buddhism. As tcat64 points out, being a scholar in some subject does not mean you can make unverifiable comments. Nakamura's reference, does seem strange and is quite out of line with mainstream scholarship on the MU Judithvolkmann (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: a new editor, who's been following this "discussion," with the same POV-pushing, the same personal attacks, and the same basic lack of understanding of WP:RS. And yes, removing the Nakamura-referenced line was a mistake, because that's exactly what Nakamura wrote. I'll reinsert it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: the same WP:OR and the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan, the fact the opinion is the same...could it be because it is valid? These terms you mention are not in the MU. Not sure what youi find hard to understand about that....So what if Nakamura wrote it? He is clearly wrong here--no? Judithvolkmann (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're POV-pushing; please stop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dating mess up[edit]

How could there be mention of Mandukya upanishad be in Ramayana and Ramayana being older than Mandukya can some one explain ?, I think we should then remove the dating by other authors and researchers dating at later dates ! ?, and then again wierdly a question to JJ , if ramayana mentions this and Ramayana is dated before Buddha, how did Buddhism have influence on something which was older than the founder ? or is the claim it was twisted the words later out of Buddhist texts ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

before mentioning Buddha was older than Ramayana, please note Buddha belonged to leneage of Gautama maharishi, thats why the name comes Gautama Buddha.. and note that there is mention of Gautama maharishi in Ramayana as physically living and talks about his wife Ahalya ... Shrikanthv (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is Ramayana characters in Muktika Upanishad. I corrected the sections, clarified the wording. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikanthv edits[edit]

@Shrikanthv: - Do you have a source for the following you added, "Eventhough the basic text of Mandukya upanishad is simple and straight forward, but it's interpretion differs in philisophical schools."? If yes, please add the source. If not, remove this text. Please spell check your contributions too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUREShrikanthv (talk)
@Ms Sarah Welch:since the article is being expanded , would suggest to remove one line claims like

According to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the Mandukya Upanishad contains the fundamental approach to reality.

I believe there will be 1000's of authors with various perspecitve from all over the world and it would seriously detioriate the content of the page ? Shrikanthv (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that Radhakrishnan source yet, but will, and then comment/correct if constructive. Meanwhile, consider moving the Aurobindo paragraph you just added from "contents" to "modern commentators" section. The "contents" section should just be summary from scholarly translations such as Deussen, Hume, Johnston, etc. Commentaries by Aurobindo and others etc fit better in the later section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrikanthv:: I checked the Aurobindo source you added, ISBN 0941524655. You cite page 429 as your source (here). I could not verify your addition, "According to Aurobindo in mandukya upanishad stance 2 the upanishad describes that the absolute being every where, has manisfested by becoming everything". Please add a WP:V source for it, and explain why page 429 summary is relevant to this article when Page 429 or nearby pages do not mention Mandukya Upanishad at all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it either... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Mahayana Buddhist POV[edit]

Continued Mahayanist POV reintroduced by the same user (Joshua Jonathan). He has not been able to substantiate over the last few months,Nakamura's claim that there are Buddhist terms in the MU. The terms he says that Nakamura mentions are not found in the MU. Tcat64 (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH instead of "Continued Mahayanist POV reintroduced by the same user", and provide WP:RS for your WP:OR. Otherwise, stop your repetition. I've heard you; I've pointed out that Nakamura is WP:RS. You, on the other hand, despite repeated requests, still haven't provided a single source which criticises Nakamura, only your personal understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, I came across this source (which was already pointed out by Amitrochates; my apologies for not checking it earlier) which criticises Nakamura: Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., pp. 97-98. I'll add it to the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abrasive
Dear Joshua--this is not my "personal understanding." One does not need to ask for a "guru's opinion/blessing"--one can simply see for oneself by reading the actual MU that the claim is factually incorrect and that the Buddhist terms Nakamura mentions do not appear in the MU. I see you have moved the POV from the overall article to this section. This is a good idea as the rest of the entry seems reasonably OK. I am done with this somewhat childish edit war--regardless of who "wins" the fact remains that posting and publicizing incorrect facts embarrass the poster, the reference, and the wikipedia itself. I have also changed the title of this talk section. I see I cannot convince you--this ability is not really in my skill set, as I am too abrasive (I am trying to change though!). I leave it to others to pursue this if and as they wish. I wish you peace and the very best in life. Tcat64 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Abrasive" I had to look it up in a dictionary. Best to you too, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan wrote: Here are some of the terms Nakamura mentions (Nakamura p.215-218): adrsta, avyavaharya, agrahya, alaksana, acintya, prapancopasama.

