Talk:Śramaṇa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Too much promting buddhism, historical roots of Sramana come from hindu sadhus long before jains and buddhist

Did Buddha get enlighten by reading his own scriptures? Im curious to know why this page is Lavishing buddha with every inch of effort while denying the current fold of hinduism its handed down culture of yoga, mediation and sramana

Part of the Śramaṇa tradition remained outside the Hindu fold by rejecting the authority of the Vedas; with the Jains, Buddhists, Ajivikas, and other religious groups developing as a result of this rejection.[4] Part of the Śramaṇa tradition was absorbed into Hindu dharma literature with a place for a renunciate sanyasi in it, in the four stages (ashramas) of life.[4] One of the earliest uses of the word is in the Hindu text Taittiriya Aranyaka (2-7-1) with the meaning of 'performer of austerities'.[citation needed] Buddhist commentaries associate the word's etymology with the quieting (samita) of evil (pāpa) as in the following phrase from the Dhammapada, verse 265: samitattā pāpānaŋ ʻsamaṇoʼ ti pavuccati ("someone who has pacified evil is called samaṇa")

The way you have written this page is almost as if you think the whole of Hinduism scriptures come from the vedas? Hinduism is from ("the Bhartiya scripture") it has Many different paths, the vedas is just ONE of them, its like thousands of rivers but they all meet into the ocean as one, that is the the Bhartiya scripture.

You need to give this Sramana tradition which is out side of the the Bhartiya scripture of hinduism, Sadhus who are HINDUS are practice the Sramana traditions and they themselves say they are the PROTECTORS of hinduism and indians cultures82.38.160.13 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)veda

That's not what academia has found. Later attempts by more modern forms of Hinduism to be more inclusive do not change evidence of historical beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
From what I've understood from Geoffrey Samuel (2008/2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism originated in the same late Vedic cultural complex. And Gavin Flood (1996), Hinduism, notes that a combination of Vedic/Brahmanic and non-Vedic/Brahmanic influences may have led to the emergence of the shramanic movement. It's probably more complex than we all have learned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pande source

I have removed the Pande source, as it had only name and year, and no other source details. I also cleaned out a paragraph that was pushing a POV, without reliable sources. Witzel, Flood, Olivelle and other scholars have written quite the opposite, and differently, that what was in that paragraph. If someone has concerns, please feel free to add it back along with reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 04 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to śramaṇa. Number 57 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sramana → Shramana – it was unilaterally moved with no discussion and contests COMMON NAME, INDIC NAMING. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Ogress smash! 22:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This page was last moved in January, 2014. The reason given in the log was WP:COMMONNAME. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This move, despite happening a year ago, contests both COMMON NAME and INDIC NAMING; the latter specifies the transliteration of ś as sh, not as s, and that the former is actually sramana and not shramana I'd like to see some evidence of given that google NGRAMS demonstrably reads ś as "s". Check for yourself in the NGRAM by choosing a book and then examining. Every time, it reads it as "sramana" but the book has śrāmaṇa. Ogress smash! 22:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Where does policy exactly say you must transliterate as "sh"? If you transliterate it as "sh", you are going to have people try to insert stuff on shamanism again. The correct and common term is śramaṇa. VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
INDIC NAMING recommends sh, not s, as the simple romanisation of ś. If the consensus is to use the IAST, I'm whole-heartedly supportive. Ogress smash! 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to śramaṇa as per the observations of VG above. The NGRAMS show śramaṇa is overwhelmingly the form in common use. (Click on the sources in the NGRAMS, as Google misreads ś as s.) Ogress smash! 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see where it says that in INDIC NAMING.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That page links to a chart-page: Wikipedia:Indic transliteration. It seems I am remembering the specific emphasis given to ś from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)#Simplified transliteration, however (I've been on Wikipedia a while :-( ), and WP:INDIC and WP:Indic transliteration merely instruct us to use sh for simplified transliterations. (The adjustment was probably made due to the emergence of the Kolkota standard, because in languages like Nepali, there is no ʃ and romanising Nepali (or, I believe, Marathi) that way would actually be misleading, but I didn't look into it.) Ogress smash! 01:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Khestwol: Did you read the request? I specifically noted that the NGRAM is not what it appears if you actually examine the texts in question. The NGRAMS show śramaṇa is actually the form in common use. Click on the sources in the NGRAMS, as Google misreads the IPA letters as "sramana", but the texts all have śramaṇa.
@Ogress: my oppose was regarding move to the first proposal, i.e. "Shramana". I do not oppose the other proposal śramaṇa. I am neutral about "śramaṇa". Khestwol (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: note Khestwol is "neutral" toward śramaṇa, VictoriaGrayson and I have voted for śramaṇa per Wiki standard and there are no other votes. Ogress smash! 22:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes moving to śramaṇa is fine with me.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jainism section

@Kautilya3: This is the citation provided for the last para of Jainism section: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=ZlyDot9RyGcC&lpg=PA49&dq=shramana%20brahman%20mongoose%20and%20cobra&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=shramana%20brahman%20mongoose%20and%20cobra&f=false

And this is the text of the paragraph: "In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in South India could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century CE, Jinasena produced Jain law books in the guise of Puranas glorifying the Tirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa. Rishabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain brahmins."

