This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism: Philosophy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Why hasn't this been written in Devanagari on the article page? That is the generally accepted script for Sanskrit nowadays. --68.175.38.243 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some Devanagari at the top of the page, since I felt the same way. I would also add it to the title itself, so it would show after the Roman script, if I could figure out how to get at the title.Savitr108 (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other problem here: the word 'Mahāvākyas' has an Anglicized plural -- and Sanskrit does not make any plural on a noun by means of the 's' as word ending. In my opinion, the article title should be in the singular, viz., Mahāvākya. Note that the article's initial text now gives singular and plural (added by me; see above), which allows the article to begin with the Anglicized plural whether the word is either singular or plural in the title. I think it would work especially well if the article's title were in the singular. I hope people see what I mean. It is a simple point, but grammar issues often look complicated, in writing, even when they are really simple in practice. Savitr108 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also took the liberty of writing the four Mahāvākyani using IAST script (with diacritics) and removing the capitalization of word initials. Why? Well, IAST script seems to have become the main academic standard these days. And Sanskrit has no capitilization. Nor can I see any meaning conveyed by using caps even in the English versions -- but I left the English versions as is, with initial caps.Savitr108 (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, I just now deleted the two YouTube video clips previously in the 'External Links' section, for a simple reason: both video links brought up YouTube's "Video Removed By User" error message. They had become dead links.Savitr108 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just now deleted some paragraphs that got added by someone, which appear to be in the nature of discussion (i.e., meant to go here) rather than meant for the article proper. I noted in the edit summary that the material involved 'original research,' in that it spoke from the personal experience of that editor.Savitr108 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had such a nice article on Mahavakyas and someone changed it into trash. Now I find it changed again to something better but the flavor of the old one does not exist. Bring the old one back. It was perfect. Aupmanyav (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tat Tvam Asi," 'Such [thus] are you', and indeed: Brereton (1986) has an insightfull analysis on the translation and meaning of these three words, concluding that "That's how you are" is a better translation. Brereton does not stand isolated on this; Olivelle, among others, follows him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles doesn’t mention the origin of the mahāvākyas i.e, who enumerated these four as Mahvakayas? Also need to add the relevance of these in the realm of Hindu philosophy. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The later Advaita-tradition, and maybe as late as the 15th-16th century, I suspect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article duplicates material in Mahāvākyas. There are four great Mahāvākyas in Hinduism, Ayam Atma Brahma is one and should not be treated in isolation from the Mahāvākyas page. Whiteguru (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per rationale above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: a view which is supported by Olivelle is not a "marginal view" diff. WP:MAINSTREAM (an essay) does not say that alternative views should not be presented; it says

Wikipedia gives the most space and prominence to descriptions of a subject that conform to the expert understanding while marginalizing in space and prominence the minority understanding, or even excluding some descriptions or issues that cannot be reliably sourced

WP:NPOV (a policy), in contrast, says:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Again, Olivelle is not a marginal author, nor is Brereton's view presented as the view, as it is balanced by Lipner's criticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert diff, edit-summary Really sorry but this has nothing to do with neutrality or POV. It's just a mistaken interpretation, a marginal view that no other academic shares (see, grammatical cases are not open for free "interpretation")., this is incorrect, given Olivelle's usage of this translation. See also Olivelle, Upanisads, note to Vhadogya Upanisad 6.8.7-6.16.3 (p.349 2008 edition), in which he explains his choice for "That's how you are," following Brereton. If you nevertheless think that Brereton and Olivelle are incorrect, then you can, of course, add sources which say so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some has been adding Brereton's original interpretation, which basically goes against the well-accepted understanding of the passage. Brereton suddenly "discovers" that the word tat "is neuter and therefore cannot correspond with the masculine (sic!) tvam". I see no Sanskrit scholar sharing this view, not only because it defies the consensus understanding that has been consistent over the last 1.5 millennia both in India and in the West. Foremostly, Brereton's reading is simply incorrect grammatically: primo, the personal pronoun tvam ("you") actually has no grammatical gender; and secundo, neither Sanskrit nor other Indo-European languages expect any such gender correspondence – it's perfectly OK to say, e.g., tvam brahmāsi ("you are Brahman"; neutre) or sā kriyā tvam asi ("you are that movement"; feminine).

In short, this particular view of Brereton's is might an isolated misunderstanding or a honest mistake. But this is an encyclopaedia and we are obliged to follow the academic consensus.

Finally, such intricate details, even when correct, are useless for the reader IMO. So, unless @Joshua Jonathan can justify the need for this fringe theory re. Tat Tvam Asi, I'll keep removing it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That it "basically goes against the well-accepted understanding of the passage" is not a reason to remove it; on the contrary. We present an overview of the relevant points of view, per WP:NPOV, and this one is relevant. Olivelle follows Brereton's interpretation, as he explains in his note, referred to above. It makes a huge difference, what makes it highly relevant. And it's not fringe, as in pseudo-sccientific; Olivelle, which is WP:RS, uses it Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brereton and Olivelle versus thousands of commentators, philosophers, Sanskrit scholars both in India and in the West, all agreeing on the established reading of tat. No, sorry, this is precisely what we call WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia. If this was a medicine or biology article, such outlier ideas would be automatically ignored if not outright banned on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE.

Unfortunately, Indian studies seem to offer ground for unlimited creativity; never mind Sanskrit grammar or etymology. Sometime ago another editor fought hard to include prominently an idea by Jan Gonda who proposed that maya may originate from ma which would mean "mother" in Sanskrit (it does not originate and there's no ma attested in Sanskrit in this meaning, but hey, why caring about facts?). Now, Brereton invented that tat ("that", "it") may suddenly mean "thus", one other translator followed – and lo behold, an encylopaedia is expected to present this as an "alternative viewpoint"? Come on, let's be serious. — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be so kind to present an article that says that Olivelle's translation is fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that his entire translation is fringe?

Fringe can be theories, like one that personal pronouns should be interpreted like adverbial pronouns in Sanskrit; at least in the case of Tat tvam asi. That I'll call fringe. No, we don't need to present sources explicitly labelling an idea as fringe; enough that the idea falls far off the mainstream, is not accepted by the mainstream.

See, Sanskrit is a language that has its vocabulary, its grammar, its usus. When we see all those ethnologists, anthropologists, religious scientists, New Age gurus, etc., promoting their own "interpretations" – we must stick them where they belong. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wendy Doniger (2010), The Hindus: An Alternative History, p.711: "Joel Brereton and Patrick Olivelle have argued, fairly convincingly, that it should rather be translated, “And that's how you are.”
• Johannes Bronkhorst, Greater Magadha: Studies in the culture of early India, p.129: "The finest essence here—that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self (Atman). And that’s how you are, Svetaketu."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's that Doniger? Does she have qualifications to discuss Vedic Sanskrit? Same question for Bronkhorst. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me? Wendy Doniger, Johannes Bronkhorst. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK]] 06:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• David Dean Shulman (20120, More Than Real, Harvard University Press, p.301, note 38: "Olivelle [Upanisads] 1996: 152, "That's how you are," following Brereton 1986"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see what she published. Didn't read her, studying a completely different field these days, and never had to learn Sanskrit through English anyway.

Shulman and Bronkhorst just quoted the available translation it seems, without analysing the text. Granted, one can argue this makes this unfortunate translation (or, interpretation) more mainstream.

Now need to go, will write more later. — kashmīrī [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup

Two notable professors endorsing Brereton's view, two other notable professors following Olivelle's translation: yes, that's a relevant point of view. But, I've moved part of the info into a note, and changed (in the lead) "correctly translated as" into "alternatively translated as," to give it a little bit less weight. And note the inclusion of Lipner's reservations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While referring to the Ultimate, shouldn’t “that’s the truth” be translated instead as “that’s what is true”? Otherwise it just seems like a categorial error between “true” and “truth”. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the text:

"Those statements are interpreted as supporting the insight that the individual self (jīvá) which appears as a separate existence, is in essence (ātmán) part and manifestation of the whole (Brahman)."

actually be:

"Those statements are interpreted as supporting the insight that the individual self (jīvá) which appears as a separate existence, is in essence the (ātmán) part and a manifestation of the whole (Brahman)."?

It just seems like more correct English to say: "...is in essence the atman part" rather than "...is in essence atman part".

Similarly, "and a manifestation of the whole (Brahman)" sounds better than "and manifestation of the whole (Brahman)".

I ask because I want to cite that sentence, and I want it to read as correct English.

Thanks from a novice, Frank FrankH (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]