Talk:Puya (Meitei texts)
 | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Secondary Sources
editThese texts exist, but there are hardly any references on them. A Manipur user is spamming these articles with no references. Apparently, there is a nationalist dispute on whether these manuscripts are old (18th century) or fakes made in the 20th century. They became the basis of a number of proposed Meitei scripts in the 1960s.
This blog-post appears to give some context:
- The Differences between Puya Wakoklon Heelel Thilel Salai Ama-ilon Pukok and Puya Wakoklon Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok - by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen
- The first Puya, Wakoklon Heelel Thilel Salai Ama-ilon Pukok was kept and preserved by L. Songkhup Koireng and his family of longa Koireng since 18th century and was handed over to a group of Meetei Nationalists and followers of the Sanamahi Religion of Kangleipak on 17/10/1970 (Saturday). The group received the Puya was “Khwai Meetei Thoukal Langkal Malup”. This Puya was possessed by this group at first and then lastly the Puya was possessed by “Mannaba Apunba Marup” most probably upto this day.
- The second puya, Wakoklon Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok was possessed by Ahal-Ibungo Late Thokchom Thoukachanpa of Sagolband. In about 1960, the Puya was printed in Bengali scripts by late Thouka Chanpa
Apparently, the titles Wakoklon Heelel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok and Wakoklon Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok refer to two two distinct manuscripts with some differences:
- the Exclusion or Non-inclusion of the Kanglei Era Founder Maliyapham Palcha, King of Kangleipak, further creates a great suspicion in the minds of the readers in the Facts of Genuineness of the Wakoklon Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok Puya.
I am afraid that until somebody can cite secondary literature on this, we will be limited to simply stating that these texts exist. This cannot be more than a short paragraph at Meitei literature based on the minimal referenced information we have at this point. dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Issues
editPuya proof
editThe proof that puya exist before 18th century and it was verified by National archive of India in 1969 as a historical written document or literature[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
2 PuYas
editMoving page is not necessary when there is 2 PuYas with different content.
- The one with Heelel was written in Meetei mayek.
- The one without Heelel was written in Bengali script.
Former is original and latter is Frabicated. PuYas are religious texts while Literature are writings of any languages.
Puya is not religious book nor it is a single book or few book
editwhy is there a so many misinformation and repeated revert in this article.Luwanglinux (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- HOW many editor should I consult to reach a concencus regarding all the misinformations in this article This "Nongsamei puya"[2]is also a puya
Stop tagging Puya as religious texts
editProof have been found that it is not only religious records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://paochelsalaitaret.net/puya/puyaproof.pdf
- ^ Renuka, Mangsatabam. "The Muslim Settlers in Manipur during the Reign of Meidingu Khagemba" (PDF).
"Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik)" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. noq (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Puya literal meaning
editShould it be removed or not ? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- It will be added back, once I get a good source. This article will be expanded. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thank you, since its a meitei word I know it too and I think "pu" equating with ancestor is contained in the book you sent me too in critical comment by Parratt 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Scholarship
edit20 years has passed since Parratt's observation. What is the recent progress in this field? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ray, Sohini (2000). The sacred alphabet and the divine body: The case of Meitei mayek in north-eastern India (Thesis). University of California, Los Angeles. p. 150, 160. notes of a court case, which indirectly gave legitimacy to the authenticity of Wakoklon Puya. This has been cited by Brandt, too. Does Kautilya3 or Luwanglinux know of any way to access the court ruling? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- News 1. Case 1 and Case 2. The petitioner contended that
[t]he expert committee which was constituted by virtue of a court order submitted report recommending existing 27 scripts as the correct Meitei Mayek to the Govt. of Manipur, was not scientifically done whereas the expert opinion given by the Chief Epigraphist, Archaeological Survey of India, is based on scientific research.
Would be interesting to read the report of the expert committee (this is its acceptance by Governor) as well as the opinion of Chief Epigraphist. This semi-coherent text is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)- TrangaBellam, I can't be of help this time with accessing court ruling sorry but the actual letters from Wakoklon puya is not 27 script but 18 with other suffix and mathematical symbol this is my own report as I have read the scanned copy of original wakoklon puya 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- TrangaBellam, I can't be of help this time with accessing court ruling sorry but the actual letters from Wakoklon puya is not 27 script but 18 with other suffix and mathematical symbol this is my own report as I have read the scanned copy of original wakoklon puya 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- News 1. Case 1 and Case 2. The petitioner contended that
Pamheiba Larei Lathup Puya
edit- TrangaBellam Larei Lathup Puyas are the puyas which record details of kings reign and their dark side of the story sometimes even detail of their defeat often unfavourable to the king's reputation. The literal meaning of Larei Lathup can mean hidden secret. There is no english translation nor full publication of the puya(Pamheiba Larei Lathup Puya) itself yet as far as I know. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Splitting page
editCan Puya (Meitei texts) be splitted and expanded from the present page Meitei literature which is within sub section Meitei literature#Puyas of Meitei literature🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)