Talk:Mamuni Mayan

message: Thanks for your wonderful article. I have heard of Mayan being a Brahmarishi and not just Maharshi. Can any one kindly verify the same.
I can see that here .... http://www.google.com/search?q=Brahmarishi+Mayan&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en
BalanceRestored 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is cobbled together from online sources. I believe I have found enough evidence that the topic deserves separate treatment, but we badly need authoritative references. Most of them will probably be in Tamil, and we'll need a Tamil speaker to dig them up for us. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure it will take me more than 1 month to read Tamil. I am sure I will get lot of details. I hope Shree Ganesha helps me with that... BalanceRestored 11:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of ancient material relating to Maya (Mayan in Sangam literature of Tamil) is in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, and this is also more archaic with respect to Tamil. Mamuni Mayan (<*Mahamuni Maya) is no different from Mayasura.VJha 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maharshi Mayan or Brahmarishi Mayan

message: Here are some references that may be pertinent (although reliable information on Mamuni Mayan seems hard to locate ...  in English at least):
* Traditions of the Indian Craftsman, Stella Kramrisch, The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 71, No. 281, (Jul. - Sep., 1958), pp. 224-230
* The Alleged Diffusion of Hindu Divine Symbols into Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica: A Critique, Balaji Mundkur et al, Current Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 541-583.
* History at Land's End: Lemuria in Tamil Spatial Fables, Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 3. (Aug., 2000), pp. 575-602. 
I'll browse through these article and add if there is anything relevant. More eyeballs will obviously help! Abecedare 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent work! dab (𒁳) 08:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It is well known fact among the vishwabrahmins that Mayan was the son of Visvakarma. What Dr Ganapati was referring was that, vyasa adored his creations to be as good as his father's and referred the later to by his father's name. BalanceRestored 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology, I misunderstood earlier that Dr Ganapati was referring to Maya, i.e. son of Vishwakarma which is why I cited "by his father's name". But later after referring to both Ramayana and Mahabharata it is clear that Dr Ganapati is referring to Maya Danava son of Diti and not Manuni Mayan who is son of Visvakarma.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation Between Mayan and Visvakarma

message: In UTTAR Ramayana Mayasura is stated as son on Kashyap rishi and not Vishwakarma. Which is why these two individuals seem different. While Manuni Mayan is the son of Vishwakarma
*Please see reference  with regards to children of Vishwakarma. The Maha Muni Maya we are trying to talk about is him. Mayasura is on the other hand a child of Kashyap Rishi. 
*Kindly remember VISHVAKARMAN (The eldest brother among the children of Brahma) is "One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis" as per Rig Veda Book 10 Hymn 82 and Mamuni Mayan is his son. While MayaAsura is son of Kayashyap risi (A much later born child of Brahma, so a younger brother among the children of brahma) and Diti as per citations in Valmiki Ramayan 7.12 and Mahabharata Sabhakriya Parva
*"Hailing from the southern part of the world, where thrived the Asuras, who excelled both in intellectual and physical prowess,Mayan was called Mayasura, who later came to be known as Mayendran." taken from http://www.vastuved.com/mayan-memorial.html
*Dr. Jessie Mercay (probably it is her) "Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati’s family also holds that Ahura Mazda was Asura Maya." cites here http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/asuras-and-slavery-the-indic-disconnect/
*Dr. Smith cites "...after having lived 10000 righteous years of rule, only then does the Uttar-kãņḍa start in Valmīki. This is the reason so many people think that the entire seventh or last section of Valmīki's version is a later interpolation" . 
It will be great if someone checks the validity of MayaAsura being the son of Kayashyap risi since Dr. Smith cites "so many people think that the entire seventh or last section of Valmīki's version is a later interpolation". As either Mayasura being Kayashap risi's son or Vishwakarma's son should be a fact. There cannot be two truths at the same time. Or, Brahmarisi Mayan and Mayasura are two different people. Again, another striking similarly between the two is both know the ultimate truth Brahmajnana assuming Vinay Jha's comments above with regards to Mayasura from Suryasiddantha are correct. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the current known version of SuryaSiddhantha by Mayasura is in Sanskrit and Mamuni Mayan's Pranava Veda is in Tamil. So, there is a great possibility that the two individuals are different. Again, there can be shifts upon translations. GOD only knows the truth Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Kindly explain, what are you talking about... What is Bhagavtapuranam 9.14.48 to do with "From this i think both of them are same"? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Going as per Dr. Sthapati's http://www.vastuved.com/mayan-memorial.html it is Mamuni Mayan itself who is credited for authoring both Pranava Veda and Surya Siddhanta. So, some of my comments and some edits to the article seem incorrect and I would be fixing the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Better to have individual pages for both. I don't agree that this page should be merged. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Manuni Mayana and Mayasura

message: Is there any chance of making this article remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia? The absolutely absurd time frames that the article refers to clearly make the article very questionable, as to any authenticity, whatsoever. 10,000 years ago, 16,000 years ago, 2,160,000 years ago? What? There was no written language for the cultures of the Indian subcontinent 6,000 years ago, let alone on the planet. Does anyone want to try to make this article even remotely plausible? Right now, as it stands, it is absurd and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is There Any Chance of Article Legitimacy?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mamuni Mayan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130105042435/http://www.vastuved.com/publication.html to http://www.vastuved.com/publication.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified