Talk:Ganesha/Archive 5

message: Hello!  I've completed the proofread of this article--sorry to disappear but I had to take a wikibreak to plan my wedding.  However, I saw this come up for proofread on the League's list and decided I had to do the final proof.  The article looks great!  My only consistent edit was to put compass directions (north, northern, south, etc.) in lower case--they are generally not capitalized unless they are part of a proper name (e.g., North Carolina).  If I misinterpreted "North India" and it is indeed the name of the region, please feel free to revert.   Congratulations on a fantastic effort.  Galena11 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Galena and Finetooth for your painstaking copyediting of the article! I think we should soon be ready to nominate the article for FA status. Cheers. Abecedare 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the request of Redtigerxyz, I've had another go at it. I tried to find ways to make the prose more direct without altering the meaning. If I've gone overboard in any places, please revert those changes. It seems to me that the article is getting better and better. Best of luck with the FA. Finetooth 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Today I finished proofreading of this article and corrected three minor spelling errors. I found some serious lapses in content, which I did not touch during copyedit sessions, and I intend to discuss these lapses later. -VJha 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit finished 

message: Micheal gives one interp, but still notes that references to Ganapati are found in Mandalas 2 & 10. Danielou interprets these Rgvedic "Ganapatis" as Ganesha. Danielou was one of the foremost experts on Shaivite Hinduism, the Vedas, and Indian history. Ganesh is Shiva's son, and this fits right under the purview of other relevant works by Danielou. Michael seems to be an anthropologist, so his views can hardly be held as equal to Danielou's views, considering that Danielou specialized in the Vedas.Bakaman 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to draw attention to three points : (1)Rgveda has many instances in which a god has been called with the names of other gods. Hence, Ganapati may be called Brahmanaspati and vice versa. RV.2.23.1 begins a hymn by invoking the Ganapati, and calls Ganapati a personification of wisdom (kavi), and Brahmanaspati. Brahmanaspati has many meanings and MW even associates with the priest called Brahman (the wisest of priests who knew the meanings of Vedas according to Brihadaranyakopinashada). (2)  of Rgveda does not recognise Brahmanaspati as a single word anywhere in the Rgveda, and even in 2.23.1 reads it as  + pate , and MW describes  as a genitive case of Brahman. Brahman has many meanings. Hence, RV.2.23.1 can offer various meanings. It is wrong to associate pati  always with . (3) If Bakasuprman has sources, he ought to mention them. -VJha 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I consider Danielou to be a very unreliable source in general, and specifically on this issue he is completely wrong.  His view is not shared by any of the other specialist sources we have cited.  Buddhipriya 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously are doublespeaking here, if you consider one who nets nearly 500 hits in gscholar an unreliable source. See WP:COS for the proper method to display your views of Ganesha on the page.Bakaman 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually Danielou has been cited only to show that RV 2.23.1 contains the word "ganapati", which is undisputed. However, as Krishan  point out (and as VJha has also commented above), none of the great medieval Hindu scholars such as Sayana, Venkatamadhava, Uvata, Bhattabhaskara, Mahidhara associated the use of that term in RV with Ganesha. AFAIK neither Danielou nor any other modern RV scholar claims that the word refers to Ganesha either. So we may just have been talking past each other. Abecedare 08:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rig views 

message: I looked at other deities to see how they are described in their infobox. At least half have no short descriptor. Ganesha may have too many aspects for a short description. For now, I've removed the description as "Ganesha: Lord of Obstacles and Beginnings". If there is going to be a 'definition' of Ganesha in the infobox, it must include "Remover of Obstacles". But it may well be that Ganesha is too complex to stick in one pigeonhole. Above, I suggested two options for the infobox, and now I add a third, which is where it now stands: 1. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles. 2. Ganesha: Remover of Obstacles. 3. No need for a five-words-or-less description. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the option of leaving the summary description off.  I have never cared for these infoboxes anyway, and this is a good example where trying to summarize a complex deity in a one or two words is not effective. Buddhipriya 04:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I distinctly remember listening  to fragments if the Upanishads about Ganesha (I think it was the Taittiriya)? I think it would be a good idea to include some info about it. Kkrystian 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganesha has his own Upanishad. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa. I don't know if and to what extent he appears in the earlier Upanishads. I agree that if he did appear, even in modified versions of the texts, it would be valuable to add it. GizzaDiscuss © 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any authentic reference to Ganesha in any of the major Upanishads.  That is because Ganesha as we know him came together during the Gupta Period, based on precursor deities which include Danti (who is mentioned in the Mahabharata) and Vinayaka (the eventual consolidated form of the Vinayaka imps.  The Ganapati Atharvashirsa is a late work of the Ganapatya, and is one of the important sectarian scriptures of Ganapatya tradition.  The single best source for this historical summary is Thapan, whose entire book is devoted to the development of Ganesha. Buddhipriya 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Ganesha appear in the Upanishads?? 

message: Note - The RFC title "section" param was pointing at another section of the article, I have corrected it to point to this section. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God By Robert L. Brown , See Page 70. Online book 
This book is clearly mentioning those verses are for Ganesha. Also, almost the entire of India, and specially  people living in Maharashtra, today mentions these verses "Vakratundaya Dheemahi Tanno Danti Prachodayat" primarily in their daily prayers during the 11 days of Ganesh festival while reciting "Ganapati Gayatri Mantra", which Robert L. Brown is also mentioning at page 70. 
 
Secondary Reference explaining this Vedic Ganesh Gayatri Mantra 
#"Invoke the Gods: Exploring the Power of Male Archetypes By Kala Trobe" , Online Book  
#"Meditation and Mantras: An Authoritative Text" By Vishnu Devananda , Online Book 
Google links to understand the popularity of the Ganesha Gayatri Aarti Mantra , ,
Some author Krishan "considers" that, these narrations are later additions in Yajur Veda. Based on this author's considerations (with no evidences) such WP:UNDUE comments like "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas" are primarily placed in this article. See the section on "Vedic and epic literature" in the main article. This is clearly a WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE voilation.
BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CSN is becoming a valid option at this point. I do not presume to doubt BR's good faith, but as rudra has put it, "Sufficiently advanced naivete is indistinguishable from trolling". People who cannot grasp WP:ENC even after trying hard simply have nothing to contribute to the project. dab (𒁳) 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Surely, as an admin, one should know that, but of course some admins have other fish to fry.Bakaman 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab has assumed good faith with BR for a long time, Namakab. Check Dab's user talk page for proof. And so has Abecedare, Buddhipriya and Vassyana. Blind accusations because of a personal grudge never help situations like this. GizzaDiscuss © 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and Pluto is a planet. I have no doubt about Abecedare, I have respect for him as a user and contributor, however I am aware you have remained fairly firm in your continuance oif the legacy of Ravan's stone.Bakaman 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Shirahadasha suggestions. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on Ganesha not in the Vedas 

message: Ganesha, is clearly cited in TS (Yajur Veda), 
:Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God By Robert L. Brown , See Page 70. Online book 
This book is clearly mentioning those verses are for Ganesha. Also, almost the entire of India, and specially  people living in Maharashtra, today mentions these verses "Vakratundaya Dheemahi Tanno Danti Prachodayat" primarily in their daily prayers during the 11 days of Ganesh festival while reciting "Ganapati Gayatri Mantra", which Robert L. Brown is also mentioning at page 70. 
 
Secondary Reference explaining this Vedic Ganesh Gayatri Mantra 
#"Invoke the Gods: Exploring the Power of Male Archetypes By Kala Trobe" , Online Book  
#"Meditation and Mantras: An Authoritative Text" By Vishnu Devananda , Online Book 
Google links to understand the popularity of the Ganesha Gayatri Aarti Mantra , ,
Some author Krishan "considers" that, these narrations are later additions in Yajur Veda. Based on this author's considerations (with no evidences) such WP:UNDUE comments like "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas" are primarily placed in this article. See the section on "Vedic and epic literature" in the main article. This is clearly a WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE voilation.
BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement {{User|BalanceRestored}}

