Talk:Ashvamedha/Archive 1

message: This is religion not math.--71.163.67.245 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go look in a dictionary. Here's one . Paul B 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulas ? 

message: please don't remove information about the Vedic sacrifice. There is a separate section about contemporary Hinduism, and you may expand that if you want to cite Hindu opinions that the whole thing is to be taken symbolically (a statement that has been in the article all the time, incidentially). Furthermore, I don't know if B. R. Ambedkar read about the sacrifice in an English translation, or in the original Sanskrit, and I don't really see why it matters. If you have a source specifying which particular translation Ambdekar used, feel free to cite it. The present discussion of the sacrifice is based on Griffith, which I'll add now to stall accusation of unsourced statements. Feel free to add further sources. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent removals

message: There is a gap of at least a 1000 years between the early Vedic age, and the Gupta empire. Apparently, at some point of time a shift occured in how Ashvamedha was performed. Is there any reference saying that Samudragupta followed the procedure as described in Griffith's translation? 
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (from the Vedic period) speaks of the sacrificial horse as the very form of the world:
:Aum, the dawn, verily, is the head of the sacrificial horse, the sun the eye, the wind the breath, the open mouth the Vaisvanara [universally worshipped] fire; the year is the body of the sacrificial horse, the sky is the back, the atmosphere is the belly, the earth the hoof [or, the earth is his footing], the quarters the sides, the intermediate quarters the ribs, the seasons the limbs, the months and the half-months the joints, days and nights the feet, the stars the bones, the clouds the flesh; the food in the stomach is the sand, the rivers are the blood-vessels, the liver and the lungs are the mountains, the herbs and the trees are the hair. The rising (sun) is the forepart, the setting (sun) the hind part, when he yawns then it lightens, when he shakes himself, it thunders, when he urinates then it rains; voice, indeed, is his voice.
The last anuvaka of the last Kanda (7.5.25) of Taittiriya Samhita (Krishna Yajur Veda) begins with the sentence, “he who knows the summit of the intelligence (medhya) of the horse (ashva) becomes illumined and fit for the sacrifice.
yo va ashvasya medhyasya shiro veda shirshnavan medhyo bhavatu.
The rest of this anuvaka TS (7.5.25) till the end is mostly identical to the Br.U. (1.1.1) and  (1.1.2) quoted earlier and develops the cosmic form of the horse. The end of TS (7.5.25) is same as that Br.U. (1.1.2), ending with the phrase samudra evasya bhandhuh samudro yonih.  (The sea (samudra) was his brother and sea his birthplace (yoni).) deeptrivia 20:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have enough information to say what form Samudragupta's sacrifice took. However I think we can be certain that he did not use Griffith's translation! I'm not sure what you intend by including the quotations from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad about the symbolic significance of the horse. Are you suggesting that this passage is evidence that a real horse would not have been used? Paul B 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Griffith's translation is maybe not perfect, but it is fair. If you disagree with a particular passage, we can always go back to the original text of the Yajurveda. And yes, the Upanishad texts belong in the "Vedanta" section, of course, and describe a pov after the reinterpretation of Vedic religion. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article gives the impression that Samudragupta's ashvamedha was performed in exactly the same way as described in a book written a thousand years ago, while between the time of Yajurveda and Samudragupta, we have literature showing that symbolic interpretation had already begun. Could we make this more clear in the article? Also, do we have any particular instances of Ashvamedha being performed the Yajurveda (Griffith) way recorded in history preceding Samudragupta? deeptrivia (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep adding Griffith's name, as though the account is dependent on his translation? Unless we can find evidence concerning the specific form that Samudragupta's ceremony took, I doubt there is anything else to say about it. The Br.U. passage elaborates on the symbolic significance ascribed to the sacrifice. It does not appear to say that the sacrifice itself is purely "symbolic" - in the sense that no actual horse would be killed. Paul B 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul B, what you said makes perfect sense, and I agree to it. I somehow missed this piece of logic earlier. However, we do know that at some point of time in that period, it did become purely symbolic. It is inevitable that some things are "lost in translation", and others are "found in translation", especially in texts like these, so I think it's necessary to mention whose translation we are using.  deeptrivia (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: I have a Hindi Version of White Yajur Veda with Sanskrit mantras (Pandit Shriram Sharma Acharya, 2004, Sanskrit Sansthan, Bareli). And no nonsense is written about Queen copulating with dead horse and ritual obscenities. Hindi versions are much more authentic translations than English versions by foeigners. Thus, I am going to re-revert it to my own version.
Cygnus_hansa 16:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cygnus_hansa, it would make more sense if you cite the verses and their translation according to your source, and settle your issues here instead of reverting the article again. dab, could you point him out the exact verses relevant to the discussion. Also, do we have any information about how many versions of Yajurveda existed by the 19th century, and which one did Griffith use for his translation? As far as I know, in most Hindu texts as we know them today, insertions were made till as late as 17th century. I know this is not the right place at all for this kind of debate (on whether Griffith's translation is acceptable or not), but we can discuss whether it is the only translation worthy of being mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: :The horse to be sacrificed must be a stallion, more than 24, but less than 100 years old.
I have no idea about Indikan religions, but horses don't even live 100 years, and 24-year old horse would be a very old one. Are you sure it's supposed to be "years" and not "months" ? Taw 13:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing; this is just quoted after Griffith, we'd have to look at the original text to see what is there, and after all, it's just a text: we are not saying they used actual centenarian horses, we are just saying that this is what the texts as preserved proscribe. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the horse 

message: A new section should be added to the article for the mythological and historical significance of this Yagna. Ashwamedha was carried out in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata as well as in other myths and tales. It was vital to the narrative of the Ramayana while in the Mahabharata it had both, narrative and symbolic importance.
The reason so much significance is attached to this particular Yagna is that it was supposed to be the ultimate of all Yagnas as far as a king is concerned. To have performed Ashwamedha meant that there would be no more wars and all the kingdoms so conquered would adhere to the judgements of the king to have performed it. Therefore it was a tool for ushering peace just as it was a sign of violent dominance. Historically, Samudragupta was the last to have consolidated his powers through this Yagna.
There are other mentions of the Ashwamedha in Hindu mythology, usually as precursors to conflicts between the Devas and Asuras. It was usually the latter that performed it and sent the Devas running to one of the greater Gods (Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh) who would then remedy the ails of the Devas. I believe this Yagna was involved in the myths of Trishanku and Tripura as well. Again, the latter tale is important as Indian state of Tripura derives its name from this myth. Nshuks7 11:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological Significance of the Yagna 

message: This may be a pedantic concern, but I cannot believe that Keith's translation actually had "no one leadest me". It's not grammatical, and if actually so printed, that must have been by oversight. Can anybody verify? dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at the original edition of Keith's translation. It does say "leadest". The translation is heavily footnoted. Given the debate about thye meaning of "nayati", it mght be worth transcribing Keith's comment. He discusses the meaning of "amby ambike ambalike", suggesting that these words may refer to subordinate queens. "The next words may then refer to the queen as willing to go, 'no one leads me (against my will)', and this is in harmony with the common view that the victim should offer herself willingly. But the later verses with yabhati suggest that it really means 'no one is taking me' (as a bride)." Paul B 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keith / "leadest"

message: Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi Sastri was born in 1912 at Amritalur, in Guntur dt of Andhra Pradesh.He worked as Sanskrit teacher at various institutions. He was proficient in Tarka-Vyakarana- Poorvottara Meemamsa-etc Sastras. He was a Theatre-artist too.When Gandhian-Nationalist Gollapudi Seetharama Sastri of Vinayaashramam, published Vedas in Telugu(Andhra Vedamulu) between 1938-40, it was  Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi Sastri who translated KrishnaYajurveda.
Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) embarked upon publishing the sacred texts into Telugu in 1984 under Acharya Diwakarla Venkatavadhani as the chief editor. Sastri assisted in the transliteration of translation of Krishna Yajurveda into Telugu.Following the sudden demise of Acharya Diwakarla Venkatavadhani , Sastri single-handedly completed the voluminous work.The Krishna Yajurveda spans seven volumes. He also translated the Aranyakopanishads in four volumes.Sastri is the receipient of Raja-Laksmi Foundation Award in 1990 for his lifetime contributrion to Sanskrit studies.    
***
You will note that Dasarathi Rangacharya(b.1934) published his Shukla Yajurveda in 1999 four years ahead of TTD's Krishna Yajurveda(2003).He notes in his 72-page foreword to Shukla YS that, when he embarked on this solo -mission at the age of 65 years, he was discouraged and even threatened ( by those who study vedas for a living , some advaita followers as well as some Visistha-advaita followers) with grave consequences.He is a sworn 'vishistadvaita-follower'. Not inclined favourably  towards vedic rituals, as a matter of principle.In his quest for the Sanskrit source of Shukla YS, Rangacharya referred 'Rgveda Smhita' by Veda Prathisthan, New Delhi, 'Andhra Vedamulu-RgVedamu' by Vinayaashramam(cited above under Ramavarapu Krishnamurthi sastri), Bhuvanavani Trust, Luknow and Rgveda Samhita by Chaukhamba  Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi(Benares)-1. He bitterly notes that TTD scholars and administration refused him any help in his venture.Despite the grief of losing his son and failing health,Dasarathi Rangacharya published Shukla Yajurveda in Telugu Language (1999). In 1960 he translated the works of Kalidasa into Telugu.The Ramayana  (1963), The MahaBhagavatam(1970) and The Mahabharata (1994) followed. 
***
C.P.Brown(1798-1884) in his Telugu English Dictionary  (pl visit www.asianeds.com for info on Reprint) describes Yagna (Yagnyamu in telugu)' as " The rite of offering ; a sacrifice or offering. The sacrifice in which a goat is smothered and the inside fat is dressed and eaten by Brahmins.( The person who celebrates this sacrifice assumes the honorary title of somayajulu). p.1058 of the 22nd reprint AES,Chennai 2003." 
***
The 1903 (second) edition of this book was 'thoroughly revised and brought upto date by Messrs. MVenkata Ratnam, W.H.Campbell and K.Veeresalingam(1848-1919). This book has been included in the approved list of books under citation No 1996/000/21 of XII of Telugu Books to be purchased by the District Library Institutions and Govt Libraries. harappa 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Telugu Translations

