Talk:Vedas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Major Point of View problems with this article

This sounds like religous dogma to me and is presented as historical fact:

"The Vedas were compiled by the great sage Krishna Dwipayana during the Dwapara Yuga with the goal to come up with a de-facto standard of education. Upon gathering all the teachings passed on from the Acharyas(Teachers) to their Sishyas(Students) from Kingdom to Kingdom"

Another example:

"The Vedas are considered Shruti (or Sruti), or revealed texts. They were not given by a prophet, but heard by many different Rishis (or very advanced Yogis) during deep meditation"

--Qweniden 16:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Vedas are revealed literature, revealed by the various sages who are clearly mentioned along with their geneologies. To consider them divine, we have first to prove the existence of God. What does Wikipedia say about that? Aupmanyav 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like the origin of Vedas, these sages and their genealogies are still mythical. Without historical personalities how can we place a reality check. As such what we have is simply a statement that it existed and it was reavealed to some mythical person.

-- user 11/18/2006

Why should the origin of Vedas be considered mythical? After all a poem is written by a human. And why should the sages be considered mythical if a book clearly mentions the name, geneology, and region from which they hail (Upamanyu was a Kamboja, probably Charsadda in Afghanistan, and Vishwamitra was a Kaushik, from Kusha-dwip, grass-land, probably the steppes of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). Why should these personages be considered mythical without any proof? These were real persons. There is correct cross reference in various verses. Aupmanyav 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic Dating Continued

The article states that vedas were composed 5,000 to 20,000 years ago. pls check this

sandy

for all of you who think that it is the "scholarly consenus" that 1500BC is the legitimate date, I urge you to contact Professor Santucci of California State University Fullerton.

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/jsantucci/

He is the head of comparitive religion and also an "indologist" that is well versed Sanskrit, the Upanishads, and the Vedas.

He himself has stated that the dating on the Vedas is speculative and there isnt a single shred of proof for 1500BC.

If anything, all of the proof points to a much older date.

So no, it is NOT the "scholarly consensus" that the Vedas are dated to 1500 BC. Anonymous, please register with Wikipedia and give yourself an identity. I agree with you. 1500 BC is orientalist bullship for something which may be 15000 years old. Aupmanyav 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the oldest portions of the Samhhitas (e.g., RV ii-vii, parts of x, portions of the SV) refers to a period prior to the late bronze age. That said, there should be a distinction made between the dating of the texts and the dating of the culture the texts describe. The scholastic dating of the texts is based upon theories regarding the length of time it takes for certain language changes to occur. Actually, 1500 BCE itself is a concession to the older-veda school because most Indologists in the 19th and 20th centuries settled on something around 800 BCE for the older parts of the RV (except for Muller who thought it was around 1200 BCE and Haug who also thought it was much older, though not as old as the Gathas). I personally think the archaeological evidence from the Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan, and Ghandara do point to a much earlier date than 1200 or 1500 BCE for the time of Indo-Iranian unity, but this doesn't mean the texts themselves were composed then. Those are two distinct problems.--Almijisti 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The dating of Taittiriya Samhita can be stated quite accurately. This was when it was found that sun rose in Pleidas (Krittika) instead of Orion (Mrigashiras). That gives us a date of 2,500 BCE. B.G.Tilak in his 'Aryan Homes in Vedas' opines that the European and Iranian branches had separated from the Indian branch. Avestan story of Yima saving species of humans, animals, and vegetation by keeping them in an enclosure (Vara) is the original deluge story and is 20,000 years old. When the story reached regions where there was no snow, it changed into a deluge by water. New research has found that at least some parts of the RigVeda existed in prose before they were versified by later makers of Samhitas. The culture, of course, kept on changing and is found in India today with its admixture of indigenous Hindu culture and in Parsis as modified by Zarathrushta. Aupmanyav 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I CERTAINLY feel that the Veda dating in this article should be immediately changed because it illustrates a very biased source and thinking. The date of 1500 BC and the vedas being only about like 500 - 1000 years old is so absurd it is a wonder on how many people even thought like this. That idea came up originally from European "experts" and "scholars" who randomly used wrong timelines to come up with an insignificant number. I am not making fun of any of these people such as Max Mueller, but they were no experts with the Indian subcontinent or its culture, so how come they were the ones who got to "officialy" date the Vedas. The thing that makes me angry is that a lot of the people who believe in the Vedas, Hindus and others, actually believe that date till today. I am no radicalist, but if someone else is telling you where and when your religion came up, I can bet it cannot be right. The people from the location of the Vedas must do some innovative and thorough research on this topic to come with a number that is both correct and unbiased without political bureaucracy or things like that. Yet, from what I have heard from a majority of modern scholars the actual date is very hard to figure out because of the Vedas being handed down by word of mouth and perishable scriptures. Still, through its content the Vedas are rated at least 14,000 years old! That is a far cry away from 1500 BC. 1500 BC is used because the people who came up with this number did not have any history past that or a certain period. Thanks for reading. Mebizzare 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with the dating is the question of languages. What language was used to convey this revelation. At least in the current language it is impossible to be dated as far as 1500 B C even since writing did not exist at that time. Sanskrit itself was not in existance until 150 A.D and it came to be popular only by fifth century A.D. Apart from Rig Veda (excluding Mandala II and X) all other Vedas are written today in Sanskrit and could not have been written down earlier than 150 A.D. How far back in history it was transmitted orally and in what language it was transmitted is anybody's imagination. We cannot refute such an assertion while they cannot assert it as a fact. It is just a conjecture.

If it helps to build a "academic consensus," Dr. Stuart Ray Sarbacker has also set the date at roughly 1500 BCE. He is a tenured professor at Northwestern University and also, I believe, chair there of the Religious Studies dept. Happy arguing.

Vedas are called shruti. They were transferred vocally from generation to generation, when some one decided to write them down. If anything can be said about their history, it will only be about then they weer written down as text, and not at all about when they were created. As far as 1500 years is concerned, that date is debated from long time. As a matter of fact, there has been a lot of other debates about mention of vanishing of river Saraswati in vedas, or is really Saraswati, or if the date concides with Indus valley civilizations etc. All in all, it is debated. The article should mention this inherent inaccuracy in determining the correct date and move along.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the last two unsigned posts. Dr. Stuart Ray Sarbacker is a ternured professor at Northwestern university and the poster believes that he is the chairperson of the religious studies department. But he/she has forgotten to mention why what Sarbacker says must be accepted by the whole world? Only Mandala I and X are in Sanskrit, the other eight are older and in Vedic Sanskrit. How does the coming of existence of Sanskrit in 150 AD (some people give 400 BC as Panini's date) give any idea about the dating of Vedas. The two things are completely different. Since writing came only in 1500 BC, we have to look for other pointers to the antiquity of Vedas. Basically the astronomical references in Vedas. The Vedas mention Vernal Equinox on the day when sun rose in the asterism of Orion. If we accept that it brings the reference to 4000 BC. There is also a mention of "Aditi being the beginning and end of Satra (the annual yagna cycle)". Aditi is related to asterism Punarvasu. If we accept that it bring the reference to 6,500 BC. Aupmanyav 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Four Books of the Vedas

Hello,

Someone edited the "The Four Books of the Vedas" section to read "The Four Books of ollie", apparently today (20-Oct). A look at the last revision shows that a section of text was also deleted.

Can someone familiar with the editing process please fix this?

Thank you.

[edit] move

this should be moved to Veda (singular), like Brahmana, Aranyaka, Upanishad (also Shrautasutra, Grhyasutra). dab 08:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Vedas only for Hindus?

Hi! I'm not an expert in Hindu philosophy, but as far as I know, the Vedas were not written with the Hindu religion in mind. It is not a religious scripture meant for Hinduism as many people feel. It was written long before there was even a concept called religion. It's just a doubt. Can someone clarify? Jam2k 21:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You are mostly and perhaps completely right, and it fact this article as of now is good old Orientalism (vilifying Arab culture: the aspect which Edward Said dealt with in Orientalism; and glorifying Hinduism and Buddhism). I'd think the concept of religion usually arises only when two different belief systems meet. There might be exceptions, but I don't think the Vedas provide them. I am not an expert on this, and may be some hymns of the later vedas do show awareness of the concept of religion. But unlikely, I'd say. There is the problem of apocryphal verses also - writing was not known in these parts then (I'm sure there was nothing called "religion" though - those poems predate modern English :) ) 61.2.6.36 05:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) (from "these parts" specif. Calcutta India)

The other two entries are from 2004, 2005. Let me add one for 2006. Vedas were not written for Hindus. They were for their own people, the Aryans, who probably started from a sub-polar region and landed among other places in Central Asia, where they remained for a length of time. Here they were met by Hindus around (3,000-2,500 B.C.), the two took to each other and gelled. Commentaries on Vedas like the Taittariya Sanhita were written during this period (named as the 'Orion Period' by Tilak). Central Asian hindus, who probably were not too many in number later succumbed to Zorastrians and then to Buddhism. The Aryans who came to India prospered, settled in India, became one with Hindus, and were the only one to be able to save the Vedic tradition. Later, combined Aryans and Hindus refined the 'Brahman' principle and wrote Upanishads.