message: It seems that if there is a controversy here, all that is needed is to present all well-sourced sides fairly.  For example, say "according to Prof. Smith, the Ganesha of the Vedas is not the same as the Ganesha worshipped in later times", and "others, like Prof. Jones, disagree".  I am no Vedic scholar, but it seems that those who are ought to be able to outline any real disagreement fairly. Comesincolors 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement {{User|Comesincolors}}

message: This issue has been thoroughly discussed above in the talk page. To summarize the evidence (which is already contained in the article itself!), for (modern)  Ganesha's absence from the Vedas  here are the relevant references:
* Rocher, Ludo. "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in 
*  
* 
* Dhavalikar, M. K. "Gaṇeśa: Myth and reality" in 
* 
Furthermore, the following references also talk about emergence of the modern day Ganesha as a Hindu deity in the 4-6th century ( i.e 1-2,000 years after the Vedic period):
* Narain, A. K. "Gaņeśa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon" in 
*
*
*
I am sure rudra and Buddhipriya can add to the above list of scholarly articles/books.
All this is mentioned in the article, and has been pointed out to BlanaceRestored on several occasions by multiple editors. Unfortunately he has chosen to forum-shop (based on his original interpretation of primary sources) rather than read the references and accept the consensus. He has even been blocked for "exhausting the community patience" and being disruptive with regards to this issue. I have also 
explained on his talk page why we say "Krishan considers" rather than "Krishan has established" or "Krishan has proven" - but if that is a sticking point for him, we can change the phrasing to the latter. I wonder if a admin intervention, CSN discussion or user RFC would be more relevant at this point, than a RFC on the content issue. Abecedare 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CSN is becoming a valid option at this point. I do not presume to doubt BR's good faith, but as rudra has put it, "Sufficiently advanced naivete is indistinguishable from trolling". People who cannot grasp WP:ENC even after trying hard simply have nothing to contribute to the project. dab (𒁳) 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{User|Abecedare}}

message: has discovered WP:RFC as a means to perpetuate disputes after all of his points have been answered and resoundingly rejected. This is just forum-shopping. Intelligent disputes consist of a dialogue where both parties show receptiveness, and re-align their position in the light of valid criticism. BR instead just repeats his points on all Wikipedia fora long after he has been sufficiently answered, without showing any understanding of the material involved. Why does he insist on "participating" in topics of which he has obviously no background knowledge, and no interest to acquire such?  This is just a waste of time for other editors. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Surely, as an admin, one should know that, but of course some admins have other fish to fry.Bakaman 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab has assumed good faith with BR for a long time, Namakab. Check Dab's user talk page for proof. And so has Abecedare, Buddhipriya and Vassyana. Blind accusations because of a personal grudge never help situations like this. GizzaDiscuss © 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and Pluto is a planet. I have no doubt about Abecedare, I have respect for him as a user and contributor, however I am aware you have remained fairly firm in your continuance oif the legacy of Ravan's stone.Bakaman 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{User|Dbachmann}} 

message: I endorse the remarks by .  Buddhipriya 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{User|Buddhipriya}}

message: Just want to mention that it's completely appropriate for religion articles to present notable religious beliefs as a distinct notable POV, hence, the article can certainly present the views of contemporary religious authorities as to what the Vedas mean and other aspects of the traditional account. The traditional views of a religion and the views of its religious authorities are appropriate and relevant to an article on that religion, and sources do not have to be limited to only the views of secular professors. However, views need to be attributed so it is made clear which views are being presented as religious views and which as the views of academic historians. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Shirahadasha suggestions. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{User|Shirahadasha}}