message: In the section "Sanskrit epics," the translation of Ramayana 1.14.34 seems to include a significant error. It says, "Queen Kausalya desiring the results of ritual disconcertedly resided one night with that horse."
In the original Sanskrit (as found on the page we're using as our source) the words describing Kausalya's mentality are "su-sthitena ca cetasaa," which mean "with a composed (or "steady") mind." In the word-for-word meanings, the translator himself gives "composed." 
How can this justify "disconcertedly"? The Sanskrit includes no negative word that would turn "a steady mind" into "a disconcerted mind."
This is significant because her "disconcertedly" spending the night with the horse could be read as hinting at the sort of mock sexual act described elsewhere in the article. Without "disconcertedly" that implication disappears. 
What should we do about this?
Respectfully, O Govinda 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disconcerted means disconcerted. I'd be pretty disconcerted at the thought of having to spend the night with a dead horse. I seem to remember a scene in The Godfather in which a character was rather disconcerted by something similar, so I think you are reading rather too much into it. Anyway, the "mock sexual act" described is mainly a series of ritual utterences. I guess the emotions described are to some extent ritualised too. The quotation is from the translation referenced. We cannot change the wording of a quotation, but perhaps alternative versions can be given in a note, or you could find another translation. The big advantage of this one is that the Sanskrit is present with the translation. Paul B 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not she is supposed to have performed any mock sexual acts cannot of course be known, but the text does say that the ritual was performed exactly as prescribed in the Veda. I don't think being "composed", "steady" or "disconcerted" indicates anything either way concerning what she was about to do. A person might be described as "composed" or "disconcerted" before a visit to the dentist, or before being executed. It tells us about their state of mind, not about what's about to happen. Anyway, we simply report what the text says. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Paul B 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that the queen does spend the night with the horse is sufficient to imply that the ritual was followed to the letter. Regarding 'disconcertedly', we cannot alter the translation quoted, but we could insert a footnote discussing the original term and its literal meaning. We are however splitting hairs at this point. As Paul notes, ritual "mock dismay" is prescribed for the queen anyway even if she is not 'disconcerted'. I agree with OG that the literal translation of susthitena cetasaa would be something like "with resolve, with determination, composedly". The translator seems to take this as the queen "bracing herself". I suppose the intended meaning is to compliment the queen on not flinching from her duty, but 'disconcertedly' seems to be a rather poor translation to me too. dab (ᛏ) 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Ramayana translation

message: Today, there are full published translations of the passages, for example Rangacharya (1999) and Shastri (2003) in Telugu.
An unexpurgated translation in modern English of the corresponding passage in the TS (7.4.19) is given below.
:[The wives of the king surround the slain horse] 
:1.The Queen, grieves thus: [7.4.19b] "O mother, no-one has taken me. The little horsie is asleep".
:2 The rest of the King's wives say to the Queen: [7.4.19c] "O Queen, cover yourself and the horse with this cloth and pray thus: 'O Horse, You are capable of impregnating me. I am ready. Take me.'" 
:The priest covers the queen and the horse with a cloth.
:3. The queen hugs the slain-horse saying thus: [7.4.19e] "Let us hold each other with our (hind) limbs."    
:4. The Priest says the following (mantra): [7.4.19f] "May the horse expel its sperm and may the Queen receive (the sperm)."
:5. The Priest recites: [7.4.19g] "O horse, place your male organ in between the legs of the queen. Excite the queen's vagina so that it will receive your huge penis". The Queen then places the horse's limp penis in between her legs.
:6. The Queen once again calls out aloud: [7.4.19h] "O Mother, no-one has slept with me. This good-for nothing horse is fast asleep." 
:7. The other women sorrounding the slain horse and the queen respond thus: [7.4.19i] "O Queen, just like the one who, after collecting the bamboo poles from the forest ties them together first places them upright on the ground, lift your vagina and hold it up. Later, just like the one who sifts grain from the chaff  exults when the cool wind blows, you must relax and exult."
:8. The Queen once again complains aloud about the somnolent horse to her mother. [7.4.19k]
:9. All the other women say thus:  [7.4.19l] "O Queen, grieve not. You may not be aware that you have been taken by the horse. Just like a slave-girl who gets to sleep with her master and rejoices without expecting anything in return."
:10. "O Queen, Rejoice, that  the horse has accepted you."
:11. They all say: [7.4.19n] "Here we see a female bird warbling around a male bird (even after mating). It is unsatisfied and restless. O Queen, you are behaving like that bird. This is not good."
:12. "You can rejoice and be happy that the horse has accepted you. Now please stop complaining about it."
:13. [7.4.19p] "O queen. Have no doubt. Just like your father has done to your mother when they climbed on to a wooden cot, and your father entered her saying 'I am placing my penis inside your vagina', the Horse has entered you. Have no doubt. Now, please get up."
----
I'll try to find a published, scholarly English translation now. dab (ᛏ) 09:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations of TS 7.4.19

message: current article is fine for me. will come back with proper verse numbers in mahabharata, and the verse numbers in Bhagvat Purana.
nids 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denigrating you; I just note that you are not very productive: You came here complaining that a treatment of the epics is missing, and Paul (not you) wrote a presentable summary. It would be great if you could just have come up with something like Paul's text, but the fact is that you had somebody else do the work. Not that I regret this, of course, I agree the article is making good progress at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: current article is fine for me

