Lore talk:Acharyai

Original Research

This page is very concerning to me, it is absolutely rife with speculation and original research and in truth if it was to remain its own individual lore page, would likely be whittled down to the two sources that actually mention Acharyai, Skeleton Man and the Old Ways book. Basically it seems you took your interpretation of what the Acharyai are meant to refer to in the Old Ways book, and absolutely ran with it all over this and other pages even though not a thing explicitly ties them to the et'Ada never mind says they are the ancestors of them. You then upon seeing the Skeleton Mans clearly conflicting definition of this viewpoint, claimed that the name merely refers to Aldmer in "certain dialects". Beyond speculative and in reality the context of the term as used in the Old Ways could very well be referring to Aldmer as well rather than some pre et'Ada ancestor spirits that this page is running with. I would ask that this page and all the other pages that were edited to reflect this original research position be corrected. Dcking20 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Acharyai being predecessors to the Daedra is stated definitively within The Old Ways. That much isn't original research. It says the Acharyai were the original entities from which all are descended, and that the Daedra and other gods (this is where et'Ada came from) who pull the strings of Mundus are merely powerful spirits that came from this line, like everyone else. That's the point of the Psijic Old Ways, that the so-called gods were once like everyone else. Your argument is based on Skeleton Man, which, for one, is an unofficial text by all of our standards at UESP, two, directly contradicts The Old Ways to the point where its definition wouldn't make sense both ways, and three, doesn't even mention Acharyai. It says Alcharyai, with an L. You can argue that they are meant to be the same, but that seems like blatant original research to me. One letter can mean a lot in Elvish, like in Aedra vs. Daedra where the entire meaning is opposite just from a D. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I owe you an apology on the Acharyai vs Alcharyai front, didn’t realize the different spelling and that definitely could and probably does mean different things entirely yes, good catch. Now that said, I still think there might be some issue with the interpretation of just what the Acharyai refers to here. There’s certainly a claim that these Acharyai were an "original people" in some fashion but I’m not seeing anything explicit that they would be the ancestors of the et'Ada, rather it seems just as valid of a reading that these Acharyai were the clan of mortal persons that ascended to become the various et'Ada. If this was the case they wouldn’t be the ancestors of the et'Ada, but rather the pre ascended mortal forms of them. Dcking20 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I made the same mistake upon a first reading, it's perfectly understandable. I do still contest that the Acharyai precede the gods per the text. To fully explain why I feel this way I'll take lines from the text directly and say what I think.

"We who know the Old Ways are well aware of the existence of a spiritual world invisible to the unenlightened."

The Great Stain refers to the spiritual world in the context of where the souls of mortals go after they die. Unilaterally, this refers to the various realms of Aetherius or Oblivion - I know of no race that goes or claims to go to any other realm when they die.

"What, after all, is the origin of these spiritual forces that move the invisible strings of Mundus?"

This refers back to the first line, as everything that follows it is analogy. So 'spiritual forces' refers to the spiritual world, and thus the forces of those worlds, the gods.

"Any neophyte of Artaeum knows that these spirits are our ancestors -- and that, while living, they too were bewildered by the spirits of their ancestors, and so on back to the original Acharyai."

The 'these spirits', then, also refers to the gods. Thus, they had their own ancestors, a chain that ends at the original Acharyai. That's how I break it down. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think its important to notate the one letter difference with a Acharyai should not be confused with a Alcharyai. We also have words like Salache almost one letter away from Saliache, and like mind mentioned, daedra vs aedra.Zebendal (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)