User 61.2.6.36, I do not know if you would ever return to this page, but please know, we have no interest in villifying Arab culture (actually we do not think much of it). Hindu differences with Abrahamic religions are very clear. We do not believe in exclusivism, revelations, and contracted saviors. I do not see any reason why Hindus would glorify Buddhism. Live with it, no problem, we have done that with all religions of the world. We have all that Buddhism has, without the confusion of Nibbana and Buddha Mind. You are not very correct in saying that concept of religion arises when two different systems meet. In India we had hundreds of different systems, but we found a common denominator, and have no word of religion even now except for 'panth' and that is a personal choice and nothing much to fight for. Hindus put much more emphasis on right action (Dharma). Aupmanyav 04:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The concept of the Aryan race originating from Subpolar regions is a fantasy that europeans hold on to as it is being taught in our schools today. The Vedas clearly states that the Aryans who wrote the vedas, divinely or not, originates from the Himilayan regions of India. Why has no one addressed the issue that the vedas is being portrayed as a polytheistic text, when in deed it is a monotheistic text which originated the Jewish teachings as well as Islam and Christianity, even though the direct "child" of the vedas is modern hinduism?02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sub-polar origin of Vedas is not a fantasy for these reasons (or otherwise you give me a better explanation): 1. Seven suryas born to Aditi and the eighth born dead/deformed (and aptly named Martanda, Mrit + Anda), 2. Ushas, the thirty sisters that delayed arrival of sun, 3. Ati-Ratra, which could be up to 100 days and no more (please note 1+2+3 make 12 months of a year), 4. Navagwah and Dashagwah, priests who completed their satra in nine or ten months. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who is one of the proponents of the theory was not a European. I suppose Himalayas are not even mentioned in Vedas. Many of the Rishis were from Central Asia and are mentioned as Valhik (Balkh) or Kamboja, Charsadda in Afghanistan (like my progenitor, Upamanyu; the name even now is a caste name in Hindus). The second verse of the first chapter of RigVeda asks Agni to come with all Gods. Yes, the unitary Brahman is also mentioned in Vedas. So, it represents many views, not just one. Of course Hinduism is a direct child of the 'Vedas', only what you forget is that a child always has two parents, indigenous Indian belief (Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Devi, Bhairav, etc.) is the other parent. You also forget that in history hindu influence extended at least up to Hindukush and possibly even beyond. Aupmanyav 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Vedas (old edition) from [1]. From "There is hardly any Hindu" up to "Why this circumlocution?" - Vague | Rant 07:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
- 203.199.120.7 is a serial copyright violator. I have commented on his user page twice, and since I have noticed that in addition to violations I have found, BrokenSegue also removed Problems In Hinduism, a repost of Riddle In Hinduism, which I removed. - Vague | Rant 08:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

End moved text

Copyvio revisions deleted from article history. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vedam

Vedas are also referred to as Vedam in the various Indian languages. Hence i added "Vedam" too as part of the intro to Vedas.

Veda, Vedam, SrimadBhagawat, SrimadBhagawatham, Geeta, Gita, Geetha. Does it make any difference when we are thinking of these sublime philosophies. Aupmanyav 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veda (band)

Does anyone mind if "Veda" is redirected to "Veda (band)" ? At Veda (band), there is a note at the top of the page for anyone looking for Vedas. If you want to keep Veda redirecting as it is, I'd like a note at the top of this page redirectly those looking for the band.

Humm, well. Which should it redirect to – one of the world's most important bodies of religious scripture, or a pretty obscure rock band from Kansas that was only formed last last year? Tough choice. I think, on balance, that it should remain as it is. Paul B 00:40, 4 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I appreciate the note at the top of the page.

[edit] Pronunciation

I wanted to know the correct pronunciation, but there was nothing on the main entry page. I see one reference in the discussion here ("Ved-ah"?). If there is agreement amongst the scholarly, could this be added to the main page?