message: I've added the necessary secondary source where I gathered my information about the Sanskrit verses from. 
:The verse : " |  | ||" For secondary source explaining the Interpretation see: Rocher, Ludo, "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in Brown 1991, p. 70
:The verse: " | ||" For secondary source explaining the Interpretation see: Rocher, Ludo, "Gaņeśa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature" in Brown 1991, p. 70.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&diff=160902651&oldid=160901052 BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have alleged above that I've interpreted things on my own understanding, which I did not do, See above AB quote "(based on his original interpretation of primary sources)", which I did not do. So, I thought I present the Secondary sources. I understand that you are not asking about those primary interpretations. BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I thought you wanted me to provide you with the reference where I gathered the information from. So, what original interpretation from me are you talking about in that case. I did not understand that. BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, are you sure regular editors won't get confused with that? I always saw all the details about the Primary Sanskrit Scripts explained with Secondary English resources always added? Though they are repeated, I think it would avoid confusions. BalanceΩrestored Talk 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Sources Added 

message: In copying the historical material to Historical development of Ganesha I noticed a note to "Bhandarkar. Vaisnavism, Saivism and other Minor Sects. pp. 147-48" supporting the idea that the Vinayaka imps were easily propitiated.  The statement is true, but there is nothing about them on pp. 147-148 of my edition of Bhandarkar.  Perhaps the page number is wrong?  I have not been following the edits to the main article closely and am unsure where this crept in.  If the material is to be cut from the main article, we can concentrate on fixing it in the copy in the new daughter article. I suspect that I may have made the page error myself at some point in the past, but I cannot recall it.  I will go over Bhandarkar to find the correct citation. Buddhipriya 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation problem to Bhandarkar 

message: While temples of Ganesha and the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka) and mentioned in passing in the article, I do believe it needs its own sub-section, probably in "Worship." Temples are an integral part of Hindu worship for any deity and Ganesha is no exception. I don't expect any great detail (a sub-page can be created for that) but I feel the article is missing something without it. GizzaDiscuss © 03:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added List of Ganapati temples link.--Redtigerxyz 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Ashtavinayak circuit is already covered in the article. There are other thousands of Ganesha temples; all of which can not be discussed. Again there are temples where Ganesha is not the prime diety; but has a small temple in the temple complex or a small shrine in the main temple dedicated to him.--Redtigerxyz 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Section "Worship in Temples" written.--Redtigerxyz 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice addition Redtigerxyz. I shortened the title to just "Temples" and copyedited a bit. I had to remove the phrase about "self-existent () monoliths" since I could not figure out a way to make the intended meaning clear to a reader without considerable additional explanation. If any of you have any bright ideas about this, feel free to addit back; else it can be explained in the main Ashtavinayak article. Cheers.  PS: Should we move Ashtavinayak to Ashtavinayaka for consistency ? Abecedare 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. The only exception from a Ganesha context is Ganesha Chaturthi, since it is a modern festival. Welcome back by the way! Did you enjoy your Wiki-break? Buddhipriya hasn't returned from his yet. GizzaDiscuss © 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and made the move. By the way, the temple section can use a bit more copyediting for clarity and to reduce listiness; also perhaps a better reference than  can be used. Note that any web reference should have publisher and accessed-at information included (User:SandyGeorgia will certainly bring this up at the FAC! ) Abecedare 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other ref I found was Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant Faced God By Sadguru Sivaya Subramaniyaswami, p.264. But i remembered the way all references from the book were unceremoniously removed from this article; dubbing it as "devotee literature" and not RS.--Redtigerxyz 08:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganesha Temples 

message: Additional Inputs are required on the following 
Any XYZ can make such statements, I request editors to present valuable inputs/findings from Mr. Dhavalikar on concluding such statements. The current article has nothing that's currently backing up the statement. It is a request that editors include the authors findings to draw such conclusions/interpretations. The current article is lacking the same.BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does present the other view. It says two sentence before, "The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club,[204] is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin".[205]" Here it shows a scholar who believes the god Dantin in the Vedas is representative of Ganesha. Afterwards, it says Krishan and Dhavalikar disagree with this. GizzaDiscuss © 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a request to present Krishan and Dhavalikar reasons/findings for the disagreements. Readers can otherwise think that both the editors are just pasting statements out of no logic, and just because they think so. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no one has any study to the findings of both Krishan and Dhavalikar. Looks like both of them have ill-logically quoted statements off their own creativity.BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganesha references in Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations