Talk:Ahom religion

Golden eggs

I am not clear whether the four golden eggs were born to Pha-Tu-Chin or Khun-Theu-Kham. Any help? Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chai four golden eggs were born to four legendary characters, some of them are

• AAI-Ka PHA SHANG DIN - The elder one, owner of the earth
• Shing-Sa Pha Pha Kham - The second one
• Ngi Ngao Kham or Dragon - The youngest one --Sairg (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but that did not answer my question. Chaipau (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for my mistake, let me check Lit Lay Peyn Kaka.--Sairg (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Rwan dam

The word GRIHA DAM was later translated from the real word RWAN DAM Rwan=House Dam=Ancestor/Dead person in Tai-Ahom language. --Sairg (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I am using the spellings from the PhD Thesis. Wikipedia should not be part of a revivalism project. Chaipau (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Rwan is the correct spelling in Tai Languages around the globe along with Ahom, No need to connect with Revivalism as I am trying to provide the real pieces of information through the encyclopedia, PhD Thesis have some errors too.--Sairg (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Rwan not Ren

Editors should use RWAN instead of REN as it is the correct spelling The word Rwan is also used in -

• Ahom language
• Shan language
• Other Tai Languages--Sairg (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

See above. It is immaterial what the other languages use. This is about the Ahoms. Chaipau (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Tai Languages are not immaterial but the mother for the Ahom Language. --Sairg (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Tai language is not the Ahom language. There is not one Tai- language. Chaipau (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RWAN is in Ahom Language you check scripts or contact with Tai-Ahom Language Professors

Link- taistudiesmoranhat.org Institute Of Tai Studies And Research (ITSAR) --Sairg (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources in context. Also, Wikipedia uses names which appear in English publications, not in other languages. Chaipau (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The titles of the Kings are in English standard, but it is necessary to give the full names in infoboxes, pages, Here, I think GRIHA which was translated many centuries after Sukaphaa came, should not us as the main subtitle, Sairg (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Griha is the current usage and it is published in English and I suspect it is also widely used by the public. Furthermore, it is sourced to a PhD thesis that is freely available in the internet. Is the alternative used in reliable English publications and widely used by the public? If you are trying to "correct" usage in Wikipedia based on original scriptures, that is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tai-Ahom online Magazine Khwan Moung

Kindly do not remove the citation from www.taiahom.in, as it is a tri-language online magazine of Tai-Ahom. It is not a blog from blogger, It has copyright Trademarks. You can check some English Articles from Tai-Ahom scholars -

• Medini Mohan, professor of Ahom language, Dibrugarh University
• Dr. Girin Phukan
• Dr. Stephen Morey, Professor, Lastrob University, Australia
• Dr. Anita konwar, Asst. Professor, , Donation, Cheraidoi
• Nagen Hazarika, Rtd. Deputy Commissioner

I am aware of the works of Stephen Morey, B J Terweil—especially in the context of the Ahoms. So I am aware of the latest research on these topics. I am also aware of the revival projects. Unfortunately, the website you have submitted above is a user-generated website and is not a reliable source. Please read WP:UGC. Chaipau (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Further info

- Website developed & Design by Satyajit Kakoti Editors- Sanjib Phuke , sonjibboruah6@gmail.com Rung Seng Gogoi , roongcheng33@gmail.com

Disruptive editing by vandalizing the lead

@Sairg: please stop vandalizing the lead as you are doing here: 883696451, 883614734 etc. You are welcome to start a new section and edit the types, quoting from reliable sources—but you should not vandalize the lead. You seem to be displaying WP:POINT. Please stop. Chaipau (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Spellings

@Sairg: Please follow the transliteration scheme (e.g. Phuralung) and spellings used in Gogoi 2011. This is the standard that we are using in this article. Chaipau (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have checked, many authors are using different Spelling with respect to the pronunciation in Ahom Language. In my opinion, the spellings using by Dr. Stephen Morey and Dr. Medini Mohan will be perfect as Unicode verified. Give your opinion on using Dr.Morey's spelling. --Sairg (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I have seen from Morey's published articles, he does not use diacritic marks. So please do not use them. For example, please use a instead of ā. Chaipau (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As a language researcher he would probably know better than us if needed he will use the proper marks --Sairg (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Morey is a linguist. He will not have all the spellings for religious documents. He uses greek letters, such as the letter υ, in his Latin spellings. And as I have said, he does not use letters like ā. This is the influence of Sanksrit transcription, not even used for Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have checked Morey's articles I know. Some I.P. Users manipulating Sukaphaa page with poor sourced content and giving different views of authors, this will lead to a decrease in the value of real information by hiding with controversies. Can you please help to stop this type of disruptive edits? --Sairg (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tai Folk Religion

@Chai The Tai folk religion is not a single religion but it is the form of animist religious beliefs(Similar or different), traditionally and historically practiced by groups of ethnic Tai peoples including Ahom. It is not a single religion but the sum of all religious practice by Tai people. Ahom religion is also under Tai folk religion, as it is traditionally and historically practiced by Ahoms which is the Mao branch of Tai. If you have no idea, Check the Tai folk religion page.

