Talk:Gana

Comments

I am deleting this link, as it gives a misguided opinion of the democratic republics.

'The Ganas: Hooligans of Heaven'

Pl discuss before re inserting

Ravi Chaudhary 02:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have changed an intelligable article on mythology into this:

"'Gan' or 'gana' or 'jan' or ' Jana' is a group, and usually used to indicate a democratic republic., which is written as 'Ganpad' or 'Janapad'. His son Ganesh is the Lord of the Republic, the Ganpad or Janpad."

The first sentence does not even connect intelligibly with the second one. I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Paul B 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Response> I have corrected.

Paul,

For a deeper understanding:

The term: “Gan:” or “ Gana” means a group or a republic. The J and G are interchangeable and we find the term also written as “ Jan’ or Jan (a)’. The majority of the meanings arte Group, republic, army, and in very very rare few instances, is the meaning taken as “attendant”. Attendant is usually described as” dasa’. Many ‘ dasa((s) could form a group, a ‘gan(a).

In modern India we still find this usage, and India is described as Bharat( India) the Ganapad/Janapad( republic). A district in India is also called a Janapad.

The Gana is an ancient Indian, Sanskrit term for Group, referring to ancient society, which existed in groups. We get from that, that the Gana was a form of society, a republic, where democratic rules existed for the election of the leaders.

The term used for leader, ended in ‘esh’ to use a relevant example, and “Ganesh’ indicated the leader of the group of republic, whose permission was required for anything to be done in the republic.

According to the Shaivite streams, the legend of the of the distribution of the Daksh’s sacrifice, indicates an ongoing conflict between the Shaivite streams and the Vaishnav streams i.e. between Shiv and Vishnu.

The Shaivite steams were more republics and the Vaishnav streams were more hierarchical or monarchial. This statement needs also to be taken with moderation as we do find the streams overlapping each other, but broadly speaking it is true.

The Vishnu or Vaishnav streams derided the Shaivite, streams and described them using rhetoric, which entered their stream of literature and thought. Shiva, is shown in Vaishnav though at a god of destruction, shown in graveyards etc, all of which should be taken as rhetoric.

The legend of the Daksh’s sacrifice is also told thus:

From: History of the Jats R S Joon

An extract:

"The facts are that Shiv Ji lived in Gangotri Hills which, due to Shiv Ji's popularity, came to be known as Shiv ki Jata. The mountain ranges in that area is now known as Shivaliks. Raja Vir Bhadra of the Puru dynasty was the ruler of Talkha Pur near Haridwar, which also formed part of the area known as Shiv ki Jata.

This is the area around Haridwar. King Bhagirath brought the Ganga to the plains in this region. According to legend the Ganga flows out from Shiv Ji's Jata. Actually this also means that the Ganga flows out from the area known as Shiv ki Jata, the birthplace of the Jat Raja Vir Bhadra who was a follower and admirer of Shivji. On hearing of Sati's tragedy, Shiv Ji went to the durbar of Vir Bhadra and pulled at his hair in fury while narrating the story. This infuriated Vir Bhadra and with his army, are invaded Kankhal and killed Daksha.”

“Gana” is thus also an army.

If you wish to push a vaishnav streams, then you are correct, to deride the Gan(a) s or the republics of society

Ganesh the mythological son of Shiv(a) is also the lord of the republic, and in Hindu ceremonies today, he is the one with whom all ceremonies commence.

The ‘Gan(a)s are definably not individual beings, the attendants of Shiva.

Knowing that would you still say the article is ’ intelligible”?

Hope this make you understand the subject a little better. If you have an interest and look into the subject there is plenty of material.

We have had much discussion on this on the Jathistory group, start with:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/968

Please also do not make reverts to my edits without discussion.

Ravi Chaudhary 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ravi, it is absolutely wrong to rewite another editor's comments in Talk in order to make your own edit seem more coherent than it was. The rest of your commentary is a stream of assertion that seems more than a little idiosyncratic and is in parts very unclear to me. I quote from Monier-Williams' dictionary:

gaNa m. a flock, troop, multitude, number, tribe, series, class (of animate or inanimate beings), body of followers or attendants RV. AV. &c.; troops or classes of inferior deities (especially certain troops of demi-gods considered as Shiva's attendants and under the special superintendence of the god Ganesha; cf. %{-devatA}) Mn. Yajn. Lalit. &c.; a single attendant of Shiva VarBr2S. Katha1s. Ra1jat. iii , 270; N. of Ganesha W.; a company, any assemblage or association of men formed for the attainment of the same aims Mn. Ya1jn5. Hit.; the 9 assemblies of Rishis under the Arhat Maha1-vira Jain.; a sect in philosophy or religion W.; a small body of troops (= 3 Gulmas or 27 chariots and as many elephants, 81 horses, and 135 foot) MBh. i, 291; a series or group of asterisms or lunar mansions classed under three heads (that of the gods, that of the men, and that of the Ra1kshasas) W.; (in arithm.) a number L.; (in metre) a foot or four instants (cf. %{-cchandas})

