Talk:Shramana

message: In the section "Clement of Alexandria (150-211)", the quote "It was after many successive periods of years that men ..."  is from chapter V of the Exhortation to the Heathen, and not, as noted, from The Stromata. -- Fullstop 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added a "See also" link to Samanera. We may want to merge Samanera into Shramana. Discussion? -- 201.19.77.39 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's irrelevant. "merge" doesn't mean "the terms are identical", it means they should be discussed together. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see you also reverted my merge of Samaneri to Samanera. Why? this isn't wiktionary, we don't keep a separate article on every term. If "Shramana" is too different, merge them into Sangha#Ordination_process, but don't keep them around as isolated stubs. Why do you want to know if I "know anything about Buddhism"? As far as I can see, there is no factual dispute, merely a question of how to arrange undisputed material. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, They are two different statuses, they are part of different sanghas. Just like boy and girl, monk and nun. Samanera is quite sufficient already, not a stub anymore. Samaneri is a stub, but stubs can exists seperately, and thus they will grow. they don't need to be mixed up. Also: mind the template. they are separate there, too! Greetings, Sacca 11:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added link to [[Samanera]]. Merge with [[Shramana]]?

message: I have not seen Shamanism mentioned in connection to Shramana in "Introduction to Hinduism" by Gavin Flood, "Blackwell Companion to Hinduism", "India : The Ancient Past" by Avari or in any other book. This is NOT an article on Shamanism. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if Flood, Blackwell and Avari did not mention Shramana-Shaman connection in some certain books. It just means you need to refer to more books!!!--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Like your ancient Max Muller crap from a hundred years ago?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, so you bring in Max Muller, like a typical hindutva nationalist !!! Unfortunately for you, Max Muller actually claimed 'Shaman' is derived from the Pali-Sanskrit term 'Shraman'. If you say muller was wrong about this, am sure many dalits will agree with you. Jokes apart, i sincerely suggest you look at the actual merits and demerits of the shramana-samana argument. No need to cloud it with your hindutva sentiments. Let the admin take note of this. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not even Hindu or Indian LOL. If I was a Hindu nationalist, why did I cite two history books by Western authors?  Idiot. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol, master obfuscators have a 'way' with identities (ofcourse, the idiocy shows). But hey, i understand your  intensions well -- by calling me an 'idiot', you want to start a slugfest of name-calling. And then somehow get me blocked and the content removed. Nice try saibaba venkatesh. I hope admin is taking note of this. How come suddenly C.Fred is not around? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, I couldn't care less about Shiva, Vishnu or the other Hindu gods.  They can lick my balls, if they exist.  I am in no way a Hindu fundamentalist. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text: This article has nothing to do with Shamanism. This is about the Shramanas from whom Jainism and Buddhism are derived.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamanism 

message: C,Fred, Am sorry but the way you dealt with Saibaba Venkatesh (despite his repeated deletions, breaking the three-revert rule and calling names), appears biased to me. You allowed him to go scot free with a mere friendly suggestion. On the contrary, you chose to paste an edit warning on my user talk page at a time when i had added additional content and created a seperate section for "Shramana and Shamanism" just once. So, i do not know what to expect from administrators here.
I do not how many admins are involved in this issue. So far i see Sitush, yourself and Qwyrxian. If a consensus is taken, would it involve just these 3 people as admins ? I do not know what happens if the admins themselves are biased. However, am proposing something. Hope the suggestion is viewed solely for its merit alone.
I suggest inserting a paragraph on the Shramana-Shaman controvery in the Shramana and Shaman articles; and creating a hyperlink in these articles leading to a larger article on another (new) page.
I disagree with IndianChronicles that the Shramana-Shaman theory is a fringe one. This topic has been debated by researchers,  linguists, and has been written about in various books/papers. IndianChronicles either lacks sufficient information or is perhaps biased towards Jainism. 
Undoubtedly, Mahavira and Buddha were original thinkers who introduced new concepts in philosophy / religious thought.  However, shramana 'practices' were not invented by Mahavira and Buddha. 
Asceticsm, and the concept of priests / priestesses have existed in the old world shaman practices since a long time. Stuff dating from stone age and earlier, such as rock art / rock paintings is attributed to shaman practices. Obviously 'buddhist' and 'Jain' rock art / caves (as a practice) were not invented by these religions. 
The 'idea' of meditating upon life and death, guiding souls in death and after-death rituals, mediating between the physical world and spiritual world, etc, were not invented by Mahavira and Buddha either. Both Buddhism and Jainism, absorbed shaman practices. Shaman practices became part of dominant culture everywhere. Till date in China, Shaman origin practices like Lion Dance, exist with mainstream buddhism and taoism side-by-side. Theyyam is part of 'hinduism'. The idea of 'meditation' itself is a shaman practice (it was not invented by Mahavira or Buddha).
Mergers into dominant cultures happened in other ways too. While persecution and conversion into christianity and islam happened in some regions, wholesale 'copying' happened in other places (example - good many Shramana concepts from jaina and buddhist schools were copied into 'hinduism' by vedic people. So it became shaman -> shraman -> vedic OR followed the model shaman -> vedic). The vedic people were not even idol-worshipping originally.
This topic (of Shramana-Shaman connection) is bound to hurt pet theories of religionists. Surely ForestTeacher, Venkatesh and IndianChronicles are going to have a problem with this. However, the topic deserves to be elaborated and dealt with in a seperate article. 
There are a good many books and references available on this topic. Therefore i suggest inserting a paragraph on the Shramana-Shaman controversy in the main article and creating a larger article on this topic in a new page. I hope this is acceptable to the administrators. 
Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to C.Fred

message: This is the (draft) paragraph, which i suggest to be inserted into the Shramana and Shaman articles. All other content goes into a new page titled Shramana and Shamanism. In the new page, content will be elaborated further with appropriate headings. Admins, please let me know if this draft paragraph is okay. Please indicate changes to be made.
===Shramana and Shamanism===
There has been considerable scholarly debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman. The controversy between 'Shraman' and 'Shaman' started with Max Muller's linguistic method of comparison, which indicated that the etymology of 'Shaman' is an Indian Buddhist derivation from the Sanskrit Sramana and the Pali Samana. However, in 1831 W.Schatt objected to this and speculated on evidence within the Tungusic language for an indigenous development of the word 'Shaman'. Researchers such as Banzarov, Nemeth, Laufer and Schmidt support Schatt ‘s view of an indigenous origin of Shamanism by deriving the descriptive term 'Shaman' solely from tribal elements. Znamenski and Soeng note a connection between the two phenomenon of shramana traditions and shamanism. Though seemingly unrelated, they noted both the terms, 'Shraman' and 'Shaman',  played an almost identical function.. However, Langles and Harlez criticize Schatt’s view. Rosenberg brought out the possible parallelism of the Sogdian and Tungus saman. Znamenski's work pointed out how the term Śramaṇa penetrated into Central Asia.. Currently, linguistic, etymological and anthropological connections between the words Shraman and Shaman remain controversial. For more on this, see Shramana and Shamanism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am neutral to the above paragraph, but I still feel it gives some undue weight to Shamanism in Shramana article. The above paragraph may be 100% correct and may have reliable sources, but does not belong here. I have read hundreds of books on Jainism/ Buddhism and their history. Not one has touched on Shamanism. It seems Max Muller was the only guy who speculated on this link which seems to have further fed the polemic debates.  I think  this topic need not be added just to satisfy some group. As Jimbo has noted clearly: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". In trying to reach on consensus we are not giving weight to the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, but to its prevalence among the current lot of Wikipedia editors who are discussing this. Having said that, like I said before, I will neither oppose nor approve of inclusion of the above paragraph in the article as its inclusion will not substantially compromise the relevance of the article. My only concern will be that it will open doors to addition of more nonsense to this topic.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory, not worthy to be included in this article. Articles on Shramana or Shaman generally (99.9%) do not include the other word. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That just depends on what you are reading. Religious books do not mention the connection, nor are religionists willing to read historical reasearch/anaysis about such things. If you, Venkatesh and indianChronicles claim claim its a fringe theory, please prove so.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with Redtigerxyz and Indian Chronicles 100%. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