@Chai You may still have some unfactual argues so I want to mention, The Ahom religion has a very high amount of similarities with other Tai folk religions including - Satsana-Phi of Thai and Laos, Lamet and Khwan Buddhism.

Similarities

• Phi - They have the concept of Phi.
• Khwan - They have the concept of Khwan.
• Ancestor Worship - They have ancestor worship rituals.
• Ban-Phi - The ritual BAN-PHI is called as PHI-BAN by satsana-phi .
• Nam-Lao - They have the rule to offer Rice -Bearto God, Which called as Nam-Lao by Ahom, Shan and various.
• Ngi Ngao Kham - The Dragon or Ngi Ngao Kham is believed to the symbol of god by most of the Tai folk religions.
• Kun-Lung - The God Kun-Lung is known as Kun-Lu by Shan-Tai people, according to Gogoi 1976. --Sairg (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sairg: please talk here first before making changes to the lead. I shall be putting some points below. Please do not revert. Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sairg: Please consider this:

• The Ahoms came to Assam in 1228, some eight hundred years ago. And it has developed in Assam pretty much isolated from the rest of the Tai communities. Yes, it had some connect with the Tais in Burma for the duration, the Nara country as they called it, but the connect to the heartland of the Tais were lost. The main Tai groups do not remember the Ahoms, and the Ahoms too did not remember the main Tai groups till the beginning of the Tai revivalism movement in the middle of the 20th century, some 50 years ago. Thus the interest in the Tai is happening in the context of the local political situation. The point of view you are trying to push here is in that context.
• As far as Wikipedia is concerned, therefore, the connection should be given in the context of the revivalism. Most of the Ahom priests themselves were unable to read the religious texts and come to a consensus on what the religious texts meant. This was reported by Terweil (1996). He writes: "I led an expedition to India in 1980 with the simple objective of bringing together the few people who could read Ahom and getting them to translate a single text of 27 pages which I had selected for that purpose. Six leading Ahom readers spent two weeks reading and re-reading the ancient text. The disappointing result was that, whereas they could readily decipher the script and read the words aloud, they did so without assigning tones, as soon became obvious, and without any idea of the meaning of the words except for a few of the simplest expressions. I reluctantly drew the conclusion that the priests' knowledge of Ahom was virtually nil and that Ahom really was a dead language. The discovery of the strong limitations of the Ahom priests' knowledge opened my eyes to the fact that many of the puzzling aspects of my fieldwork findings might be due to contemporary factors, rather than to the assimilation process of 800 years. I therefore went through a series of reappraisals." Morey has worked on the Ahoms since then, but the situation marked by Terweil is a landmark.
• In the context of the rituals, this is what Terweil has to say: " The fact that the ritual basically consisted of the careful ordering of objects with a symbolic significance. While rice, eggs, sugar-cane, incense, betel leaves and areca nuts were all consistent with Southeast Asian ritual practices, the way in which the ceremony was conducted reminded one more of a Hindu puja."
• What you are trying push here should, therefore, be seen in the context of the revivalist movement. The revivalism is itself part of local politics, and this has to be pointed out in Wikipedia. As a part of the revivalist movement, I ask you: Would you rather see yourself as a part of this list "The Lifespans of Ancient Civilization" or as a branch of the Tai people?

Chaipau (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sairg: the lead is the place where you give an overview of the topic. Please do not use the lead to raise issues which require further elaboration. The Ahom religion is an ethnic religion, by which it means one cannot convert to that religion via a ceremony. If it is true, as you keep insisting, that it is the Tai folk religion and nothing else, then under WP:N, there is no need for this article and we will ask that this be merged with Tai folk religion.

Chaipau (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chai You again remove all my edits on the references given by you. I think your view is not so important as all the references are suggesting my edits. Here you are showing the relation of TaiPeople with Tai-Ahom, Which is irrelevant here, first of all, Tai folk religion is something which is traditionally followed by Tai People including Ahom. It is a type of religion. But going against the revivalism you are removing the truth. You don't have the right to decide whether Ahom religion is under the category of Tai folk religion or not, as you haven't studied. All my edits are based on proper Sources given by you. Are the writers prescribed by you are wrong or the scholars who have categorized it into a Folk religion are wrong??