Is there any correspondence between the source and the text? No. Yet you just reverted my edit with the edit summary "if a link is wrong, surely you know how to fix it?" Is this how you generally fix the links? Pls cite the correct source or remove the paragraph. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. That bad link has probably been there for ages. But there is a full citation, which you can always find. In any case, why are you pinging me for it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
While we are it, let me refer you to WP:ROWN, which seems to be essential reading for you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Who pinged you? You wrote on my talk page. I removed the bad link and related content. Why did you reinstate it? And where is this full (and correct) citation, and if you have it why have you not added it to support the above content? -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I wrote on your talk page because you reverted my edit and reinstated the edit of a vandal, which makes you a vandal yourself as per WP:BURDEN. Apparently, you have never involved yourself on this page and there is no indication that you know what is going on either. You seem to be here just to pick a fight. Why don't you go back to your usual pursuits and leave us alone? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because your citation was spurious, which has been explained in the edit summary. This was explained to you again but don't seem to understand simple English sentences. Instead of acknowledging your mistake you reverted my edit, and added another spurious citation, which has nothing to do with the content. I have asked for an explanation for your erratic edit, and instead of answering my specific content-related question you are bullshitting and name-calling. Pls observe WP:Civil, assume WP:GF and answer the content-related question instead of assuming disreputable motives. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Walk your talk, I'd say. The citation refers to p.92, quite obviously. I checked the page, and yes, it matches. No mistake by Kautilya3 to admit, except for confusing "removal" with "addition." But that's not a big deal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. This diff [1] shows plenty of sourced red stuff on the left that has been deleted, and smaller amount of unsourced red stuff on the right that has been added. Both are problematic of course. My diff [2] shows that all I did was to replace an uncouth footnote by an rp (page reference), because both the footnotes were referring to the same book.
Obviously, this is a storm in a tea cup. But why is this storm happening? Possibly in response to my last "interaction" with Mohanbhan, which was here [3]. This is the standard pattern of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Not exactly a "tea cup."- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The views of six samaṇa in the Pāli Canon

This template is included, but that misleads. It implies Sassatavada etc was accepted by Sramana-Buddhism, but it wasn't. Sāmaññaphala Sutta is claiming that those were the views of Sramanas, and later explains that Buddhism is not one of those Sramanas. The relevance or content in this template needs to be discussed in this article. For rejection of Sassatavada in Buddhism, see for example, Florin Sutton (1991), Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara-Sutra, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0791401729, page 277. It is puzzling that the template is included twice in this article, but never discussed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The philosophy section has little philosophy, too much polemics. The views and contrast with the orthodox Indic schools should be included, but this should be a summary of recent reliable sources on the views found in early Buddhist and Jaina texts, such as the Nikayas, and texts composed through the 1st millennium CE. A summary from the records of 1st millennium CE Chinese travellers to India, a better discussion of Sunyata/Atman/Soul, etc would improve this article. The section should also summarize the difference between early Jaina and early Buddhist, as well as competing Sramana philosophies.

Some text needs a rethink. Consider the Dharmakirti quote. It is sourced to Jaini's book, who sources it to Rahul Sankrityayan. The quote is actually not from Dharmakirti's Sanskrit text, which is lost. It is a quote from an unidentified Tibetan text, which Sankrityayan claimed to have re-translated back to Sanskrit, between 1930s through 1950s. Sankrityayana added it as his personal commentary, to Pramanavarttika, and to Darshana Digdarshana on page 806, and to Buddha Darshana to page 184, and to few other unrelated texts claiming it to be from the same unidentified Tibetan text. In one version, he wrote the last part of the verse differently.

Sankrityayan verse and its translation

Sankrityayana verse, added to this article, is:

vedapramanyam kasyacit kartrvadah/ snane dharmeccha jativadavalepah// santaparambhah papahanaya ceti/ dhvastaprajnanam pancalirigani jadye

Provided translation: The unquestioned authority of the vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathings; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin; - these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men.

The translation is puzzling, as there is no Sanskrit word in there for "arrogant" or "unquestioned". I have seen three translations, all different from the above, one included in a paper by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya, of Charvaka literature fame. Here are two translations:

T1: Belief in the authority of the Vedas, and in a creator, desiring merit from bathing, pride in caste, and practicising self denial for the eradication of sins - these five are the marks of stupidity of one whose intelligence is damaged.

T2: Veda as epistemic authority, taking bath to gain merit, starting asceticism to destroy sin, know these as foolishness of five senses.

Jaini's book on page 48 is stating that the last part of the quote "viz. the path of asceticism, stands out as the chief characteristic of all the heterodox schools collectively called the sramanas", and that the orthodox and heterodox (sramana) traditions mutually influenced each other. The philosophy section does not mention this, it only mentions conflict.

Jaini's book on page 72 is also stating that Jaina denied the supremacy of Brahmins, not the social structure, and in practice even claimed to be the originators of the system of hereditary ranks, in the medieval times. Gotra and social structure existed among Jains, according to Jaini's book. Similarly, on pages 142-147, he mentions "rituals and magical practices" among Buddhists and Jains. A neutral and balanced summary would mention this, wherever polemics against the ancient and medieval orthodox school beliefs are included. Past the trees, from a forest level perspective, the section should be 80%+ philosophy of Sramanas, and each Sramana school - by this I mean, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, axiology, etc.

@Joshua Jonathan:, @Abecedare: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very little thoughts on this. I tried to read the philosophy-section; it's quite muddled. The introductory-section consists of too many loose ends. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Influences

@Ms Sarah Welch: Patrick Olivelle also states "It is obvious that vedic society contained large numbers of people whose roots were non-Aryan and that their customs and beliefs must have influenced the dominant Aryan classes. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration." p68

Regardless, Olivelles views are still revisionist history and one sided, where he believes non-Aryan influences are "Aryan" due millennium evolution unlike others historians and scholars. Sramana reflects cultural synthesis between Aryan and Non-Aryans that took place over a period of millennium, as many other historians pointe out, emerging in or around Indus or Ganges valley. Aryans did not migrate to empty land. It's not 'neutral' to have one sided quote/view that veils Non-Vedic influences as Aryan and Brahmanical. We need more sources, not one-sided historian view in quote. 117.221.26.125 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@117.221.26.125: The article already includes the Ganges etc valley theory. If you provide additional reliable sources on Sramana-Aryan-Non-Aryan-etc, with page numbers, we can add it. Just labeling Olivelle as "revisionist historian" is not helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Current quote under "origins" does not mention anything about ganges valley or have any contrary views. Additionally, I don't think we need to have "quote" here from one-historian, we need a summary along with contrary views instead. These are mentioned in the same book, more or less shows contrary views and that of Olivelle.
Patrick Olivelle (1993) "The Casuses of the radical changes both in ideology and life style that took place between sixth and the fourth century B.C.E have been subject of much of speculation and conjecture. Several scholars have argued that these changes were precipitated by the rising influence of Non-Aryan believes and practices as the center of vedic civilization shifted further down the gangetic valley" p68
Belvalkr and Rande (1920) "an extraneous influence" on the rise of renunciation and consider that "it is more natural to suppose that we have here to do with contact of the Aryans of Brahmana-period with peoples of different culture whom they encountered in the course of their march into the interior of India"p68
Pande G.C (1957) likewise advances the theory that "The vedic muni, srmana and yati were non-Aryan figures possibly coming from the Indus civilization. He claims that Aryans knew only the pravrtti-dharma ("dharma of action") and the nivrtti ("non"-action") came from the non-Aryans but was later accepted by Aryans." p68

Shivaji Singh (1972). Evolution of the Smrti Law. proposes "Ethno-geographic bases of asramas" where Asrama system "owes its origin to the commingling of several ethno-geographic elements, both Aryan and non-Aryan."p68
Ending with Patrick Olivelle (1993) "It is obvious that vedic society contained large numbers of people whose roots were non-Aryan and that their customs and beliefs must have influenced the dominant Aryan classes. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration." p68
Along with the one you already have under origins.117.192.203.218 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a rough example, I have included various views.

"The causes of the radical changes both in ideology and life style that took place between sixth and the fourth century B.C.E have been subject of much of speculation and conjecture. Several scholars have argued that these changes were precipitated by the rising influence of non-Vedic believes and practices. Pande G.C (1957) proposes that Muni, Srmana and Yati were non-Vedic figures possibly coming from the Indus civilization. He claims that Aryans knew only the pravrtti-dharma ("dharma of action") and the nivrtti ("non"-action") came from the non-Vedic but was later accepted into Vedic system. Shivaji Singh (1972) proposes Sramana origin to the commingling of several ethno-geographic elements, both Vedic and non-Vedic. Patrick Olivelle (1993) instead places Srmana right at the center of Vedic tradition, where the Vedic religion, like any other historical phenomenon, developed and changed over time not only through external influences but also by its own inner dynamism and because of socio-economic changes."

We should add quotes in notes next to related sentence, which would be better. 117.192.203.218 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@117.192.203.218: Anything pre-1970 is too old to be WP:HISTRS. This is an actively studied topic. Can you find more recent publications or reviews that quote Singh (1972)? Is there something better in Singh, than this vague "commingling....", such as why he thinks so and the evidence he presents? Should we move the Olivelle summary from Origins to History section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't access his books but apart from what Ovivelles mentions, Singhs "Ethno-geographic and commingling..." makes sense and is more or less along the lines with Olivelles and should be included, only that Olivelles suggests it's trivial "trying to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration." He does not suggests that there was no outside influences, as i have shown above. I have simplified the sentence here.
Patrick Olivelle (1993) instead places Srmana right at the center of Vedic tradition, where the Vedic religion, like any other historical phenomenon, developed and changed over time not only through external influences but also by its own inner dynamism and because of socio-economic changes. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me check into this next week. I am in southeast Asia visiting some monasteries these days, with a weak internet connection. Please do read the whole article, because it covers many of the points you are making, just in later sections. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, hope to hear from you soon. I have read the page, however, the quote needs to be reconsidered. Summary with singhs and olivelles should be included for neutral point of view under Vedic. Olivelles does not suggest that it was without non-Aryan influence, only that its trivial to identify it millennium after Aryan migration. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have read the page again, and have decided to edit Vedic section for WP:NVOP based on sources i have mentioned above. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The quote from Olivelle is important, as it is reflects a different side than the rest of the article. Please don't delete it. Could you explain what you mean by "I can't access his books", why are you summarizing Singh if you haven't read at least a few relevant pages from it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would have agreed but that quote has more to it and why he believes that. He does not dismiss Non-Aryan influences in Sramana as you seem to show in that quote. I have already given few examples.
Olivelle "It is obvious that vedic society contained large numbers of people whose roots were non-Aryan and that their customs and beliefs must have influenced the dominant Aryan classes. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration."
Olivelle "The Brahmanical religion. furthermore, like any other historical phenomenon, developed and changed over time not only through external influnces but also by its own inner dynamism and because of socio-economic changes, the radical nature of which we have radical discussed."
Shivaji Singhs quote from Olivelle's book itself. Singh claims that the Asrama system "owes its origin to commingling of several ethno-geographic elements, both Aryan and non-Aryan. He identifies Vaikhanasa, Yati and Vratya with the forest tribes of Kiratas and Muni with Nisadas." His book Evolution of the Smrti Law is not available online as far as i can tell but this source is good enough so far.
Olivelle does not dismiss Non-Vedic influences, only that its trivial to isolate non-Vedic influences millennium after Aryan migration. My edits were in WP:NVOP and in line with Olivelles views regrading evolution of vedic and srmanic society which according to him went through external influences and internal dynamism. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@103.194.57.226: It is an exact quote from Olivelle, after his review. Are you suggesting that we need to clarify the theories on Aryan and non-Aryan influences on Sramana? This is not an article on Ashrama system which is what you claim Shivaji Singh is writing about, it is an article on Sramanas. Two different things. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Singh mentions Munis and Asrama, which is related to this topic, which is also used to back Munis as Sramanas in origins section. I understand what Olivelle quote says, but in his view of "Non-Aryan influences are now Aryan because of millennium of evolution since Aryan migration" pretty much says it. Along with his views on evolution of Vedic society from both external influences and internal dynamism.
My edit were neutral keeping all his views in mind, along with that of Singhs for Vedic topic. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No your edit was not neutral, rather it was original research. Your source is Singh (please cite the book with isbn and page numbers please, or I will delete it). You are taking a discussion from Singh on Muni and Ashrama system, and drawing new conclusions on Sramanas because this article mentions Muni too. That is OR:Synthesis. We just summarize what the source is concluding/stating, we can't do novel OR-Synthesis. I would welcome addition of content from peer-reviewed reliable sources on the influence of Aryan/non-Aryan migration and diffusion on Sramanas. If you find such source(s), that would be wonderful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering i got MY sources from Olivelles book, it's not original research. Regrading Singh, Olivelle gives Evolution of the Smr̥ti Law: A Study in the Factors Leading to the Origin and Development of Ancient Indian Legal Ideas with (page, 176-85) and (page,176-77) and page (184-85) as source regarding Singhs views.
Furthermore, I don't think Olivelles should be in quote but in summary, along with mention of external influnces and internal dynamism. This is keeping with neutral POV.103.194.57.226 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It is OR:Synthesis because Olivelle is discussing Ashrama system, and your summary is representing it to be about Sramanas. Two different things, as I wrote above. On page 68, Olivelle's review presents Pande's theory in paragraph 2, and Singh's theory in paragraph 3. Olivelle then states, in para 4, "These hypotheses are clearly untenable if we confine ourselves to the available evidence". Why are you ignoring this? Olivelle also states that the Vedic society had both Aryan and non-Aryans, as he continues with his discussion about Ashrama system, citing Jan Gonda among others. Ok fine, but this part while relevant to Ashrama system, is not directly relevant to Sramanas. You may be misreading Olivelle. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pointing out contrary views that exist regrading Sramanas in Vedic period, where most historians consider Sramanas as Non-Vedic. This is clear considering how different they were from Brahmanical ritualism. Olivelle also points out that Early-Brahmanical-sramana does not provide much information, his views are based on assumption "From the use of Sramana in the early Brahmanical literature we can draw the following conclusions. The term is used predominantly in an adjectival sense to describe a special way of life of certain seers, although the literature does not provide details of that life. It is reasonable to assume, however, that this mode of life was considered in some way extraordinary and that it incorporated the ritual exertions indicated by the term srama." The term in its use in the Brahmanical documents, however, implies no opposition to either Brahmins or householders; in all likelihood it did not refer to an identifiable class of people, much less to ascetic groups as it does in later literature." page-15-16
Whoever were these early-Sramana-like folks in early Brahmanical texts were not same as later Sramanas of Jainism, Buddhism and others who rejected Vedas and Brahaminsm which is evident from their own texts. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You are mixing your personal assumptions and POV/ wisdom/ prejudice, with what the sources are saying. Let us set that aside. Olivelle's Vedic era-related review of Srama and Sramana is indeed notable. It belongs in this article. We can certainly clarify further that in "all likelihood, the Vedic Sramana were not an identifiable class of people, much less the ascetic groups of later Indian literature". Will this address your concern? Of course, a summary from one or more WP:RS on Aryan/non-Aryan/Sramana links to this article would be also welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not POV/prejudice but being a Jain i am aware that Jain Sramanas saw themselves very distinct/opposite from Brahmanical Hinduism. A summary on Olivelles views would be better than a qoute along with distinction of early Srama and Sramana. His quote makes it seem like there was no conflicting views between Brahamanical priests and Sramanas that lead to Jainism and Buddhism. I'll see what i can but most historians simply refer to Sramanas as non-Vedic. "all likelihood, the Vedic Sramana were not an identifiable class of people, much less the ascetic groups of later Jain and Buddhist literature" would be better, as we know about them from mostly these two religions. 103.194.57.226 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@103.194.57.226: The article has long stated Jainism denies Vedas, Buddhism denies Vedas, Jainism is distinct from Buddhism and Hinduism. See the table for example. But, the Vedic period is more than the Vedas. The roots of Sramanas are ancient and in Vedic period, even if unclear, per Olivelle. One can be a Sramana and need not be Jain. One can be a Sramana and need not be Buddhist. One can be a Sramana and need not be either Buddhist or Jain. Please see the cited sources in this article. Clearly, the "exact quote" from Olivelle challenges your POV. But that is exactly what Olivelle is stating, it is an important side, and per neutrality guideline this article shouldn't suppress Olivelle's scholarship and re-plug in 100 year old non-HISTRS publication. I will add a bit of clarification. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It is not neutral when you have to highlight single revisionist theory in quote, when this section should be in summary along with various contrary views for this important period. General consensus among historians is Sramana movement was Non-Vedic or mixture of Vedic and Non-Vedic, which flourished concurrently alongside Brahmanism but were different from them, which should be mentioned. This is most obvious compared to Vedic ritualism, animal sacrifice, fire sacrifice and their various deities. Olivelles also points out that Sramana in Brahamanical "literature does not provide details of that life" and is based on his..."reasonable to assume" ideas. This "Discuss the emergence of Brahmanic asceticism (PDF)" covers all views, ideas of pre-Aryan, Aryan and commingling of various groups in Vedic era etc presented in neutral view, we should aim for that in summary, not quote. 117.192.205.251 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Samual (2008) p.10 suggests that "the develement of both Sramana and brahmanical ascetic orders occurred concurrently, and that a melting pot of ideas was developed between the groups. This created a type of intellectual osmosis, where by texts, insights and belifs were able to circulate between the various groups." This is more realistic, as Jainism pre-dates other Sramanic movements, with Mahavira being 24th Thirtankara and existed before Buddha. In other words, Sramana and Brahmanism orders occurred concurrently, there is no hard evidence of appropriation by Jains or Buddhists considering Sramana were the founders of these religions. 117.192.205.251 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@117.192.205.251: Those links are not working where I am temporarily these days. Can you post just the author(s) name, publication title, isbn/doi number and page numbers, please? Remember WP:NOR content guidelines. All sorts of fringe or wishful theories have existed or exist, such as "earth is pancake shaped". But wikipedia articles attempt to summarize the mainstream scholarship, peer reviewed publications, and not the original research of editors. Evidence and scholarship matters. The Samuel's statement you quote is not dating or offering a chronology on Sramanic systems, nor inconsistent with Olivelle's comments on Sramana in Vedic literature. Can you name one reliable source and any Jain manuscript from pre-200 CE (or BCE) which does? Or any source that states Sramana concept is not found in Vedic texts that predate Mahavira? Please skip your personal views, opinions and lectures on this, as it is WP:FORUM-y and inappropriate for this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's Geoffrey Samuel (2008) p.124 Origins of Yoga and Tantra and other sources include (Fritzergold 2012) etc Link (PDF)" is University essay on this topic with sources that will be helpful. I did not say Jainism was originator of Sramana but Sramana and Brahmanism flourished together from earliest Vedic times as different school of thought. 117.192.196.144 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I highlighted the quote above, which you feel supports "Sramana and Brahmanism flourished together from earliest Vedic times". Where does it? Where does it state "earliest Vedic times"? Indeed, they all evolved together, shared ideas and more, but this is already discussed in this article. I checked Samuel. He is saying quite similar things to what Olivelle is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not discussed, it now highlights how Sramana is basically extension of Brahmanism and goes on to claim how Jains and Buddhists "appropriated" Brahmanism culture. Olivelle's Brahmanical 'literature does not provide details of that life'and is based on...reasonable to assume...ideas are not even mentioned?
"It is obvious that vedic society contained large numbers of people whose roots were non-Aryan and that their customs and beliefs must have influenced the dominant Aryan classes. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration."
Yes, Olivelle here is addressing Pandes "Sramana, Yati, Muni" at the same time, please see the page 68 again. He claims Non-Aryan influences are now "Aryanized" because of millennium of evolution. Who's appropriating who again?
"The Brahmanical religion. furthermore, like any other historical phenomenon, developed and changed over time not only through external influnces but also by its own inner dynamism and because of socio-economic changes, the radical nature of which we have radical discussed."
He claims Brahmanical religion went through changes from both "external influences"and "internal dynamics", again addressing Pandes and Singhs views.
There is also no mention of changes that went through in "Vedic period" in Vedic section that lead to rise of Sramanic movements, a movement in Vedic period that was in contrast with Brahamanical religion and culture. If we can't highlight this here, we might as well remove the Vedic section instead of bias one-sided view. 117.192.196.144 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@117.192.196.144: See my explanation above. Your walls of post, repetitive attempts to present your original research is not helpful. You just alleged something. Lets focus on it, one thing at a time. Can you identify where Samuel, or in your quote above, there is "earliest Vedic times"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Olivelle addressing topic about "Sramana, Yati, Muni" is not my original research, neither is his description of Brahmanical religion. Regrading that qoute - "occurred concurrently" definition of concurrently is "at the same time; simultaneously." 117.192.196.144 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Read again. Samuel is stating "the development of both Sramana and brahmanical ascetic orders occurred concurrently". This was a post-Vedic phenomenon, and yes in post-Vedic period, Brahmanical and Sramanical ascetic orders developed concurrently. Samuel is not stating that "Brahmanical and Sramanical ascetic orders were formed in earliest Vedic times". Is he? Where? Unless you identify page number that supports this, we can't include this here, nor that Jain Sramana ascetic orders formed in "earliest Vedic times". Because that is OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This was not post-Vedic phenomena, Jainism is not post-Vedic religion. Yet, there are various Pre-Vedic theories regrading Sramana from Zimmer to pande. Either way we need more sources, I will collect more sufficient sources on this topic and will be back. 117.192.196.144 (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

@Ms Sarah Welch: - Please take note of changes proposed for Vedic section.

Pre-Vedic

Indologist Zimmer and other scholars such as Niniam Smart, S.K. Belvakar, Pande, George, renouncer tradition and Sramana tradition is reckoned to be part of the non-Vedic system, which also includes the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy, Jainism and Buddhism. Zimmer states that "Jainism does not derive from Brahman-Aryan sources, but reflects the cosmology and anthropology of a much older pre-Aryan class of northeastern India [Bihar] – being rooted in the same subsoil of archaic metaphysical speculation as Yoga, Sankhya, and Buddhism, the other non-Vedic Indian systems." (Source: Zimmer (1951), Philosophies of India, p. 217-314 | George (2008) Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian - p.318 ) Sarmana were, in general, ascetic, atheistic, pluralistic with essential basis of Sramanic world-view of Saṃsāra of karma and reincarnation. This comes out clearest from a consideration of the earliest faith of the Jains, one of the oldest surviving sects of the Sramanas. (Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p.260-261) [NOTE1 : Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, p.86, “The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure. These concepts were certainly circulating amongst sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahmanical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions.”] (source:Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, p.86)

In the Vedic period there existed two distinct religious and cultural traditions, the strictly orthodox and Aryan tradition of the Brahmanas, and, on the fringe of their society, the straggling culture of the Munis and Sramanas, most probably going back to pre-Vedic and pre-Aryan origins. Towards the close of the Vedic period, the two streams tended to mingle and result was that great religious ferment from which Buddhism originated. (Quote Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p261.)

According to Pande, Muni was infrequent figure in Rig Veda,[Note1:The Kesi-Sukta of the Rigveda, delinates for us the strange figure of the 'Muni' who is described as long-haired, clad in dirty, tawny-cloured garments, walking in the air, drinking poison, delirious with 'Mauneya' and inspired. The refence is rare in the Rigveda, and the description seems to show that the author was filled with a certian sense of wonder at the sight of the 'Muni' performing miracles, whom he ignorantly thought to be delirious. There can hardly be a doubt that the 'Muni' was to the Rigvedic culture an alien figure.](Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p258.) who was probably not approved by the orthodox priests whose views were essentially different from the ideals of a Muni. (Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p258.) Muni-Sramanas appear more frequently from early Jain and Buddhist literature, where they are placed by the side of the Brahmanas but distinguished from them.(Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p259.)

Vedic

(minor additions in this section, see third paragraph, 2 notes & 2 sentence.)

Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Indology and known for his translations of major ancient Sanskrit works, states that contrary to some representations, the original Sramana tradition was a part of the Vedic one.[28] He writes,

Sramana in that context obviously means a person who is in the habit of performing srama. Far from separating these seers from the vedic ritual tradition, therefore, sramana places them right at the center of that tradition. Those who see them [Sramana seers] as non-Brahmanical, anti-Brahmanical, or even non-Aryan precursors of later sectarian ascetics are drawing conclusions that far outstrip the available evidence. — Patrick Olivelle, The Ashrama System

According to Olivelle, and other scholars such as Edward Crangle, the concept of Sramana exists in the early Brahmanical literature. The term is used in an adjectival sense for sages who lived a special way of life that the Vedic culture considered extraordinary. However, Vedic literature does not provide details of that life.(Olivelle-page-15-16) The term did not imply any opposition to either Brahmins or householders. In all likelihood states Olivelle, during the Vedic era, neither did the Sramana concept refer to an identifiable class, nor to ascetic groups as it does in later Indian literature. Additionally, in the early texts, some pre-dating 3rd-century BCE ruler Ashoka, the Brahmana and Sramana are neither distinction not opposed. The distinction, according to Olivelle, in later Indian literature "may have been a later semantic development possibly influenced by the appropriation of the latter term [Sramana] by Buddhism and Jainism". (additonal line) However, Olivelle does not deny Non-Vedic influences in Sramana [NOTE1: It is obvious that vedic society contained large numbers of people whose roots were non-Aryan and that their customs and beliefs must have influenced the dominant Aryan classes. It is quite a different matter, however, to attempt to isolate non-Aryan customs, beliefs, or traits at a period a millennium or more removed from the initial Aryan migration] or in Brahmanism [NOTE2 :The Brahmanical religion. furthermore, like any other historical phenomenon, developed and changed over time not only through external influences but also by its own inner dynamism and because of socio-economic changes, the radical nature of which we have radical discussed.], he instead states that trying to isolate Non-Vedic 'influences, beliefs or traits' after a period of millennium of interaction between Aryans and non-Aryans would be difficult.(source: Olivelle- The Asrama system - p68) 117.192.199.164 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@117.192.199.164: Much of what you propose does not improve the article. Please remember the subject of this article is "Sramana", it is not Karma, Reincarnation, Jainism, etc. This is not the right article to discuss karma etc, nor how ancient and how interesting Jainism is. These side discussions are undue and add confusion to this article. Please also note we already discuss many items you suggest, such as Muni, etc. We can add a bit of Pande's views you mention to the Muni discussion. I am also okay with adding clarifying notes, where appropriate.
Returning to our old discussion, None of this actually is a source for pre-Vedic or Vedic ascetic Sramana orders (= monk organizations / monasteries). This is a very exceptional claim... that ascetic orders existed before the Buddha or the Mahavira. We need exceptional sources for such claims, as wikipedia cannot be a source of amazing OR and unsourced exceptional claims. Yes, we have scholarly sources and evidence that Sramana existed in the Vedic era, but Sramana =/= Sramana orders. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:Here is more simplified form, i'll add Jain related sources in notes but it's still related to the Sramana topic. Zimmers, Pande and George mention them as Pre-Vedic, specifically. Pandes quote is important for neutral view.

Changes for Pre-Vedic

(We could maybe rename the section as "Pre-Vedic and Vedic" Or we can just add everything under "Vedic" section itself.)

Indologist Zimmer and other scholars such as Niniam Smart, S.K. Belvakar, Pande, George, renouncer tradition and Sramana tradition is regraded as non-Vedic tradition with possible pre-Vedic origins.(Source: Zimmer (1951), Philosophies of India, p. 217-314 | George (2008) Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian - p.318 ) Sarmana were, in general, ascetic, atheistic, pluralistic, which was in contrast with orthodox Vedic ritualism.(Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p.260-261 & p.258) This comes out clearest from a consideration of the earliest faith of the Jains, one of the oldest surviving sects of the Sramanas. (Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p.260-261) [NOTE1: Zimmer "Jainism does not derive from Brahman-Aryan sources, but reflects the cosmology and anthropology of a much older pre-Aryan class of northeastern India [Bihar] – being rooted in the same subsoil of archaic metaphysical speculation as Yoga, Sankhya, and Buddhism, the other non-Vedic Indian systems." (Source: Zimmer (1951), Philosophies of India, p. 217-314 | George (2008) Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian - p.318 )

[QUOTE]In the Vedic period there existed two distinct religious and cultural traditions, the strictly orthodox and Aryan tradition of the Brahmanas, and, on the fringe of their society, the straggling culture of the Munis and Sramanas, most probably going back to pre-Vedic and pre-Aryan origins. Towards the close of the Vedic period, the two streams tended to mingle and result was that great religious ferment from which Buddhism originated. (Quote Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p261.)[QUOTE]

According to Pande, Muni was infrequent figure in Rig Veda,[Note1:The Kesi-Sukta of the Rigveda, delinates for us the strange figure of the 'Muni' who is described as long-haired, clad in dirty, tawny-cloured garments, walking in the air, drinking poison, delirious with 'Mauneya' and inspired. The refence is rare in the Rigveda, and the description seems to show that the author was filled with a certian sense of wonder at the sight of the 'Muni' performing miracles, whom he ignorantly thought to be delirious. There can hardly be a doubt that the 'Muni' was to the Rigvedic culture an alien figure.](Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p258.) who was probably not approved by the orthodox priests whose views were essentially different from the ideals of a Muni. (Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p258.) Muni-Sramanas appear more frequently from early Jain and Buddhist literature, where they are placed by the side of the Brahmanas but distinguished from them.(Source : Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p259.) 117.192.205.14 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. For same reasons as above. Please avoid citing pp. 217-314 as page numbers, for a extraordinary claim such as "Sramana is pre-Vedic" etc. I do not see George supporting it either. Does Pande mentions any text, evidence or scholarly support for this view, or is this WP:PRIMARY? Did you find a source for "Sramana orders" in pre-Buddha and Pre-Mahavira time? What about the compromise proposal on various items, including on Pande I suggested above? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: George does mentions it in on p.318 as both "Pre-Aryan" and "pre-Vedic" in context of Jainism, Sramana and Aarahta traditions. He gives lengthy example on that page but i'll add some of his conclusion points here, cant type all of it. Those Zimmer page number, there was suppose to be a comma there, like "p. 217, 314", I'll fix that later when i add it.
"All these Indicate that the Jaina tradition is very ancient and independent, and that it cannot be considered as appendix to any other tradition."
"Critical study of the growth of religio-philo-sophical ideas of India leads us to definite conclusions about the presence of the Pre-Vedic culture and religion in Eastern India. It is possible to think that the Tiirthankaras and the predecessors of Buddha might have belonged to this tradition and made all efforts to preserve the continuance of this tradition against the attacks of the Vedic tradition."
Regrading "Sramana orders" in pre-Buddha and pre-Mahavira We do have textual evidence of predecessors in both Jain and Buddhism; who came before Mahavira and Buddha (example:see Buddhas predecessor - Kassapa Buddha). 117.192.205.14 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Which volume of George source is this (or alternatively, please provide the isbn number)? Regardless, this does not support what you proposed above. You wrote, "Sramana tradition is reckoned to be part of the non-Vedic system and pre-Vedic in origin". What George is writing, "It is possible to think that the Tiirthankaras and the predecessors of Buddha might have belonged (...)". Big difference. This is a persistent problem with your proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: George (2008) Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian - p.318. He did say "leads us to definite conclusions about the presence of the Pre-Vedic culture" But, Okay...changing it to - "Sramana tradition is regraded as non-Vedic tradition with possible pre-Vedic origins." This looks more appropriate. We have sufficient sources on this topic, i'm going to edit the page tomorrow when i'll be free. 117.192.208.39 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@117.192.208.32: As I wrote earlier, Pande's 1957 work is quite old, and Zimmer is even older. The George source is fringe-y; he is an Indian pastor who currently is at a St Jude Shrine, and CRVP is not a university press or similar quality publisher. After reading all the sources you have mentioned, I feel you have misread or inadvertently mixed your OR / wisdom / prejudice into your summaries. Here is the most I find we could add,

Govind Chandra Pande states, in his 1957 study on the origins of Buddhism, that Sramana may have roots in the Indus Valley Civilization and could have been non-Aryan.[1] He states that the Sramana tradition was a "distinct and separate cultural and religious" tradition than the Vedic. Pande attributes the origin of Buddhism, not entirely to the Buddha, but to a "great religious ferment" towards the end of the Vedic period when the Brahmanic and Sramanic traditions intermingled.[2]

There is the Indus Valley civilization part in Pande you claimed above, that I couldn't verify, so please provide page number. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Govind Chandra Pande (1957). Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Motilal Banarsidass (Reprinted 1995). p. PAGE NUMBER NEEDED. ISBN 978-81-208-1016-7.
  2. ^ Govind Chandra Pande (1957). Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Motilal Banarsidass (Reprinted 1995). p. 261. ISBN 978-81-208-1016-7.
@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay but if we're going to have Olivelles quote then we're going to have Pandes quote for neutrality. There is no mention of Indus Valley civilization in context of Sramanas in Pandes book, only that they were pre-Vedic and pre-Aryan on page number 261. I will be adding information about Munis as well, and Olivelles notes regrading Non-Aryans and Brahmanism. Also, this bit regrading Sramana-Jainism - Sarmana were, in general, ascetic, atheistic, pluralistic as essential basis of Sramanic world-view. This comes out clearest from a consideration of the earliest faith of the Jains, one of the oldest surviving sects of the Sramanas. (Pande (1995) Studies on origin of Buddhism, p.260-261)117.192.208.39 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You can try, but the odds are I will revert it for reasons explained above. Pande's book is not HISTRS, we need to be careful in relying on sources that are too old. On March 22, you alleged with this edit, that Pande states on page 68, "The vedic muni, srmana [sic] and yati were non-Aryan figures possibly coming from the Indus civilization". I couldn't find it on p. 68 or nearby (the discussion I find is about Nipata). Was that a mistake, or is that on another book by Pande? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Quote would be bad idea because it's HISTRS? I see, no quote then, Okay. Indus valley thing was from Olivelles (page-68), he was addressing Pandes Muni-Sramana points in that page. Pande himself does not mention Indus in context of Sramana-Muni in his book. I'll see what i can add tomorrow, I'm busy atm. Thank you for your help and time. 117.192.209.198 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I have edited the page, let me know if there is something that needs to be corrected.117.192.221.144 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: What was inappropriate about it? you also undid Olivelles notes i added, which is related to the topic. Pandes source regrading Jainism is important, Gavid Flood also states something along those lines regrading Sramana influence in Brahmanism. Aren't you being bias? 117.192.221.144 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is not HISTRS, as explained above, and should be used with caution. The Muni part of Pande is WP:Primary and undue. See the review and discussion of the Kesin hymn by Werner or Olivelle. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Śramaṇa in Monier-Williams' "A Sanskrit-English Dictionary"

The lemma referred to in note 2 in this article, on p. 1096 of MW does not seem to contain the element of "seeker". Here a paste of a digital edition (Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, version 0.1a_11): 

 [ zramaN'a ] mf ( [ A ] or [ I ] ) n. making effort or exertion ,
 toiling , labouring , ( esp. ) following a toilsome or menial business
 cf. W.
 ---> base , vile , bad cf. ib.
 ---> naked cf. L.
 ---> m. one who performs acts of mortification or austerity , an
 ascetic , monk , devotee , religious mendicant cf. ŚBr. &c.
 ---> a Buddhist monk or mendicant ( also applied to Buddha himself ,
 cf. MWB. 23 &c.
 ---> also applied to a Jain ascetic now commonly called Yati )
 cf. MBh. cf. R. &c.
 ---> N. of a serpent-demon cf. Buddh.
 ---> ( [ A ] or [ I ] ) , a female mendicant or nun cf. L.
 ---> a hard-working woman cf. L. 
 ---> ( [ A ] ) , f. a handsome woman cf. L.
 ---> = [ zabarI-bhid ] , [ mAMsI ] , [ muNDIrI ] cf. L.
 ---> n. toil , labour , exertion cf. ŚāṅkhŚr.

The lemma in the paper edition I own is conform. Perhaps the definition of śramaṇa as "seeker, one who performs acts of austerity, ascetic" should be revised?

Ingmardb (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References to works by Padmanabh S Jaini

Reference numbers below are in guillemets «…» to reflect their previous numbering, most of which will now have changed.

The article had many references to works by Padmanabh S Jaini, as follows:

  • 2001 volume: «8» pages 57-77, «10» page 48; «36a-g» pages 57-60, «132a-b» P.64;
  • 2000 volume: «9» pages 3-14;

and six to an undefined cite named "jaini" (most likely the 2001 volume above):

  • "jaini": «42a-f» page 60, 119, ?, 119, 50, pp. 49-56.

References numbered «8» and «9» remain unchanged; they are to the following two volumes:

  1. «8» Padmanabh S Jaini (2001), Collected papers on Buddhist Studies, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120817760, pages 57-77
  2. «9» Padmanabh S Jaini (2000), Collected papers on Jaina Studies, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120816916, pages 3-14

I have clarified and simplified these references by reducing them to just two:

  1. Jaini_2001
  2. Jaini_2000

based on the above two volumes, and adding the relevant page numbers to each reference, in the form e.g. "8:57-77". TBC …! yoyo (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done! It's now also clearer just how much the article depends on this author. yoyo (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Table Issues

There is plenty of work on Buddhist and other Sramana logic. The row on "epistemology" in the table is very ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girl professor (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Move

There's an account in the archives of how the page ended up at its current eyesore (my browser can't even produce all the characters in a consistent font) that is demonstrably false—one user claimed that the ngram comparison between Sramana and Śramaṇa was misleading because they were identical and "in every case" clicking through showed the scholars were actually using Śramaṇa. That isn't true, was never true, and will never be true but apparently the other voters at the time were too lazy to actually check what he was saying. Ś has only ever been a snotty way of writing /ʃ/ (i.e., sh) and will always be less common in English. The completely incorrect version s will always be more common in English, despite it being completely wrong.

In any case, the difference has never been between those two. The actual WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH term for Indian asceticism—mostly because it has usually focused on the early period in the life of the Buddha—is and has always been samana/samaṇa from Pali instead of Sanskrit. (That assumes everyone's uncomfortable with using Indian asceticism or asceticism in India. Just calling it asceticism is far more common than any transliteration and more accurately captures that this article is talking about a general idea that varied over time and traditions and not a single overarching-but-specifically-Indian concept.) Sure, there may be some distinctions some scholars would prefer to draw between the idea in Pali-speaking cultures versus the idea in Sanskrit literature, but it's the same idea and that word is the more common way of discussing it, except among people who grew up reading this article. — LlywelynII 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pali

It's theoretically possible no one has ever bothered to discuss one of Pali's most important religious concepts in Pali on the internet but at the moment "𑀲𑀫𑀦" only shows up 7 times on the Google and every single one of them is copying this article. I assume it's just completely wrong, similar to how it's completely wrong that it is transcribed Śramaṇa, which is what the current formatting means. — LlywelynII 02:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh... I see the problem(s). (a) Pali never had a dedicated script and most discussion now happens in romanized form. (b) Whoever added the Pali here didn't actually have any source. They just went to the Brahmi script page and did their best... with an inaccurate romanization. Brahmi distinguishes between na and ṇa and they used the wrong one. Fixed. — LlywelynII 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Yes, there's an "English" transcription into IPA at Wiktionary. I think it's fairly useless and misleading. We needed IPA in the lead but, if anyone adds an English version, we'll need all the sourced English versions and it will probably balloon enough to be an eyesore without creating a dedicated #Names section and putting the English IPA laundry list there instead.

(For the curious, Wiktionary has unsourced /ˈˌʃɹʌmənə/ "shruh-muh-nuh" from an editor who hears it that way in their head; most English speakers will parse the initial sound as /s/ until they know better and won't be able to help themselves accenting the penultimate syllable; before seeing the Sanskrit IPA but knowing about ś, I would've read it as /ˈʃɹəˌmɒːnə/ "shruh-mah-nuh" myself; and now having looked up the Sanskrit vowels and what the ṇ is trying to get across it'd be /ʃɹɒːˌmɒːnhɒː/ "shrah-mah-nhah" if I were going slowly or /ʃɹəˌmɒːnə/ "shruh-mah-nuh" if I wasn't. Point is, this isn't common enough for there to be a "right" way of doing it and we're better off not pretending that there is, except pointing out in some fashion what the ś is trying to say.)

To that end, it seems the best solution is to add the single standard Sanskrit form. The only problem there is that this IPA is based on our transcription but Wiktionary says that it should properly be "śramaṇá" instead, which—depending on what that's trying to get across—would change [ʃrɐmɐɳɐ] to [ʃrɐmɐˌɳɐ], [ʃrɐmɐɳɐː], or [ʃrɐmɐɳaː]. — LlywelynII 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello @Joshua Jonathan:

There has been considerable vandalism on this page for months now - at least since Septemeber 2023 from what i can tell.

Please take a look at this vandalism.

These edits remains unsourced, I will clean up but please take note there is considerable clutter on this page still. 117.198.114.26 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Śramaṇa/Archive_1&oldid=1219744514"