text: If it has been written about extensively—and the writing needs to appear in reliable sources to be useful for the purposes of the article—then please provide links or other bibliographical references so that other editors can verify the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure i cud quote references primarily from Royal Asiatic Society, Artibus Asiae, and Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, on Monglian Studies. Apart from other authors / researchers already mentioned in the draft para, i cud add Schlegel, Mironov, Shirokogorov, to the list. The latter two published a book from the Royal Asiatic Society titled "Śramana-Shaman: etymology of the word "Shaman"". And ofcourse you can find many more publications on amazon...but wait, do i sense your partiality to Saibaba Venkatesh and hostility to me, yet again, here? Is it a wiki policy to ask for all the bibliographical references on a talk page, even before a new article is created? There are so many articles on wiki -- i do not see admins like you enforcing such a system in other wiki talk pages......should i take it that its tuf to find unbiased admins here. Anyways, i have no probs, if you do not want the content on wiki. Sooner or later such content (very 'troublesome' to religionists) will find its way on a very visible webspace. Not as visible as wiki, but visible enuf to create awareness and debate amongst indians. Thanks and bye.... --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is policy to ask for references in advance—or rather, when adding content to articles, the items must be referenced. Since the argument is made that the text should not be included because it is a fringe theory, the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you prove its a fringe theory? The burden of proof is on you to prove it is. Are you saying all the authors i have stated, as well as researchers like Brian_Morris_(anthropologist) [who wrote about Buddhism as it adapted to local shaman cultures while spreading across Asia], Gerald Berreman (anthropology professor at the University of California, Berkeley), who researched pahari religion in depth and wrote about brahmins and shamans, Marie_Antoinette_Czaplicka who wrote about aboriginal Siberia, Hyun-key Kim Hogarth who produced a detailed tabulation of buddhism and shamanism, all fringe theorists? Are these people crazy to be talking about the absorption of shaman practices into dominant cultures/religions? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  As usual Mayasutra is getting personal and quick to put lables. When I meant hundreds of book, I am talking about books written by scholars. Anyone who questions him is biased. WOW very nice criteria to judge people.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IndianChronicles, please mention which scholars you have read (name the ones who researched and wrote about shramana having nothing to do with shamanism). Their views shall also be mentioned in the article. Btw, when i find a biased individual, i react the same way. Otherwise those with big fists and name calling tactics like saibaba venkatesh wud simply get away with their contrived labels of 'fringe theories' and such like. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: It seems that you react the same who do not agree with you. I need not list everyone here. You can check my articles and edits where I have put references. I quote all top notch scholars. None of them have mentioned anything of Shamanism when discussing history of Sramanas.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, ForestTeacher kept misquoting, obfuscating. Then SaibabaVenkatesh kept deleting properly referenced material,  despite ongoing discussions. I have had run ins with disguised identities elsewhere. Experience is a bad teacher in creating a reactionary stance. I especially do not take kindly to name calling. I lost my cool. It spilled on to people it should not have. Am sorry. I left a message on C.Fred's page. Let's leave it there. Btw, lack of a shramana-shaman connection in your references would not mean proof in any manner. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Paragraph

message: There has been considerable scholarly debate on the origin and connection between the terms Shraman and Shaman. The controversy between 'Shraman' and 'Shaman' started with Max Muller's linguistic method of comparison, which indicated that the etymology of 'Shaman' is an Indian Buddhist derivation from the Sanskrit Sramana and the Pali Samana. However, in 1831 W.Schatt objected to this and speculated on evidence within the Tungusic language for an indigenous development of the word 'Shaman'. Researchers such as Banzarov, Nemeth, Laufer and Schmidt support Schatt ‘s view of an indigenous origin of Shamanism by deriving the descriptive term 'Shaman' solely from tribal elements. Znamenski and Soeng note a connection between the two phenomenon of shramana traditions and shamanism. Though seemingly unrelated, they noted both the terms, 'Shraman' and 'Shaman',  played an almost identical function.. However, Langles and Harlez criticize Schatt’s view. Rosenberg brought out the possible parallelism of the Sogdian and Tungus saman. Znamenski's work pointed out how the term Śramaṇa penetrated into Central Asia.. Currently, linguistic, etymological and anthropological connections between the words Shraman and Shaman remain controversial. For more on this, see Shramana and Shamanism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am neutral to the above paragraph, but I still feel it gives some undue weight to Shamanism in Shramana article. The above paragraph may be 100% correct and may have reliable sources, but does not belong here. I have read hundreds of books on Jainism/ Buddhism and their history. Not one has touched on Shamanism. It seems Max Muller was the only guy who speculated on this link which seems to have further fed the polemic debates.  I think  this topic need not be added just to satisfy some group. As Jimbo has noted clearly: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". In trying to reach on consensus we are not giving weight to the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, but to its prevalence among the current lot of Wikipedia editors who are discussing this. Having said that, like I said before, I will neither oppose nor approve of inclusion of the above paragraph in the article as its inclusion will not substantially compromise the relevance of the article. My only concern will be that it will open doors to addition of more nonsense to this topic.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory, not worthy to be included in this article. Articles on Shramana or Shaman generally (99.9%) do not include the other word. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That just depends on what you are reading. Religious books do not mention the connection, nor are religionists willing to read historical reasearch/anaysis about such things. If you, Venkatesh and indianChronicles claim claim its a fringe theory, please prove so.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with Redtigerxyz and Indian Chronicles 100%. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Shramana and Shamanism

message: I have read hundreds of books too. Every religious book portrays the greatness of its gurus/gods and the stream of philosophical thought they represent. Religious books have no business to talk about origins of practices. That domain belongs to historians. So you should be reading up journals/books on social anthropology, history, etc, for stuff on linguistics, etymology, ancient origins, social scenario represented in archeological finds, etc. The Shraman-Shaman has been written about extensively. Its not a minority view. Your contention that Max Muller was the only guy shows lack of knowledge. It is very ill founded. So is your speculation that this is going to open doors to addition of more 'nonsense'. We have heard the religionists. Wud like to know the views of the admins? I do not know wiki policies. I do not know if wiki is the domain play of majoritism of religionists. Wud greatly appreciate clarifications on it from admins. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has been written about extensively—and the writing needs to appear in reliable sources to be useful for the purposes of the article—then please provide links or other bibliographical references so that other editors can verify the claims. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure i cud quote references primarily from Royal Asiatic Society, Artibus Asiae, and Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, on Monglian Studies. Apart from other authors / researchers already mentioned in the draft para, i cud add Schlegel, Mironov, Shirokogorov, to the list. The latter two published a book from the Royal Asiatic Society titled "Śramana-Shaman: etymology of the word "Shaman"". And ofcourse you can find many more publications on amazon...but wait, do i sense your partiality to Saibaba Venkatesh and hostility to me, yet again, here? Is it a wiki policy to ask for all the bibliographical references on a talk page, even before a new article is created? There are so many articles on wiki -- i do not see admins like you enforcing such a system in other wiki talk pages......should i take it that its tuf to find unbiased admins here. Anyways, i have no probs, if you do not want the content on wiki. Sooner or later such content (very 'troublesome' to religionists) will find its way on a very visible webspace. Not as visible as wiki, but visible enuf to create awareness and debate amongst indians. Thanks and bye.... --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is policy to ask for references in advance—or rather, when adding content to articles, the items must be referenced. Since the argument is made that the text should not be included because it is a fringe theory, the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you prove its a fringe theory? The burden of proof is on you to prove it is. Are you saying all the authors i have stated, as well as researchers like Brian_Morris_(anthropologist) [who wrote about Buddhism as it adapted to local shaman cultures while spreading across Asia], Gerald Berreman (anthropology professor at the University of California, Berkeley), who researched pahari religion in depth and wrote about brahmins and shamans, Marie_Antoinette_Czaplicka who wrote about aboriginal Siberia, Hyun-key Kim Hogarth who produced a detailed tabulation of buddhism and shamanism, all fringe theorists? Are these people crazy to be talking about the absorption of shaman practices into dominant cultures/religions? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  As usual Mayasutra is getting personal and quick to put lables. When I meant hundreds of book, I am talking about books written by scholars. Anyone who questions him is biased. WOW very nice criteria to judge people.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IndianChronicles, please mention which scholars you have read (name the ones who researched and wrote about shramana having nothing to do with shamanism). Their views shall also be mentioned in the article. Btw, when i find a biased individual, i react the same way. Otherwise those with big fists and name calling tactics like saibaba venkatesh wud simply get away with their contrived labels of 'fringe theories' and such like. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: It seems that you react the same who do not agree with you. I need not list everyone here. You can check my articles and edits where I have put references. I quote all top notch scholars. None of them have mentioned anything of Shamanism when discussing history of Sramanas.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, ForestTeacher kept misquoting, obfuscating. Then SaibabaVenkatesh kept deleting properly referenced material,  despite ongoing discussions. I have had run ins with disguised identities elsewhere. Experience is a bad teacher in creating a reactionary stance. I especially do not take kindly to name calling. I lost my cool. It spilled on to people it should not have. Am sorry. I left a message on C.Fred's page. Let's leave it there. Btw, lack of a shramana-shaman connection in your references would not mean proof in any manner. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to IndianChronicles

message: Its not right for you to keep claiming this. I suggest at the very least please refer to "Religion and Anthropology", by Brian Morris (anthropologist). Morris suggested the indo-european root word is "sa". Many anthropologists accept an independent evenki origin for the word 'shaman'. Pl remember the linguistic classification of tungusic languages as an altaic group is controversial. It is left to linguistics to find if there were loan words or shared loan sounds between altaic and indo-european, or if these language groups shared common ancestry. Note that we are talking of a term 'shaman' that played a role way back in paleolithic hunter-gatherer times. Links (if any) between indo-european and altaic could be impossible to trace. Also note the role of a shaman is ancient, but as Morris put it "..the word saman itself may be of foreign origin as Shirokogoroff suggested" (page 16). Please read Shirokogoroff's research pointing out the term Shramana penetrated into Central Asia and became Shaman there. You also have the greek "samanaioi" and other allied words in various languages. What i had represented in the "Shramana and Shamanism" section is exactly that -- ie., varying views of different researchers. This is an emerging area of research. So its not correct to ignore any one section. Though 'Samana' (Pali) was used for Buddhist monks, the term got applied to all sorts of old world practices (diviners, faith healers, etc) in various regions. What matters is research by anthropologists whose work show how shaman practices and beliefs emerged as mainstream cultures (or merged into mainstream cultures). Then you have phenomenologists whose work points out how Shramana and Shaman play an identical role. 
So (if they were different in the first place) the blurring between Sramana and shaman took place along more than one line. IndianChronicles, am aware after all this if i create an article, it will get vandalized to the extent it may not be worth my effort. What i oppose is your repeated claim its a 'fringe theory'. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure speculation, even on your own admission. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part about the Shaman-Shramana link is speculation? The only prob is with linguistics and hence etymology which pends  further archeological proof. Otherwise, all other research (by anthropologists /phenomenologists, etc) favors the Shraman-Shaman connection. Do you have research content against them? Do note, even in linguistic research, one section favors the connection (Shirokogoroff, Schlegel, Morris, etc). On what basis can you say they are wrong? And please - keep away your prejudices against max muller / westerners. As in other fields, not everyone got everything right. But westerners contributed much to the understanding in these fields. So do not post blank negative comments against any individual. Instead, if you have content to counter the research works of anthropologists, please post your references. Thanks--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this shamanism crap is mentioned, for example, in Patrick Olivelle's dedicated chapter on Sramana in the "Blackwell Companion to Hinduism" from 2003. You think you are smarter than Patrick Olivelle? SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is doltish. Just because Olivelle does not mention Shramana-shaman connection in this particular book does not mean proof. Btw, Olivelle deals with religious studies, not with such anthropology topics. Understandably, this is an unresolved issue in linguistics. A section of linguists disfavor the connection bcoz they ASSUME there were no pre-buddhist connections between indians and the nomadic tribes of mongols, evenkis, chinese, etc. Plus, altaic is supposedly older than indo-european. Linguists depend a lot on genetic links, archeological finds, etc. Cannot expect them to resolve this issue anytime soon. So, lets leave the linguists aside. How about anthropologists and those dealing with phenomenology of religion ? They favor the connection. Do you have proof against them ? Do you think you are smarter than Shirokogoroff, Schlegel, Morris, Czaplicka, Hogarth, Znamenski, Soeng, etc ??? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I admit that my expertise is more on religion and philosophy and not anthropology. This article is about religion and philosophy and not about linguistics or anthropology. You are right about Oleville, he deals with religious studies, not with such anthropology topics. That is the same with this article which deals with religion and philosophy of Shramana. Hence maybe one sentence about this tenuous link may suffice in this article. Actually, Shamanism may be the right article to mention this link. As for new article on "Shamanism and Shramanas", I will not comment as this is not my forte.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian Chronicle, Am aware to jains the term Shramana referes mainly or exclusively to Jain tirthankaras / gurus. So i understand your disfavorism towards including the Shramana-shaman links/connection in this article. However, the title of this article is "Shramana". That's a very general title. So it should include something on the term's etymology (representing various views of linguists), links and syncretism with shamanism from the anthropological view. Something like the short draft para above (please feel free to make changes to the draft para). Its a good idea for you to make a seperate article titled "Shramanas in Jainism" so that it contains the view/approach of Jainism alone to the term "shramana". I very much accept in the indian context, jains were the earliest 'shramans', while Buddha and Buddhists as "shramans" happened later. There is no research as yet on Jainism - shaman links. However, there is plenty of research on the links/mergers of buddhism with shamanism and tribal totemism traditions. So it wud be very appropriate for you to create a new article/title about Shramanas in the context of Jainism. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: =Re to Indian Chronicles 

message: Fred, the shraman-shaman connection is partly fuzzy from the linguistic pov, not from anthropology pov. I'd request IndianChronicles to make a convincing case for fuzzy links. Had already mentioned all content goes into a new page, so am not convinced this opens doors for shamanism in this article either. Unless it is directly related to Shramana, stuff cannot be mentioned in this article. The sources for (3) are Znamenski and Grim.  Also, indianChronicles is incorrect in claiming scholars are unanimous in deriving shramana from the sanskrit 'shram'. When the matter remains unresolved in linguistics, its not right to claim/conclude this as yet. In jainism, the term 'shramana' exclusively refers to 'Mahavira' or a 'tirthankara'. However, indianChronicles must understand that this article is about a very general term 'shramana',  which does not belong to jainism alone. Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no reply from IndianChronicles, i suppose i can go ahead and mention the link in this article. Do other editors have suggestions to make on the deleted section or on the draft paragraph? Fred, please can you choose which sentences from the deleted-section/draft-para go into this article (will put the rest into a new article) ?  Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No you cannot change the article.  Amandamese (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, Amandamese? It would help the discussion if you explained why, per Wikipedia's policies, the text shouldn't be added. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned, it seems that there is overwhelming consensus against Mayasutra's additions. Amandamese (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if are a sock puppet or what.... Anyways, the only ones who made up the "overwhelming consensus" were IndianChronicles, Venkatesh and Redtigerxyz. None of them have a rationale. Hence their opposition stands invalid. I give you 24 hours to respond with your rationale for disallowing, or else am going ahead with reinstating the deleted para/section. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Mayasutra, clearcut rationale and reasons were given to you by all why the link is not required. I had not replied to you as I have already put forth my arguments and cannot keep on repeating the same thing. You cannot suo moto decide that the opposition is invalid. Your decision to reinstate will go against the Wikipolicies and consensus--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Re to Fred

message: It makes no sense to keep continuing the discussion like this. I have presented my case for Shramana-Shaman links. But indianChronicles, Venkatesh and Redtigerxyz have not presented their case yet. Since the latter two are no longer in this discussion loop, the onus falls on indianChronicles (who has also been raising the strongest objection).
To come to a final decision, i request indianChronicles to present his case for fuzzy relevancy of the shramana-shaman-link to this article. If not, allow the link to be mentioned as a seperate section, or as a paragraph (with required changes in the draft para), in this article. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no reply from IndianChronicles, i suppose i can go ahead and mention the link in this article. Do other editors have suggestions to make on the deleted section or on the draft paragraph? Fred, please can you choose which sentences from the deleted-section/draft-para go into this article (will put the rest into a new article) ?  Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No you cannot change the article.  Amandamese (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, Amandamese? It would help the discussion if you explained why, per Wikipedia's policies, the text shouldn't be added. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned, it seems that there is overwhelming consensus against Mayasutra's additions. Amandamese (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if are a sock puppet or what.... Anyways, the only ones who made up the "overwhelming consensus" were IndianChronicles, Venkatesh and Redtigerxyz. None of them have a rationale. Hence their opposition stands invalid. I give you 24 hours to respond with your rationale for disallowing, or else am going ahead with reinstating the deleted para/section. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Mayasutra, clearcut rationale and reasons were given to you by all why the link is not required. I had not replied to you as I have already put forth my arguments and cannot keep on repeating the same thing. You cannot suo moto decide that the opposition is invalid. Your decision to reinstate will go against the Wikipolicies and consensus--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Final decision

message: You have not yet explained your rationale for fuzzy relevance of the shramana-shaman link to this article. You admit you are not into anthropology, yet you oppose. You have not yet stated your case for opposing the inclusion. You cannot disallow merely based on your whim, with a select few (ie., only you and venkatesh to be precise) trying to hide behind the consensus policy. This is not a forum where a protectionism policy for majoritism applies. Neither are editors here some sorta moderators who disallow stuff based on personal POVs. Unless you make your case for fuzzy relevance, your grounds for opposing remain invalid. I would like to see you providing references of social anthropologists and phenomenologists who researched and found no anthropological links between shramana and shaman.   Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Fred needs to take a decision here. Instead of allowing the ramble to continue, wud like to see a decision made by the admin, based on content provided. I beleive it now depends on whether or not Chronicles is able to (1) provide references as stated above, and (2) makes his case for fuzzy relevance of the shramana-shaman link to this article. Thanks. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a problem here. This article is about philosophy, Sramana were philosophers and religious teachers. Not about anthropology. It seems you are hell bent on putting original research in this article. The onus is on you to provide the link between Shramana and Shamanism which you have not been able to provide. I need not provide any references that Shramana and Shamanism is not linked.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Since a decision has been requested, I will opine. I do not see enough sourcing to support inclusion of the text, and I see strong rebuttals against including it. The text should stay out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, i have provided references/sources from atleast 6 well known anthropologists who have done extensive research. Please explain if there is a wiki policy on the number of sources and how much is considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Also please explain how you made your decision based on strong rebuttals by Chronicles when he has not yet explained his grounds for (1) and (2). Chronicles mentioned his draft para as a compromise consensus here Talk:Shramana#Decision. Obviously he came around to the inclusion but with his own claim that "The link between Sramanas and Samanism is still speculative and more research needs to be done on it." But now your decision is curious. Kindly explain. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Six? There were three in the draft paragraph, of which at least one ran counter to the claim of the terms being related. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, that is just a "draft" para. i did not know how many sources to add in such a short para. I wanted to represent views of linguists and anthropologists who support the links, as well as early linguists who did not support the link (based on their assumption that there were no pre-buddhist links between indians and central asians). Am not sure if you went thru the sources before opposing. Hope you did look at the sources in User_talk:C.Fred#Apology_about_Shramana_article (all of those 6 sources support the links). Ofcourse there are more mentioned in this section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism. Kindly explain how many sources are required to be considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Fred, i thot i was representing a balanced view by mentioning both, ie., those who support and those who oppose the links. Obviously the section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism needs to be redone -- basically in that section i just wanted to mention some important sources which support the Shramana-shaman links. Being aware of religious sensibilities, wanted to convey just a hint of the links without elaborating on it. My mistake. I should have detailed the shramana-shaman links properly and written just a short note on linguistic research opposing the links. I will redo the stuff and create a new Shramana and Shamanism section on monday, 27th feb (since its friday today, and am busy this weekend). There are a number of sources, but i cannot work around all of those anthropology publications. It wud be very helpful if you cud guide how many minimum sources are considered enough sourcing for wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: re to chronicles

message: You overlook in the pre-Buddist era there were too many groups/tribes with shamans/religious teachers each with their own philosophies and set of beliefs. Obviously they were not Jains alone. You are behaving as though Jainism has a patent on the term 'Shramana'. 
Already expained, this article is NOT about Shramana Philosophy alone. It is about a very general title Shramana. Therefore it must include something from the linguistic research field, on the term's etymology, as well as links and syncretism with shamanism from the anthropological view.
I have provided enough references for the Shramana-Shaman links. The onus is on you to provide (1) and (2) as stated above. If you cannot provide, your opposition stands invalid. 
You simply cannot claim "I need not provide any references" and still keep opposing. Unless you expain your rationale with (1) and (2), your opposition wud be considered a mere whim based on your personal religious beliefs. So either please explain your grounds for (1) and (2), or stop opposing.
Amandamese's stand on consensus is also doltish. I cud ask friends to create wiki usernames and support the inclusion. Am sure that's not how wiki works. So let Fred take a decision based on content provided. 
Fred, its pointless to simply allow the ramble to continue. Hope you are aware of religionist/racist/casteist attitudes of indians (who are purists with religious notions about descent as well as the origin of their religions ; and averse to tribal or mixed origins of themselves or their religions -- in short,  basically averse to anything that does not conform to their pet religious beleifs). 
So Fred, unless you take a firm decision this issue is not going to resolve by itself. Am hoping to see you taking a decision as soon as you can and not stretch this any further. Hope we get to hear from you asap. If i don't get to hear from you, i take that you support the inclusion. If you say yes, i will put the draft para in this article, and create a new article on Shramana-Shaman links. You can trim/edit the content as is suitable around wiki policies. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a decision has been requested, I will opine. I do not see enough sourcing to support inclusion of the text, and I see strong rebuttals against including it. The text should stay out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, i have provided references/sources from atleast 6 well known anthropologists who have done extensive research. Please explain if there is a wiki policy on the number of sources and how much is considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Also please explain how you made your decision based on strong rebuttals by Chronicles when he has not yet explained his grounds for (1) and (2). Chronicles mentioned his draft para as a compromise consensus here Talk:Shramana#Decision. Obviously he came around to the inclusion but with his own claim that "The link between Sramanas and Samanism is still speculative and more research needs to be done on it." But now your decision is curious. Kindly explain. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Six? There were three in the draft paragraph, of which at least one ran counter to the claim of the terms being related. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, that is just a "draft" para. i did not know how many sources to add in such a short para. I wanted to represent views of linguists and anthropologists who support the links, as well as early linguists who did not support the link (based on their assumption that there were no pre-buddhist links between indians and central asians). Am not sure if you went thru the sources before opposing. Hope you did look at the sources in User_talk:C.Fred#Apology_about_Shramana_article (all of those 6 sources support the links). Ofcourse there are more mentioned in this section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism. Kindly explain how many sources are required to be considered "enough sourcing" on wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Fred, i thot i was representing a balanced view by mentioning both, ie., those who support and those who oppose the links. Obviously the section Talk:Shramana#Shramana_and_Shamanism needs to be redone -- basically in that section i just wanted to mention some important sources which support the Shramana-shaman links. Being aware of religious sensibilities, wanted to convey just a hint of the links without elaborating on it. My mistake. I should have detailed the shramana-shaman links properly and written just a short note on linguistic research opposing the links. I will redo the stuff and create a new Shramana and Shamanism section on monday, 27th feb (since its friday today, and am busy this weekend). There are a number of sources, but i cannot work around all of those anthropology publications. It wud be very helpful if you cud guide how many minimum sources are considered enough sourcing for wiki. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Re to Chronicles

message: Is Fred the only admin dealing with this issue? Can we have someone knowledgable about social sciences and anthropology assigned to handle this? Fred, am not aware of wiki policies on minimum number of sources. Please do inform me how many minimum sources are required to be considered "enough sourcing" for wiki? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New admins

message: The following is proposed as a new section by an IP (Get a Wikipedia life.)
Preliminary questionable context needing resolved first:
#There reference is  this web site.  Is it notable?
#There needs to be some notability attached to the ultimate authors of the ultimate sources, no matter how many inferences the author made from the ancient (most notable indeed) sources.
#The web site itself sources a single book? Is it notable?
#The list of links after the book might be sources too? but are they notable?
#The web site mentions the word 'sramana' once.  That's as relevant as it gets.
Reply by added user: I am a student of Philosophy. As part of my university course, I had to read 'Philosophies of India' Heinrich Zimmer. http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-India-Heinrich-Robert-Zimmer/dp/0691017581  It is a very well-regarded, well researched book. I also contains the same assertion that Vyratyas were probably the same as Shramanas - but the word was a Vedic Aryan one (not one that Shramans may have chosen to use for themselves.) If anyone knows how to fish out the relevant portions (search on the word 'vratya' inside the book) using Google Books, I request them to assist me in fishing that out. There must be other references I am sure. For now, however, I believe Zimmer's book and the above weblink should be enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejiraj (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shramana as 'Vratya' 

message: The article on Shramana contains questionable claims. The author attempts to identify the term "Vedic" with only one aspects of the Vedas, the Karma-Kāṇḍa. While that aspect of the Vedas is indeed focused on worldly action (such as ritual), the Vedas also include the experientially oriented Jnana-Kāṇḍa. The Upaniṣads consider the Karma-Kāṇḍa secondary, and in many ways dependent on, the level of experiential attainment one has reached.Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad I.i.4-5 Yogic practice (in its broad sense, including transcendence oriented meditation, etc.) is seen as necessary for the requisite experiences. Thus, the claims below that the Yoga tradition is Śramaņa and not part of the overall Vedic tradition is questionable at best. Considerably more nuance might make it clear which traditions falling under the umbrella term "yogic" might be seen as divergent from the Vedic and which are not. For instance, the Nath Yoga tradition may be divergent, while Patanjali's Yoga Sūtras, as an āstika tradition, is less likely to be.NeilSadhan (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shramana and Veda 

message: The article claimed that Though ideas of Karma, Liberation and Samsara are present in the early vedic texts, concise arguments and definitions arose from the Shramana tradition.. This is dubious at best. I have removed the claim due to lack of reliable reference. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim 

message: I read through the article and found many of the claims unsubstantiated. I don't call quoting a book as proof when that author just gives an unsubstantiated opinion. What is the actual proof beyond someone's opinion that the Shramana's influenced that Brahmanas? Or that there weren't Brahmana Shramanas.
First of all it is not clear who the Shramana's were. Where they inside or outside the Vedic fold? Or were they originally Vedic and then some heterodox people imitated them? For we see in Mahabharata and Ramayana that many Vedic sages were living in the forest and wandering around like sannyasis? (To understand teh Vedas one must approach through the Itithasa and Puranas not directly.)
I also found it ridiculous to say that Brahmanas adopted the theory of karma and reincarnation from Buddhists and Jains when these two are derivative of the former. Very bad scholarship you are quoting from.van Lustig (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that "Shramana" tradition influenced Vedic tradition