Sorry, we can't change the Tai-Ahom Script and references where clearly mentioned about the Phi, Khwan, Dam, Phra, and Nam-Lao. Also, we can't vanish the category Tai folk religion from earth. Here what scripts say are added nothing wrong or false that you should blindly remove going against the revivalism. I don't have any interest in editing wars. Anything that doesn't match with your point of view may not be wrong. Scholars, writers, researchers have found the similarities in the scripts and here you are trying to show the Hindu influences. If you want to show the Hinduism you can show on their pages not here, as this page is for the folk religion followed by Ahom people many years ago, and now by some revivalists. Sairg (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. You are removing texts with citations. I request you to restore them. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Kindly remark the edits from my all edits which is not rely on the reference given by you and also you can give me any other reference where my errors can be fixed, but here you are showing your own view against the references. Sorry but I think here you are not on the right path. Kindly do some research and if you find any reference match with your view you can show me on my Talk page. Sairg (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the reference Gogoi's PhD thesis. It lists two common elements between Tai religions that is ancestor worship and khwam. You are inserting your original research here. Please restore. Chaipau (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All the similarities taken from references nothing is my research here, even you have removed my new added source Gogoi 2006 which was reliable. Dam,Khwan from Gogoi thesis, Phi from Morey's journal which I will insert but I don't know your views will match with him or not, ,The Kun-Lu and others are from GOGOI 1976. Now where it is my own research or your views are not matching with these authors? I welcome you to give other sources which match with your views but for now these sources are available here. Sairg (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us go over the issues one by one. I shall put here two points. You are using different sources to claim that the religion is Tai folk religion alone and nothing else, which is WP:SYNTH, so not acceptable in Wikipedia. All these authors, especially Gogoi's PhD thesis clearly says there are influences from Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Terweil notices influence from Hinduism in rituals. Padmeshwar Gogoi compares the Pha-Tu-Ching's creation with the Rig Vedic Nasadiya Sukta. So you cannot pick and choose quotes from these different sources and make up your own conclusion. So this is what I suggest: remove these intricate issues elsewhere and put them in more detail in a separate section on its own.

Point two: You have been removing the link to ethnic religion, and I don't know why. The ethnic religion describes a religion that is associated with an ethnic group, which it is. This religion is associated with the Ahom people. Could non-Ahoms convert to this religion? I don't think they could without going through the Dam Phi process of three generations at least, or without claiming descent from a known Ahom. This makes no comment on whether the religion what exactly is the religion. And that is why it is important to describe in just a sentence the Ahoms, as the lead did before you removed it.

Chaipau (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chai Thanks for your reply, Again I want to repeat that Tai folk religion is not a single religion but the type of all the religion of All Tai people including Ahom.

first point- As I have mentioned the khwan Buddhism itself a Buddhism but still it is recognized as Tai folk religion as beacause of Isan Lao Tai belief in it. You may forget I have edited about the Theravada Buddhist influences Phralong by GOGOI 1976 Ref. And I also added the Kai Seng Mong which is a direct influence from Taoism. But you reverted the Chum-Pha edits ref. GOGOI 1976. I don't know why?

Second Point- I Removed it as All the Tai Folk Religions are surely ethnic and folk. So, I thought no need to mention again as described, but if you have argued no problem I will add it, But Tai folk religion is a necessary category, I think you understand. There is no way to join Non-Ahom as per my studies yet. But the Thai people and Laos people were joining Me Dam Me Phi as they also worship Phi, Khwan, Dam, and Phra on Tai folk religion and Local Buddhisms. They consumed Nam-Lao and Shans showed ancient scripts on Kai Seng Mong , Chicken Sacrifices. Hope you understand. Now tell me kindly what is the problem with this Religion Category Tai folk religion? Sairg (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Point 1: You have not answered why it is not WP:SYNTH.

Point 2: The dispute is not that it is a Tai folk religion. The point is that it is not the Tai folk religion, since there is no single Tai folk religion, but many, as you yourself have admitted. So you could say something like "The Ahom religion is a type of Tai folk religion" or that "The Ahom religion is one of various Tai folk religions". But the Tai folk religion page on Wikipedia is a very different religion than the one that is practiced by the Ahom. If you want to discuss the similarity with this religion, it is best done critically, citing sources, in a separate section. Right now, calling the Ahom religion as Tai folk religion is WP:OR.

Chaipau (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ChaiFor the first point due to lack of sources I am unable to show now, as you can't let me add new sources and remove instantly even it may reliable like GOGOI2006. But, we can't ignore Phi, Khwan, Dam, Phra, Kai Seng Mong similarities in both of the religions. For this matter, I know there is a need for More sources, But here I am expanding the articles Sources given by you , so let me do more study and kindly do not remove any new reliable source given by me, can go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Sairg (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gogoi2006 is not saying what you claim it is saying. From the link you have provided, Gogoi 2006 says that the Ahom religion, with its animism, is similar to the animistic religions of the local ethnic people of Assam of that time. And that this enabled the Ahoms to draw allegiance from the local non-Hindu ethnic groups. Chaipau (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chai As I said the first point issue cannot be solved using references given here including GOGOI2006, I just said about GOGOI2006 that you have removed one time, Can check the history. Now I think we can show the similarities with Tfr including Khwan, Phi, Dam, Phra, Nam-Lao, and Kaisengmung. Sairg (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need references in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the portion which doesn't have reliable sources and adding sources to the similarities with Tai folk religion.Sairg (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sairg: I have updated the lead according to the convergence we have achieved above. Chaipau (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)