Talk:Mandukya Upanishad

message: 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)
thread_title: URL

message: 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)
thread_title: Translation

message: 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)
replies: text: You don't have a clue who Nakamura was, do you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your personal opinions have nothing to do with determining whether something is RS or not.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Discussion IV: the Nakamura reference does not meet standard of [WP:RS] 

message: 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)
replies: text: He seems unwilling to compromise. See above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You still don't understand WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Buddhist influence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: ? 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)

text:  ... I am completely confused about that last message. Clarify? Prasangika37 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Forgot to mention: the same WP:OR and the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: You're POV-pushing; please stop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-re-revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is Ramayana characters in Muktika Upanishad. I corrected the sections, clarified the wording. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating mess up