Talk:Samskara (rite of passage)

Incorrect name

This page has been wrongly moved from samskara to samskaram, under the claim that the latter is the 'real Sanskrit'. No evidence, all standard dictionaries give the original pronounciation. The new spelling indicates the standard pronounciation of the Sanskrit word for speakers of some modern languages, but it does not for others, and certainly not for the standard form of Sanskrit. The original was correct. See [1], which uses a lossless transliteration. Imc (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Saṃskāra Aervanath (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Saṃskāraṃ → Saṃskāra

• As per the reasoning above, and to reverse the previous unilateral move. Imc (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Actually it should be Saṁskāra.Joy1963 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see from IAST, it should be Saṃskāra, not Saṁskāra. IAST uses only the ṃ character. The other character ṁ (corrected) is used for modern languages. Imc (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I commentated earlier because, many writers use ṁ for अं, but since IAST uses ṃ for अं, it should be Saṃskāra only, I now agree with you.Joy1963 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• The 'ṃ' at the end of 'Saṃskāraṃ' is a Sanskrit nominative singular case ending. Sanskrit nouns and adjectives are usually quoted as the stem (linguistics). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page history indicates that it was not renamed to samskaram for reasons of grammar. Imc (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of the word Samskara is Sam (prefix) + kṛ (root) + ghañ (suffix) = Saṁskāraḥ.Joy1963 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits for Section 'Hinduism' in Article

I would like to edit these statements in the article under the section 'Hinduism' (very first paragraph):

A. All human beings, especially the Dvija or twice-born are required to perform a number of sacrifices with oblations for gods, Ancestors and Guardians in accordance with the Vedic dictums for a Dharmic or righteous life.

It should read as follows:

All human beings are required to perform a number of sacrifices with oblations to God, Ancestors and Guardians in accordance with the Vedic dictums for a Dharmic or righteous life and become Dvija or twice-born by the performance of these acts.

The two corrections I have made:

1. The word 'gods' is incorrect and changed and corrected to 'God'. Hinduism is a monotheistic belief system misunderstood by Western thinking. We believe in one God. The reason you see so many personas of dieties is for the purpose of focusing worship on a specific aspect of God or for a particular purpose. It also makes the high philosophy of Hinduism easier to understand and therefore put into practical use by the technique of visual association and personification.

2. A Dvija only comes into existence after a rite of passage sacrament is performed, not before so the way the statement is written is misleading to believe this. The understanding that should be had is that one becomes twice-born after performing such rites (the first birth being human birth and the second by performance of the sanskars).

B. There is no relationship between religious-spiritual knowledge and practice of religious-rituals. It means a person having deep religious spiritual knowledge may or may not involved in ritual processes. Similarly a person involved in rituals may or may not have the religious knowledge.[1] 1. The very first sentence here,'There is no relationship between religious-spiritual knowledge and practice of religious-rituals.' is misleading and untrue. It should read:

'A person does not have to foster a relationship between religious-spiritual knowledge and practice of religious-rituals.' In this way the sentence that follows is better supported.

2. There is a typo in the sentence: 'It means a person having deep religious spiritual knowledge may or may not involved in ritual processes.' It should read:

....spiritual knowledge may or may not be involved...

Also, there is a relationship between religious-spiritual knowledge and practice of religious-rituals once again, as prescribed by the Vedas - the original spiritual scriptures upon which the belief system of Hinduism and all of its subsequent scriptures are based. The Vedas are the oldest known scriptures in the world of all belief systems and religions as scientifically proven by archeological carbon dating techniques and so are the ultimate authority.

The authority under which these statements are made come from Arya Samaj which was a movement formed to correct the incorrect interpretations, beliefs and practices that have been incorporated as part of Hinduism but were not prescribed to be followed by the founding body of knowledge for Hinduism/Sathya Sanathan Dharma, the Vedas, which are divine revelations and not scriptural texts written by human authors.

I have not cited any specific sources of reference, only general. If you are interested in the origin of this information, you can research the information put forth by the Arya Samaj movement and the content of the Vedas directly.

--RR911 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

agreed w/ you user:rr911.

it's some sort of revisionist history and belies the ignorance of core tenents of hinduism to make such a statement.

Merger proposal

The Sanskara article should be merged into this article for the following reasons: (A) Sanskara and Samskara are alternate spelling of the same Sanskrit word Saṃskāra (see 1-Page-685, 2-Page-xii). (B) The words are two interconnected concepts, first as rites of passage and virtues/actions/development of an individual, second as the psychological impact these rites and virtues have on the development, behavioral traits and character of that individual. (C) The Sanskara article relies on unreliable sources such as experiencefestival.com, and a single source Meher Baba. (D) the Sanskara article if retained and entirely rewritten, is likely to lead to content forking issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sanskara article is a ten year old article that has enjoyed strong stability. To move such an old stable article would require a clear consensus of editors. Near the article's beginning a disambiguation page was agreed on that gave different pages to the four different senses. The same word can have more than one meaning or use, with no change in spelling. Consider the uses of the term "Avatar" for example. Since the sense of sanskaras as impressions on the mind is entirely different than its sense as particular Hindu rituals, it is not clear what merging these distinct senses into one article achieves. Clarity for the reader is lost, not gained. Ms Sarah Welch has recently changed the ritual sense to have the spelling "sanskara." If this is the only reason for wishing to have such a merger, then some other solution would be more suited, such as adding paranthetical additions to the same spelling. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The old but stable Sanskara article is of poor quality. Stability can mean a broadly accepted article, or an article that lacks interest of other wiki editors. The old Sanskara article is now tagged for issues, and needs a major cleanup. Dazedbythebell is right indeed, that Sanskara has several context driven, interconnected meanings. The question is what is the best way to encyclopedically cover the topic: one article, two articles, or many articles. Here is Wikipedia's content forking guideline,

Wikipedia guideline: A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage.

To avoid conflicting redundant articles on Sanskara, we can either merge the article, or clarify with title with paranthetical addition as Dazedbythebell suggests above. I am fine with either. I prefer a merged version because of the above guideline, and because it would be easier to summarize, in one article, the scholarly publications explaining the interconnection between "psychology/impressions and rites of passage/ethics". If the Sanskara (psychology) section grows in this article, then a summary-style spin-off would be more consistent with wikipedia guideline above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree merging the two articles. The terms have a common origin, but the subject each article treats is not the same. This article treats a term used in Hinduism that relates to its cultural and religious use, whereas the other treats its philosophical or esoteric side. Mixing the two on the basis of origin would be messy. I would much rather rename the other article to something like "Sanskara (Meher Baba)" and remove the general Hinduism template. After all the only two teachers that have treated this aspect of the term are Adi Shankara and Meher Baba. I do not think it would help either article to merge. Hoverfish Talk 22:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I fail to see why the Sanskara article should be "entirely rewritten". Hoverfish Talk 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As a non involved editor I see strong merit in the points Hoverfish makes. SaintAviator lets talk 23:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoverfish: Other scholars have mentioned or discussed Sanskara as a psychological/karma concept. @Dazedbythebell: Since name change is being favored by Hoverfish and SaintAviator, I will accept a name change instead of merger, as a consensus. I will change this article's title to Sanskara (rite of passage), and the other article's title to the name suggested by you, Dazedbythebell: Sanskara (philosophy). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with renaming the other article to Sanskara (philosophy). Hoverfish Talk 15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Samskaras are sacraments, not merely rites of passage

the entire article positions it is a rite of passage, whereas atleast in Hinduism, sanskaras are sacramental in nature. 121.244.45.68 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)