Talk:Śramaṇa

Pali

It's theoretically possible no one has ever bothered to discuss one of Pali's most important religious concepts in Pali on the internet but at the moment "𑀲𑀫𑀦" only shows up 7 times on the Google and every single one of them is copying this article. I assume it's just completely wrong, similar to how it's completely wrong that it is transcribed Śramaṇa, which is what the current formatting means. — LlywelynII 02:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... I see the problem(s). (a) Pali never had a dedicated script and most discussion now happens in romanized form. (b) Whoever added the Pali here didn't actually have any source. They just went to the Brahmi script page and did their best... with an inaccurate romanization. Brahmi distinguishes between na and ṇa and they used the wrong one. Fixed. — LlywelynII 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Yes, there's an "English" transcription into IPA at Wiktionary. I think it's fairly useless and misleading. We needed IPA in the lead but, if anyone adds an English version, we'll need all the sourced English versions and it will probably balloon enough to be an eyesore without creating a dedicated #Names section and putting the English IPA laundry list there instead.

(For the curious, Wiktionary has unsourced /ˈˌʃɹʌmənə/ "shruh-muh-nuh" from an editor who hears it that way in their head; most English speakers will parse the initial sound as /s/ until they know better and won't be able to help themselves accenting the penultimate syllable; before seeing the Sanskrit IPA but knowing about ś, I would've read it as /ˈʃɹəˌmɒːnə/ "shruh-mah-nuh" myself; and now having looked up the Sanskrit vowels and what the ṇ is trying to get across it'd be /ʃɹɒːˌmɒːnhɒː/ "shrah-mah-nhah" if I were going slowly or /ʃɹəˌmɒːnə/ "shruh-mah-nuh" if I wasn't. Point is, this isn't common enough for there to be a "right" way of doing it and we're better off not pretending that there is, except pointing out in some fashion what the ś is trying to say.)

To that end, it seems the best solution is to add the single standard Sanskrit form. The only problem there is that this IPA is based on our transcription but Wiktionary says that it should properly be "śramaṇá" instead, which—depending on what that's trying to get across—would change [ʃrɐmɐɳɐ] to [ʃrɐmɐˌɳɐ], [ʃrɐmɐɳɐː], or [ʃrɐmɐɳaː]. — LlywelynII 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello @Joshua Jonathan:

There has been considerable vandalism on this page for months now - at least since Septemeber 2023 from what i can tell.

Please take a look at this vandalism.

These edits remains unsourced, I will clean up but please take note there is considerable clutter on this page still. 117.198.114.26 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

@Livingstonshr: please explain what exactly you dispute. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terms like Muni, Yati and Rishi simply mean sages, they are incorrectly interpreted as shramans which amounts to pov pushing. In Vedic Hinduism, "shraman" term is just absent. The two sources given in the page themselves don't give a very clear justification to defend their own claims. Apart from this, a claim that Shraman culture originated from Vedic culture is incorrect. Upanishads were written during the same time (or later) when the 23rd Jain Tirthankar was born. Jain history prior to this is obscure. The entire writing lacks philosophical and historical foundation. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Olivelle is quite clear. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't quoted a single verse, not any primary sources has been provided here. Livingstonshr (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 2405:201:2002:6A1F:E8FE:8509:6E52:D3B8 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even a little knowledge on Sramana traditions would tell you that there is nothing Vedic about the Sramanism.
Sramanism is coherent, homogeneous and all theories are logically established based on certain axioms. 2405:201:2002:6A1F:E8FE:8509:6E52:D3B8 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

श्रवण / Shravan

Most Vedic / Brahmanical culture deals with various संस्कार (rituals). For example, Birth, Education, Marriage, Death. And there are debates about these. Even if you were to do service, there are even debates about superiority among service to mother, father, wife, kids, society, etc.

Think of श्रमण as श्रवण कुमार from रामायण. श्रवण is a person who is born a boy, and all his life he takes care of his blind parents and dies before them at the bank of a river. No education, no marriage, no kids, no death rituals. Other than being a servant of his parents, he doesn't do anything at all. No debates regarding him, whether he's a good person or a bad person. Even if he's not a good person, who is?

After having gone through various scriptures (Hindu and otherwise), I've found, if someone wants to believe in rebirth, Shraman / श्रवण is the best example. Be a servant to your parents, and die before them. Avoid all rituals. All of these are unnecessary. Lead a life of service and die young. Avoid old age.

If Hindu life is like a jail, where all you want is to get mukti from here, if श्रवण कुमार can't get it, nobody can.

That's श्रमण (or श्रवण) way of life. Avoid everything, serve your parents (without even considering who is superior, mother or father), and hope to die before them. Avoid all responsibilities. Just do your service, and get away. Arvind Singh (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Vedic and Brahmanical culture revolves around saṁskāras (rituals) — birth, education, marriage, death, and more. Debates arise around each of these, even around acts of service: who should be served first or considered higher — mother, father, wife, children, or society?
Now think of Śramaṇa in the sense of Śravaṇa Kumāra from the Rāmāyaṇa. Śravaṇa was a son who dedicated his entire life to serving his blind parents. He never pursued education, marriage, children, or even death rituals. His whole existence was simply service to his parents, until he died at the riverbank before them. There is no debate about him — whether he was “good” or “bad.” If such a person is not considered good, then who can be?
Across Hindu scriptures (and even beyond), if one wishes to believe in rebirth, Śravaṇa becomes an ideal example: serve your parents wholeheartedly, die before them, and avoid all other rituals. His life shows that all those formalities are unnecessary. A life of pure service, ending before the decline of old age, bypasses the weight of worldly responsibilities.
If life within the Hindu framework is like a prison, and liberation (mukti) is the ultimate release, then surely if Śravaṇa Kumāra cannot attain it, no one can. That is the Śramaṇa way of life: renounce everything else, serve your parents equally, and leave this world quietly. Arvind Singh (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C5%9Arama%E1%B9%87a