So from this it appears that the word "gan(a)" can be used in a variety of contexts with the meaning of "grouping" or "association". So "republic" is certainly not factually incorrect, but rather a stretch. The article already stated that its meaning in Sanskrit was "category", which seems straightforward and NPOV. Its use to refer to a group of spirits seems analagous to the word "Host" (as in "Heavenly Host") in English. However, the central point is that it is used specifically to refer to a host of figures associated with Ganesha. That's the topic of this article. It is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopedia, so we are exploring the figures in mythology, not the various usages of the word. Also we don't want to get into attempts to argue that Vaisnavites are authoritarians and Saivites are egalitarians. Paul B 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Response> Paul

I am correcting my own earlier edit, not someone else’s.

“His son Ganesh is the Lord of the Republic, the Ganpad or Janpad."

I wish to replace it with” Lord Shiva’s son is Ganesh, Lord of the republic, the Gan (a) pad or Jan (a) pad.

Monier Williams tells you too that Gana' or Gan(a), is a flock, multitude, tribe, body of followers. That is how he starts his interpretation, and that is the correct one.

The Gana as 'attendant' is subsidiary, even in his interpretation.

Republic is then factually quite correct.

The 'Republic of India' is written as the “Gan (a)-Rajya of Bharat" even today. The national anthem of India starts with the words ' Jana- Gana- man"

" Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya He

Translated it means’ Thou are the ruler of the minds of all people,”

See: http://www.indianchild.com/national_anthem.htm

Here Gana stands for people and correctly so.

You have to understand the cultural context, and unless you do you make silly mistakes, like taking Lord Shiva's’ Gan (a) s as attendants or Virbhadra, the general of the Ganas, as an evil deity.

Virbhadra is a hero

Vir= hero

And for cultural context, we cannot ignore the Vaishnav- Shaivite conflicts. Understanding that explains the contradictory accounts that people have written into, and created as legends.

If you do not wish to understand, and take into account the cultural context, you will make errors!

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC) . Mr Barlow

Why are reverting edits,, rather than proving your POV on the discussion page.

Do you have something to be afraid of?

I have given plenty of references above, where Gan(a)-pad, is conisdered a republic, e.g teh Indian republic of India.

Are you suggesting that India is a 'category'instead of a republic.

or is revert and re-revert the only scholarship you bring to tsis site?

I will give you 10 days, then is you cannot produce evidence for your POV, I will make the changes - agian.!

Ravi Chaudhary 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has to make sense to a reader. Your edit simply does not. When I first came across it and immediately felt that something was wrong, because the article did not explain the topic at all. So I checked the edit history to see what had come before. The earlier article explained the subject, then it provided the etymology of the word. I've no doubt that the word can be used in many contexts, but you seem to be aqrguing that there were no beings of the kind described by Monier-Williams and others, but that Ganesha was given his name because he was the protector of democracy, or something of the sort. That looks like OR. Ans I see nothing to support it in your links. Paul B 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ravi, you are completely out of your depth. Gana and jana are two totally unrelated words, the first meaning "troop", and the second meaning "people". Why don't you people spend half a minute checking your facts before embarking on an edit war on Wikipedia??? Yes, ganarajya is from gana-. It is a loan-translation of demokratia for all I know. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, so ganarajya is not a loan-translation but dates to early Buddhist times, a coinage that is exactly parallel to democracy. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Response>>

In the indic languages

The J and G sounds are interchangeable

Please re-read your post.

If it sounds confusing to you, you will be correct.

The whole point, as you seem to write, is that the gan(a), is 'democratic'.- a democratic republican society

A troop/army cannot be democratic. It will not work. Orders must be followed.If they are not, there will be chaos.

An army needs blind authority, heirarchy, not continual anarchy, which is what a democratic republic is.

Do please read, with careand patience, what you have written.

I am not being sarcastic!

Ravi Chaudhary 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be clarification here with regard to the meaning and etymology of 'gana'. 'Ganapati' as Ganesh is a later Hindu conception. Earlier connotations of 'ganapati' refer to Brihaspati. Sarayuparin 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganas as Shiva's attendants

Those Ganas represent parts of the subconcious that is repressed or denied. They are released "when Shiva's indifference is replaced by righteous idnignation". Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Oka4ekgGDRoC&pg=PA1&dq=shiva+god+worship+intitle:Shiva&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ZuCXPpBqLzqciQbZKacoSXg9K4A#PPA35,M1 (page 35) --N33 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Appearance

We see their roles, and their etymology, and their mythology...Does anybody have anything to say, that can be verified on their appearances? Thanks The Penultimate (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 09:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)