Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Varaha Upanishad

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn by nominator.

DYK toolbox

Varaha Upanishad

edit
(
)
Varaha
Varaha

Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

  • New enough when nominated. Long enough at 10,817 characters. Article meets DYK policies. Hook is short enough, and has been verified by the online source provided, but may be hard to comprehend by people unfamiliar with the subject. Image is used in the article, on Commons and has a valid license. QPQ done. Good to go. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be the fly in the ointment here. Not being of this faith, it seems to me the entire second paragraph in the lead of the nominated article is maybe the gist of the hook. And there's a citation at the end of the paragraph. And the source depicts that process by how that happened. Did I get that correct? I'm a little bit concerned this might be perceived as somewhat vague like, "Jesus ascended to heaven because he led a good life." If that makes sense. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. As I have been editing some articles relating to Hindu philosophy and Hinduism itself recently, I also want to join the conversation. I certainly believe the Varaha Upanishad deserves a DYK, as it is such an important work, whether you are religious or not. In my opinion, the current DYK info is a bit too general to by catchy on its own. And as it has been pointed out it might not make much sense to people without much "inside" knowledge on the subject. There are so much in this particular Upanishad that will make very interesting DYKs, so I have made a small list of examples here below:

  • ALT1 ... the X year old Varaha Upanishad is the first text to describe how the Om mantra washes away all sins and assures salvation?
  • ALT2 ... the X year old Varaha Upanishad is the first text to elaborately describe the concept of Brahman?
  • ALT3 ... the Yamas described in the Varaha Upanishad X years ago, closely matches the Ten Commandments from Christianity?

As the article stands right now, it lacks information on its origin. It is truly very old in the order of 3.000 years, but the article really needs more information on it as it is. That's is why I wrote the "X" above.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check the three suggested Alt hooks. And perhaps have a look at the article for what RhinoMind suggests is lacking. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @RhinoMind: @Maile66: The article is based on translations of the original Sanskrit text which is dated between the 13th and 16th centuries. I have added this fact in the lead with a reference. The article is highly philosophical and runs into 247 hymns. I have abridged most of it within this article. However, I have added a few more lines at the end of lead which may be interesting. — Maile's observation on the hook is correct. I don't think I can improve on it further as the subject is abstract. I, therefore, suggest that ALT 1 hook suggested by RhinoMind, with the period mentioned, may be considered for approval. I am suggesting it as
ALT4 hook ... the Varaha Upanishad (pictured Varaha), dated between 13th and 16th century, is the text that describes how the Om mantra washes away all sins and assures salvation?

Nvvchar. 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ALT4 mentioned in the article, specific enough in wording, and sourced. Striking the others so the promoter does not get confused. Does @RhinoMind: have any comments? — Maile (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for adding the origins information Nvvchar and notifying me Maile66. I must say that I am surprised it only dates to the 13th-16th century, as most other Upanishads are 3,000 years old. Or am I completely off on that one too? I better check up on all this. It might be, that the source you writes from Nvvchar, is a compilation with some added verses from that period, while the original text is much older. I dont know and I better discuss it on the articles own TalkPage when I have done some proper research on it.
Update: yes the Upanishads that are viewed as part of the Vedas, are generally 3,000 years old, written in 900-600 BCE. I have now learned, that there are a plethora of more recent so-called Upanishads also. But as only some groups view them as part of the Vedas, they are often called "the sectarian Upanishads" in scholarly terms. Guess you learn something new every day :-) I have moved this particular discussion to the proper TalkPage for now. RhinoMind (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
As it was I who suggested the ALT DYK, I think its a great idea :-), but could we perhaps sharpen the DYK further with the addition that it was "the first text to describe ..."? Or is this not true either? I have made a bummer with the dating I guess, so this might also be untrue perhaps. But then: which text did mention it first then? An open and interesting question. RhinoMind (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Since my three ALTs relies heavily on an ancient dating, that turned out to be wrong, I am not sure which DYK would fit best. I am open to anything. RhinoMind (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@RhinoMind:, since @Nvvchar: is the nominator, what you are requesting here needs to be approved as a hook by him. Then he needs to make sure it's mentioned that way and sourced in the article.— Maile (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If my opinion counts, I think ALT5 is too long and even more complicated than the original DYK. And Samsara is described by so many other texts, Varaha does not stand out in this respect. For a DYK, I think we should pick something that is unusual and at the same time special for Varaha Upanishad. Perhaps Nvvchars original hook is the best idea after all? Just my thoughts on this. RhinoMind (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: I would prefer the original hook, as also suggested by RhinoMind. I am proposing it again with slight modifications

ALT6... that in the Varaha Upanishad Varaha (pictured) enlightens sage Ribhu, who attained godhood by austerities, on all Hindu scriptural texts? Nvvchar. 04:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check ALT6. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I essentially re-checked this article against all the criteria. It does need some clean-up, but nothing major, and main page exposure hopefully attract some editors willing to copy-edit the article. I'm approving ALT 6, as it meets the hook criteria and seems the most satisfactory one reached after long discussion. I've taken the liberty of striking Alts 4 and 5, and moving 6 out so that it is more visible for the prepping editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but "austerities on Hindu texts" makes no sense. I haven't had time to check this nom thoroughly, but at the very least the hook will need rephrasing. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, it's actually "austerities, on Hindu texts." Ribhu, who practiced austerities, is being enlightened on all Hindu texts, no Ribhu practiced austerities on Hindu texts. Even so, maybe "who attained godhood by austerities" could be reworded to "who attained godhood through austerity" or "practicing austerity."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, but quite honestly, "enlightened on all Hindu texts" doesn't make much sense to me either, especially given that "enlightened" usually has a more specific meaning in this context. Again, I am going to have to take a closer look at the article and its sources before drawing any further conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this thread still active? Gatoclass Yes, reading the text carefully, it all makes sense, as 3family6 explains. But I can see that the phrasing is easy to misunderstand, and it might ease things, if the commas are simply replaced by dashes. Like this:
"... that in the Varaha Upanishad Varaha (pictured) enlightens sage Ribhu - who attained godhood by austerities - on all Hindu texts?"
Yes "enlightens" can mean many things in a religious context, but here it simply means enlightenment, as it is used in the context of education. Varaha made sure Ribhu understood the Hindu scriptures. Nothing special.
Austerities -> Austerity. I would not endorse this, although it seems a very small thing. Austerity - in Christianity in particular - has a very specific meaning. In a Hindu context there are many "austerities" to work with. They are mainly summed up in the Yamas. These Yamas are somewhat similar to the Ten Commandments in Christianity, so the word "austerities" has a much broader meaning than how the word "austerity" is usually understood in a western cultural context. With just a superficial understanding of Hinduism this aspect is clear. Not trying to be condescenting, just stating and explaining explicitly.
About researching. Nvvchar has made a great contribution by writing up a summary of this important text in English from the Sanskrit version. I am not sure there is any English translation of this text available anywhere. If you know of, or has access to one, the article can be greatly improved if you put in a link or reference.
RhinoMind (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:, Nvvchar, and RhinoMind: Perhaps a more interesting hook would be "... that the Varaha Upanishad considers being born a human male Brahmin a blessing not easily achieved?" This would mean that a citation would need to be added to the corresponding passage in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in returning to this - I was surprised by the length of the article and of the upanishad itself, which has put me off a bit and I haven't found time to look more closely at it yet. I think Rhinomind's suggested fix for ALT6 would probably work, and 3family6's suggested alt would also probably be acceptable assuming it can be verified. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, RhinoMind and 3family6 I have fixed reference to ALT6 suggested by User talk:3family6 which is in chapter II hymns 5 (b) -7 (a). I have also added the original Sanskrit version of the Upanishad but there is no verbatim translation of this text in English.Nvvchar. 10:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Having taken a closer look at this, I can't verify ALT6, which looks to me like a possible misreading of the underlying text. 3family6's suggested alt might work, except that the text uses the term "Brahmana" rather than "Brahmin" and I don't know if they are the same thing. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass:. Brahmana, apart from representing a collection of ancient Indian texts with commentaries on the four Vedas, is also used colloquially in all south Indian languages to mean a Brahmin ( such as "he is a bramhana", "where is the bramhana", "a bramhana is essential for this rite" and so on). However, in this context I am rewording the hook suggested by RhinoMind as ALT7 ... that the Varaha Upanishad (Varaha pictured) considers being born a human male with blessings of knowledge of Brahmana, which is not easily achieved?Nvvchar. 04:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Again :) It's a bit amusing how a simple DYK issue can evolve into such a long thread and I feel a bit sorry for Nvvchar who have to endure all this, when he just wanted to finish of his article with a short interesting DYK. That said, I would need to point out, that the DYK above has to be copy-edited to be complete, so here goes:
  • "... that the Varaha Upanishad (Varaha pictured) considers being born a human male with blessings of knowledge of Brahmana, something not easily achieved?"
In your post Nvvchar, you both writes brahmana and bramhana. Is this a mistake? And perhaps this similarity between Brahmana and Brahmin in South India would need to be ref'ed, sourced or linked, if it is important for the understanding.
Overall I think it would be wise to be cautious when mixing the Indian caste system and Hindu philosophy. Hindu philosophy is something else and much more universal, while the caste system is a cultural aspect of India specifically. Some of the Hindu scriptures use the concept of the caste system to explains certain things, but this does not imply that this culture specific social order is a fundamental aspect of Hindu philosophy. The scriptures just mirrors the cultural context from which it emerged, while explaining much more universal things. Therefore I do not think it is a good idea to mix these concepts in a casual way. It is two different things. Just saying. RhinoMind (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have mentioned it as a colloquial usage and I can't cite it with any specific reference. The hook modified by RhinoMind, @Gatoclass: may wish to approve. If there is so much problem in approving the hook, it may be better for me to withdraw the dyk. Pl decide. Nvvchar. 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was invited by @Nvvchar to comment here. I have a paper copy of the Aiyar's translation. A few thoughts, after reading the article, reviewing the Upanishad, and the sources it references:

  1. The main article is in poor shape. It does not mention that Varaha is a minor Upanishad (a text that claims itself to be an Upanishad, and there are zillions of post 14th-century CE texts that claim themselves to be an Upanishad). The article does not mention the authenticity/text corruption during Islamic rule period of South Asia, inconsistent manuscripts, and other controversies surrounding this and other minor Upanishads. The article thus fails WP:NPOV guidelines.
  2. Most sources referenced in the article look of poor quality, and the translation used is one hosted by a website with unclear editorial crosschecking policies. This makes them non-RS and WP:QUESTIONABLE. These need to be checked for WP:SPS. The article needs to be revised to rely on scholarly, peer reviewed or other reliable sources.
  3. DYK claims proposed so far, such as "Varaha was the first Upanishad ..... Om.... etc etc" is simply wrong and misleading. Read the primary Upanishads. Many extensively discuss Om, as a tool for meditation, in relation to moksha (salvation).

The Varaha Upanishad article needs major cleaning up, and is not ready for DYK or GA. I urge that the DYK nomination be withdrawn. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a side-comment @Ms Sarah Welch: Good constructive points with an agenda that can be acted upon. 3 This is one of the reasons why a credible dating and origin of this (minor) Upanishad is so crucial. Many present yoga-texts refer to this particular Upanishad as a source, also for the Om mantra, and this makes it even more important that the article is improved and the origin and context issues are probably resolved and explained. RhinoMind (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Varaha_Upanishad&oldid=1020468589"