message: A quick search on the www.worldcat.org led to the following results:
*1.	Ashvamedha yajña : eka suksmatisuksama antaryagaby Makarand DaveType: Gujarati :   Book Publisher: Mumbai : Navabharata Sahitya Mandira, 2004.
*2.	Shrimad-vajsaneyi-madhyandin-shatpath-brâhmanam : with vedarthaprakash commentaryby Sayana; Harisvamin.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Nag Publishers, 1990.
*3.	Shrimad-Vajsaneyi -madhyandin-Shatpath-brahmana : with Vedarthaprakash commentaryby Sayana.;  Srihari, Svami.Type:   Book Publisher: Bombay : Laxmi Venkateshwar Steam Press, Vikrama 1997 [1940]
*4.	BSukla Yajurveda Samhitaby Daulatareama Gaurda, bseastrei.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Varanasi : Chowkhamba Vidyabhava, 1965.
*5.	Yajurveda samhita = Srimadvajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla-Yajurveda-samhitaby Ravi Prakash AryaType: English :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Parimal Publications, 1997.
*6.	[Vajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla Yajurvedasamhita] = Yajurveda samhita : text with English translation, notes mantra-devata-name index etc.by Ralph T H Griffith;  Surendra PratapType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Delhi, India : Nag Publishers, 1990.
*7.	Vajasaneyi-Madhyandina-Sukla Yajurveda-samhitaby Sripada Damodara SatavalekaraType: Sanskrit :   Book :   Microform Publisher: Aundharajadhanyam : Svadhyayamandala, 2003 [1946]
*8.	Yajurveda-Samhita Bhasa-Bhasya.by Jayadeva VidyalankaraType: Hindi :   Book Publisher: Ajamera, Arya-Sahitya Mandala, Sam. 2019-21 vi. [1962 or 3-64 or 5]
*9.	Vajasaneyi-madhyandina suklayajurveda-samhita : prathamo'dhyayah : Karapatra bhasya-samanvitaby Hariharanandasarasvati, Swami.; Gajananasastri Musalagamvakara; Vrajavallabha DvivediType: Hindi :   Book Publisher: Kalakatta : Sriradhakrsna Dhanuka Prakasana Samsthanam, 2043 [1986]-2049 [1992]
*10.	Mula-Yajurveda-samhitaby Brahmarshi DaivarataType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: [Varanasi : Kasi Hindu Visvavidyalaya], 1973.
*11.	Caturveda-samhitaby Jagadisvarananda Sarasvati, Swami.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Dilli : Vijayakumara Govindarama Hasananda, 1996-
*12.	The Yajurvedaby Devi Chand; M C JoshiType: English :   Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal, 1980.
*13.	Isa vasyopanisat, Karapatra-bhasyamby Hariharanandasarasvati, Swami.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Kalakatta : Sriradhakrsnadhanuka Prakasana Samsthanam, 1987.
*14.	Sukla-Yajurveda-Madhyandiniya-samhita.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: [Bombay, 1896]
*15.	Krsna-Yajurvedasya-Taittiriya-Samhita;Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Bombay, 1888.
*16.	Suklayajurvediya Brahma (Nitya) karma. [Premanandatmajena Jayasankarasarmana samsodhya.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Mumbapuryam, Jagadisvara Yantralaya, sake 1812, A.D. 1890]
*17.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhita = Krishna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhitaby Rangasami L KashyapType: English :   Book Publisher: Bangalore : Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture, 2002-<2004>
*18.	Sukla Yajurveda, Vajasaneyi Madhyandina samhita sanvaya Marathi bhashantarasahaby Dhundiraja Ganesa Dikshita BapataType: Marathi :   Book :   Microform Publisher: Aundha, Ji. Satara : Srimanta Rajesaheba, Sãsth
*19.	Yajurbeda-samhita : Sukla o Krshnaby Bijanabihari GosvamiType: Bengali :   Book Publisher: Kalakata : Harapha, 1977.
*20.	Taittiriyasamhitaby Bhattabhaskaramisra.; Alladi Mahadeva Sastri; Kasturi RangacaryaType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Dilli : Motilala Banarasidasa, 1986.
*21.	The texts of the White Yajurvedaby Ralph T H GriffithType: English :   Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1987.
*22.	Athasuklayajurvedamadhyandiniyasamhitaprarambhah.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Bambai : Srivenkatesvara Presa, 1984.
*23.	Art poétique, suivi de traductions de la Vajasameyi Samhita (XXIII, 45-62)by Roger Caillois;  Egili Skallagrímsson; Louis Renou; P RenauldType: French :   Book Publisher: Paris, Gallimard [1958]
*24.	Yajurvediya Kathaka-samhitaby Sripada Damodara SatavalekaraType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Aundharajadhanyam : Svadhyayamandala, 1943.
*25.	Suklayajurveda-samhitâ (Srîmad-Vâjasaneyi-Mâdhyandina), with the Mantra-bhâshya of Mahâmahopâdhyâya Srîmad-Uvatâchârya and the Veda-dîpa-bhâshya of Srîman-Mahîdhara ; (with appendices & mantra-kosa)by Srîmad-Uvatâchârya.; Srîman-Mahîdhara.; Wâsudev Laxman Sâstrî PansîkarType:   Book Publisher: Bombay : "Nirnaya Sâgar" Press, 1929.
*26.	Krishnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhitaby Sayana; Bhattabhaskaramisra.; Narayana Sharma Sontakke; T N DharmadhikariType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Poona : Tilaka-maharashtra-vidyapitha-sakhabhuka-Vedic Samsodhana-Mandala, [1970-]
*27.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya-samhita : Marathi anuvada, mula samhitesahaby Ganesh Umakant Thite; V N Jha; University of Poona.; Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit.Type: Marathi :   Book Publisher: Pune : Pune Vidyapitha, 1987-
*28.	Taittiriya-Samhita, Krsna-Yajurvedaby Kasinatha Sastri Agase"; Sayana.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Poona : Ánandásrama Press, 1901.
*29.	Yajur Weda : weda sruti, mantra samhitaby Proyek Pembinaan Sarana Keagamaan Hindu (Indonesia)Type: Indonesian :   Book Publisher: Jakarta : Departemen Agama RI, Direktorat Jendral Bimbingan Masyarakat Hindu dan Buddha, Proyek Pembinaan Sarana Keagamaan Hindu, 1985-
*30.	A grammatical analysis of the Taittiriya-padapathaby Nirmala R KulkarniType: English :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Sri Satguru Publications, 1995.
*31.	Die Taittiriya-Samhita.Type: German :   Book Publisher: Leipzig, 1871-1872.
*32.	Krsnayajurvediya Taittiriya Samhita : Vedarthadipikasahityamuby Ramavarapu Krsnamurtisastri; Divakarla VenkatavadhaniType: Telugu :   Book Publisher: Tirupati : Ti. Ti. Devasthanamulu, 1985-
*33.	The Veda of the Black Yajus School, entitled Taittiriya Sanhitaby Arthur Berriedale KeithType: English :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass, 1967.
*34.	Taittiriya-Samhita, Krsna-Yajurvedaby Kasinatha Sastri Agase"; Sayana.Type:   Book Publisher: Poona : Ánandásrama Press, 1900.
*35.	The Sanhitá of the Black Yajur Veda : with the commentary of Mádhava Áchárya.by Mádhava Áchárya;  Sayana; Asiatic Society of Bengal.Type:   Book Publisher: Calcutta, 1860-1899.
*36.	Sukla-Yajurvediya Kanva-samhita : padapathayuta : Sayanacarya-Anandabodha-viracitabhasyadvaya-sametaby Bellikoth Ramachandra Sharma;  Sayana;  Anandabodha; Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala.Type: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Pune : Vaidika-Samsodhana-Mandalena, 1988-<1992 >
*37.	Taittiriya-samhita-vaiyakarana-padasuci. A grammatical word-index to Taittiriya Samhita. Sa ca bhimadeva-Ramananda'maranatham nantariya-sahayya-bhaja Visvabandhuna sampadita.by Visvabandhu SastriType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Hosiarapuram, Visvesvarananda-Vaidika-Sodha-Samsthana, 1963.
*38.	Taittiriya-samhita-vaiyakarana-padasuci. A grammatical word index to Taittiriya Samhita.by Visvabandhu SastriType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: Hosiarapuram, Visvesvarananda-vaidika-sodha-samsthanam 1963.
*39.	The Baudhayana srauta sutra belonging to the Taittiriya samhita Baudhayanasrautasutramby Baudhayana.; W CalandType: Sanskrit :   Book :   Microform Publisher: Calcutta : Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1904-1913.
*40.	Sayana's upodghata to the Taittiriya samhita and the Rgveda samhita : introduction, English translation of the text and notesby Saraswati Bali;  SayanaType: English :   Book Publisher: Delhi : Pratibha Prakashan, 1999.
*41.	The Baudhayana srauta sutra belonging to the Taittiriya samhita = Baudhayanasrautasutramby Baudhayana.; W CalandType: Sanskrit :   Book Publisher: New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982.
*42.	Suklayajurvedakanvasamhita srisayanacaryaviracitabhasyasahita : 1 adhyayadarabhya 20 adhyayaparyantaby Sayanacarya; Madhava SastriType:   Book Publisher: Benares : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1915
*43.	A grammatical word-index to Taittiriya Samhita. --by Visvabandhu SastriType: English :   Book Publisher: Hoshiarpur : Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1963.
www.worldcat.org lets you locate the nearest library having a copy of the above books.~godspeedharappa 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more references