Judithvolkmann alleged: "A reading of the Sanskrit version of the Mandukya Upanishad will show immediately that none of the "terms" Jonathan mentions is even present in the Mandukya Upanishad. Hence one finds no mention of adrsta, avvayahrva, agrahva, alaksana, etc. in the MU."

Quote from Mandukya Upanishad: अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणं अचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययासारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७ ॥
Transliteration: adrstam, avyavaharyam, agrahyam, alaksanam, acintya, (...) prapancopasamam (....)
Source: Wikisource

All six of those terms are in this verse. I have identified four in bold. The first word is a composite of "Adrsta, avyavaharya, agrahya, alaksana". The other two are in bold separately. Nakamura's list indeed appears in Mandukya Upanishad.

Nakamura's conclusions, however, are disputed by scholars such as Comans and many others. Any other concern behind that POV tag, Tcat64 and Judithvolkmann? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcat64: "one can simply see for oneself by reading the actual MU that the claim is factually incorrect and that the Buddhist terms Nakamura mentions do not appear in the MU" - okay, but this is not Conservapedia, we need reliable sources because there is no original research allowed. And in this case, as Ms Sarah Welch notes, you are factually incorrect: that verse from Wikisource says "adr̥ṣṭamavyavahāryamagrāhyamalakṣaṇaṁ acintyamavyapadēśyamēkātmapratyayāsāraṁ prapañcōpaśamaṁ śāntaṁ śivamadvaitaṁ caturthaṁ man'yantē sa ātmā sa vijñēyaḥ; this is why we use RS. Ogress smash! 01:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcat64: Nakamura claims, "many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it". This claim is notable, should be in this article, along with the views of scholars who disagree. Of course, it does not mean Adr̥ṣṭa word appeared in Buddhist texts first, or that there is no difference between Buddhist texts and Hindu Upanishads. To the contrary, there is a world of difference. Further, there is ample evidence that the word and concept Adr̥ṣṭa among Vedic scholars precedes the birth of Buddha by a few centuries. For example, Chandogya Upanishad's verse 7.9.1 uses Adr̥ṣṭa (....भवत्युपसीदन्द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता बोद्धा कर्ता विज्ञाता....). Similarly, Acintyam etc occur in earlier texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I don't see the issue with the Nakamura inclusion as long as we can include the debating POV's too. And Tcat64 it is a limitation and blessing of wikipedia that we have to rely on no original research, even if we can conclude something appears 'obviously' in a document or situation. Wikipedia only functions to relay information readily available. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point, I have been clearly proven wrong. I very much like Ms. Sarah Welch's point of view. Can you please add this into the section Ms. Welch? Also, given Nakamura stands so off from the mainstream research on this, can we lower his position from the beginning of both this section as well as the Chronology so as not to give him undue importance? Should we do this I will be happy to remove the POV tag. Again, I stand corrected, nice work by all of you, kudos to you. Tcat64 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcat64: I have added a clarifying sentence in the section, to preface the discussion and the views of Nakamura. The sentence in the lead should remain as is, with both Nakamura and Comans citations, because it is significant and relevant summary of the main text. I have also added a new chronology sub-section with a short summary showing the roots of "four states of consciousness" are in the Chandogya Upanishad – I am reading several recensions of original manuscripts to check what more needs to be summarized here. On tag, there isn't a need now, given your concern has the attention of several wikipedia contributors. If you feel otherwise, please tag it back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ms. Welch. I appreciate your corrections. Tcat64 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mandukya_Upanishad

Leave a Reply