Talk:Ashvamedha

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

akash deep maurya 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING LIKE ANIMAL SACRIFICE.MOST OF THE HISTORY IS DISTORTED. THE SACRIFICIAL MENAING INDICATES THAT SAME HORSE WILL NEVER BE USED AGAIN FOR ASWAMEDHA YAGNA. akash deep maurya 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

THIS IS MAJOR CHANGE FOR THIS ARTICLE.

THERE IS NOTHING ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN VEDIC CULTURE. HISTORICAL SACRIFICE INDICATE THAT SAME HORSE CANN'T BE USED AGAIN FOR ASHVAMEDHA YAGNA. VEDIC HISTORY IS BEING OVERWRIITEN BY LEREBALS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashmaurya24 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a horse sacrificing ritual stop spreading lies as you are the most reliable source Abhay02official (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of information is wrong with no reference on ancient text As ashwamegh yagnya doesn't kill horse after ashwamegh yagna Swapnil234 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Aswamegha yagn

It is not sacrifice of horsh Pratik Buha (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Misleading article, about a practice with no mention of violence/sacrifical death anywhere in the actual practice manuals

Hello.

Writing because the article is full of non-indigenous references. The Ashvamegh (it's actually ashvamedh!) was indeed a sacrificial form of establishing territorial superiority, however, the disputing parties were supposed to capture the horses, not kill them.

"In the territory traversed by the horse, any rival could dispute the king's authority by challenging the warriors accompanying it. After one year, if no enemy had managed to kill or capture the horse, the animal would be guided back to the king's capital. It would be then sacrificed, and the king would be declared as an undisputed sovereign." The first line is correct. The second line, again, with references from Ramayan, Luv and Kush capture their father Ram's horse, not kill them. The last line is a plain lie with no references from anywhere. How is this allowed?

Medh can mean three different things and somehow writers of this article could arrive at a conclusion that this has violent connotation.

Ref - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZMQXBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE+%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%83+%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B+%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87+%E0%A4%9A&source=bl&ots=O4YKo8NS6A&sig=ACfU3U1m0BJRY-_rwHEp1Sn9wFZTUwtKLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisxfne57DlAhUBuRoKHa0oCvgQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%83%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%9A&f=false

This paints an extremely grotesque picture which isn't true at all. Nowhere did the kings sacrificed or killed their horses when they returned home. We have similar procedure called 'Pitrmedh' where 'pitr' is father and the process is observed for the father in the family who has passed away to meet his spirits. Another is called 'sarvmedh' where people from different social and educational qualifications were posted/established to perform their jobs in different areas of the cities. 'Sarv' means all, which should by this context mean sacrifice of all?

Please, let me edit with proper sources as this is against Wikipedia's own rules to have false information, that too without citing any source. Ashkumar2665 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the Manual of Style for the lead sections. The statements in the lead do not appear to violate Wikipedia's rules, as citations for those sections are not required. The statements in the lead do need to conform to the sites policies on verifiability, but they are generally considered to summarize the statements in the body of the article that have inline citations. In the case of these statements, the objected-to sentence is a summary of three paragraphs in the body that are cited to four separate reliable sources. This complies with Wikipedia's core content policies. If you still feel the need to change this, you are welcome to open a discussion on this talk page and seek a consensus among your fellow editors to change the text. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Correction

This "correction" (Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019) was not correct. Without the final Vedic accent, asvamedha is a name (of a person mentioned in the RV). The final accent is necessary to identify the asvamedha ritual (because the meaning of the word 'medha' changes as a consequence of the accent.) Please consult, e.g., the Monier-Williams dictionary (the print edition, not the online version, which does not show accents) for verification. rudra (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)