message: They are not perfect, they are not reliable. Unless the contributors are able to present the online sources or the ISBN numbers of the books they cite, they cannot be included in the article. Please try cleaning up the page. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "they"? What are not perfect or reliable? What "online souces or ISBN numbers" of what books are you talking about? Please explain yourself more clearly. Paul B 13:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the header. Sources and citations. The books you have cited should have ISBN numbers for verifiability of it's contents. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the header, but you haven't answered the question. We don't need ISBN numbers for all books. 19th century books don't even have ISBN numbers. Paul B 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have ISBN number now dont they? Their revised editions, atleast. Leafy 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there are post-1960s reprints. This is all really rather unimportant. Anyone can check that the books exist by looking in a catalogue. Paul B 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and citations 

message: From WP:RS
:Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.
:Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media.
:When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. In case you were referring to this, you have not pointed out if they have published their work elsewhere. Sulekha.com looks like an advocacy website which does not have any place on this encyclopedia. Kindly revert yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kak is well known for producing nonsense as if his life depended on it. Provide an academic review of his "rigvedic astronomy", please? dab (𒁳) 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to him, the universe is recognised as a geo-centric system with the sun closest to earth, the heavens are identified as being above the sun. Agni, Vayu, Aditya are traditionally identified with the earth, sky, sun; the rituals map some of the constellational movements etc... - He's not being a propagandist, highlighting many flaws of vedic astronomy in many a places. Leafy 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I own the book, yes. he collects a lot of useful information on altar construction. His conclusions are still loony, at least in part. Be that as it may, I was asking if there is any academic review of the opus. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, didn't read your lines properly. No, none that I know of. However I don't understand why his idea shouldn't be included. Agreed his conclusions are loony, however we're not here to conclude about his insanity as you claim, nor are we here to keep in mind views of outdated interpretations, there is no reason to keep his views away on basis of personal claims of bigotry or the like. Leafy 11:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, there is no academic review of Kak's stuff.  For the same reason that there may never be.  Crackpots usually have to be prolific in order to be worthy of attention of any kind. rudra 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSPP reverted one of my edits, here's my rationale for it 

message: Sir Nicholas, nobody "alleges" actual bestiality. To begin with , the horse is dead, which would pose a technical problem. Then, we merely have "mimic copulation with" in the "Vedic sacrifice" paragraph, per Griffith. No source alleging actual bestiality was presented. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of horse dying first off itself is put in question, let alone the rest. Leafy 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is put in question by whom? Not by the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, apparently, nor the Shatapatha Brahmana. It may be "put in question" by Shriram Sharma Acharya for all I know, but you'll have to provide references for that. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was put forth in certain upanisads, can't retrace the names, nor does shatapatha brahmana speak of the animal being killed. Shriram Sharma Acarya, Aurobindo, David Frawley - although you may allege indophilia , they have their point. Satapatha Brahmana speaks of it? Citations please? I'm surprised you make a quotation from puraanas which belong to post-tantrik times. Leafy 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "alleged bestiality"

message: I finally found the source of the "Ashvamedha=Sun" idea. It's in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, part of the "Death as a horse" creation myth. It would be helpful if people interested in the allegorical interpretation would help out searching the primary texts instead of just generically bickering. dab (𒁳) 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I made an edit to the footnote, it was reverted on accusations of fundamentalism. With the presence such aversion towards any changes, I'd not comment until there is some unanimity of thought in this thread. Leafy 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun

message: This statement:
Griffith (1899) omits verses VSM 23.20–31 (the ritual obscenities), protesting that they are "not reproducible even in the semi-obscurity of a learned European language" (alluding to other instances where he renders explicit scenes in Latin rather than English).
::Where is the source for it? Rumpelstiltskin223 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Griffith (1899)? dab (𒁳) 07:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the source for it? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Griffith, The Texts of the White Yajurveda. Translated with a Popular Commentary (1899). dab (𒁳) 07:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.I will see if I can get it. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumpelstiltskin, what do you want? That reference has been in the article since the beginning. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just doing some fact checking.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Griffith

message: :By the way, you are aware that the hate website Dalitstan had long and lengthy articles on Ashwamedha and mininterpreted it to denigrate Hindus, right? I saw one when they were still online. There should be a section titled "Ashwamedha and anti-Hinduism" where these things should be said. Also, I believe that the same is true for Lashkar-e-Toiba's anti-Hindu propaganda book "Hinduon ki Haqeeqat" (condemned by US Congress as hate literature) but I will have to recheck that. Also, academics in the US are alleged to spread myths concerning Ashwamedha and pretty much do the same deed as Dalitstan did.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an article about this . This can be added to the wikipedia page as a reference for anti-Hindu bigotry aggrandized by deliberately misinterpreting Ashwamedha or misrepresenting it's importance in modern Hinduism. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it doesn't really matter what the allegations are and not, cuz we have to think secular and act unbiased when it comes to understanding the scriptures. Sun is mentioned as being seperated by earth by a thousand 'go' - is it cow or earths, for the word means both? Greeks also considered heavens to be 1000 earths away, so it more likely meant earths. Leafy 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood my point. My view is that there shuld be a section where the anti-Hindu prejudices associated with Ashwamedha should be catalogued unbiasedly, just like there is a section Talmud#External_attacks_on_the_Talmud. There should be a article explaining how some have misinterpreted Ashwamedha to spread bigotries against Hindus. There appears to be sufficiently notable incidents of this to deserve a section here, that's all. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have such a section. It's the anxieties one that people keep renaming. See below. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about content concerning some subsections, but the content going into what is claimed to be most authentic translations of ashvamedha. Leafy 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Shyena,  Golden Member of Arya Samaj. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Was it not clear enough? Earlier you were keeping totally bigoted views of completely rejecting without any attempts of trying to accept suggestions, so naturally we know who the "freak" is. Golden Member? On basis of posts. I get into frequent arguments with their likes which you perhaps didn't notice... Leafy 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On a sidenote, great job figuring that out. I was surprised you didn't come across that when it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Leafy 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wait a minute, you call us 'freaks' and somehow construe this into a personal attack on our part against you? you would make corporate lawyers blush, laddie. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it doesn't seem clear to you, let me clear up a few things - first when I edited that thing about devi chand, there was this whole fuss created about it being to 'conceal propaganda' or whatever. Followed by it was me trying to fix a bit of the itihaasic verses, take the ramayana's verse - which speaks of the horse flying away like a parrot, which was again constantly being reverted. Coupled with it was wrong verse notations and Paul Barlow's whole prejudiced impression that the author was struggling his best to apply euphemism and stuff, I'd naturally call the other a freak. On the other hand, I call anyone a freak who disagrees with me on the slightest issue, not to forget the forum we're dealing with is a religious forum and bringing up something happening elsewhere on the internet into the debate for WHAT reason I dont understand, is not clear to me. I dont care what you talk about me in some other forum, nor do I see how my personal views have to concern this debate; internet is called free speech and you know that well. If it be concerning my behaviour, I suggest you better post it in my talk page. So what does that have to do with this debate? Yea I'd make the lawyers blush, cuz I dont bring up unrelated personal views of some person into another discussion. Leafy 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, I can call you freak or anyone for that matter and you can put up an anti-shyena/leafy website but to bring it up in the talk page discussions is useless. Leafy 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashwamedha and anti-Hinduism

message: The article is organized as follows.
# the historical Vedic sacrifice. Scholarly debate on the ancient royal ritual. Souces include TS, VS, ShBr., Itihasa descriptions and accounts of historical performances (last known in 1716 by some Jaipur prince).
# in Vedantic Hinduism: sources include Upanishads, Puranas
#modern Hinduism, sources may include  all sorts of modern Swamis and homepages of contemporary movements. So far, we only know of Gayatri Pariwar's performances. Feel free to expand
#Anxieties. Qualms of Victorian translators, employment of the sacrifice in anti-Hindu pamphlets, outraged Arya Samaj cries of Muslim conspiracy etc. This section isn't on religious pracitce, but on the impact of the YV texts on modern perception and its role in Dalitstan vs. Arya Samaj politics and what not. Sources can be recent newspaper articles, sociological studies and what have you.
Now, Rumpelstiltkin, can you kindly contribute to whatever section it is you are interested in, and stop conflating the separate sub-topics. If you want to do an effort to produce your own translation of the VS text, I suggest you do that in userspace. So far, we have one sad sentence on "modern interpretations", 
:Some currents in contemporary Hinduism (such as All World Gayatri Pariwar, Swami Dayananda) understand the Ashvamedha as allegory or as a ritual to get connected to the "inner Sun" (Prana),
based on my own research because people seem more happy to complain than to do actual work, and the "inner Sun" or "Prana" isn't even properly referenced. The only source I have is some cheesy web-magazine (akhandjyoti.org) that doesn't even properly declare its background (advaita??). It appears that Puranic Hinduism still recognizes the ritual for what it was, and was content to prescribe it outlawed in Kali Yuga, and the fanciful revisionism is due to Dayananda and thus post-1875, but we don't have a source for this. Please, if you want to help, give us the first reference to the "it never really was about  a horse" idea. Is that Dayananda's own, or is there a Puranic source for this? That's a straightforward question that requires straightforward research, and no amount of bickering will answer it. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I think these are valid points and I will do my best to rewrite the article in a sandbox or something. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it appears to transpire that the only current of contemporary Hinduism that is concerned with the ritual is Arya Samaj / Gayatri Pariwar. Other currents seem to simply ignore it, as it appears because the Puranas declare it a thing of the past. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, puraanas post-date upanishads which speak of this, nor do all puraanas speak regarding this issue. Markandeya Purana(?) also speaks of the ritual and suggests inner meaning exists in it. Funny how you suggest that puraanas can actually be more authentic than upanishads regarding the ritual, ignoring some vital points that tantrism was in full swing with the varified sacrifices and promiscuous meetings. Puranic source? Is that what you're all into? Leafy 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting no such thing, and you are welcome to add to the Puranic section. Why is it that you are only complaining on talk without doing any work on the article? It's not like I reverted your brilliant overview of the view of the Ashvamedha in the Muhkya Upanishads is it? Let us see your treatment of "Ashvamedha and Upanishads" and then we'll talk again. dab (𒁳) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because before I have any of my edits reverted before else happens. Nor am I interested in having the vedic sacrifice section dominated by academic research. Why not rename the section as Ashvamedha in academic views? Leafy 10:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the "ridiculous interpretations" seem to be more on the part of those people who, as opposed to "Western scholars", wish to employ the texts for their own religious agendas. dab (𒁳) 11:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The scope of this article