This confusion about a word ending with a vowel is common among non-native speakers of Indian languages. There is this characteristic among the different laguages of India where some words are pronunced ending with a vowel or consonant. For eg. "ved" in Hindi is equivalent to "veda" in Telugu. Silmilarly, for Ramayan/Ramayana, Mahabharat/Mahabharata, yug/yuga, swarn/swarna. Native Indian speakers do not see these differences as any significant but as mere differing phonetic forms. Sriwiki

Regarding Vedic/Sanskrit pronunciation: All sounds in the older language were meant to retain their full value. Thus, final vowels were never dropped. Vedas was meant to be pronounced thus. The letter "A" was not written out unless it appeared individually. Other vowels besides A, when preceeded by a consonant, were written out. Today, most Indian languages drop the final vowels from Sanskrit words, hence: Raja becomes "Raj", Rama becomes "Ram", etc. This is incorrect and is simply a simplification and "modernizing" of Sanskrit based words. Hindi, Gujarati, Panjabi, etc, are languages that have retained some Sanskrit words (along with a staple of Irano-Arabic vocabulary) and a general Indo-European grammar.

By the time of the Grammarian Panini, Sanskrit was regarded as an almost "algebraic language" due to its increasingly complicated and stratified grammatical rules including: consonant and vowel replacements and substitutions, word and sound combinations, word fusions and amalgamations. A simple example of this is the fact that Sanskrit words are not seperated in a sentence but, rather, fuse into one continuous stream of Devnagari letters.

Additionally, Vedic was a musical, or tonal language in many aspects. Sanskrit retains a compendium of accents based on the earlier language but these really do not function in the same accord as the older language. Vedic/Sanskrit are highly inflected languages much like Latin, Old Greek, Modern Slavic languages and many North American Indian languages. In contrast Hindi, which uses Devnagari script, and Urdu, which uses an Arabic script, are both showing signs of drifting from an inflected state to a non-inflected state. Hence, modern Indian languages are streaming towards simplification. Most of the case endings in the modern Aryan based Indian languages have diminished along with the dual number and certain tenses. User: Michael Hajko

"Inflectionary" character has nothing to do here. Indian languages (Dravidian or non-Dravidian) have not changed a wee bit except for imbibing foreign words into their vocabulary. The drifting patterns with reference to inflection are imaginary and baseless. Unlike the old European languages with notable use of inflections, inflection is a rule for any constructed speech and grammar in Indian languages. The non-observance of certain vowels at the end of words is characteristic of the language. The current day Hindi usage is vastly influenced by Urdu and related Arabic languages (where the word end vowel property is absent). Thus it turned out for the Hindi speakers a matter of convenience to ignore the vowel ending sounds.. prefer to call "Ram/Raj" than calling as "Rama/Raja" as in Sanskrit, Telugu or Kannada. This is the case not only for nouns but also for verbs and adjectives. The simplification with respect to the vowel relaxation in North-Indian languages is not a drift but has existed since their association with Arabic languages.

"Hindi, Gujarati, Panjabi, etc, are languages that have retained some Sanskrit words (along with a staple of Irano-Arabic vocabulary) and a general Indo-European grammar." The above quote is completely incorrect. There is hardly any Indian language that has not been sanskritised. Notable difference is about the North-Indian ("Indo-European/Aryan") languages that have a heavy Arabic flavor and vocab when compared to their South-Indian counterparts that have remained largely untouched. For the same reason, the classical Carnatic music (the traditional Hindu/Sanskrit music) is associated with Telugu/Tamil/Kannada/Malayalam (all Dravidian/Southern languages) and Sanskrit. Carnatic music is NOT composed in Hindi/Punjabi/Gujarati despite the Sanskrit presence, because, 1) the languages have not retained the Sanskrit flavor (though retained the words) 2) (/say consequence) a large number of Carnatic musicians have hailed from the South. In contrast, North Indian languages have become associated with Hindustani music (with heavy Arabic influences). Sriwiki 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the North-Indian languages that you mention to have a heavy Arabic or Persian flavour have retained nearly all their verbs from Sanskrit (Hasana, Khana, Peena, Rona, Gana, Aana, Jaana, Sona, Jagana, Karna, Marana, Jeena, ..). Should I say Urdu is 70% Sanskrit? Aupmanyav 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Surely the correct term is "Veda", the plural being a mistake often made in English? Wikipedia naming conventions might countenance the plural (though I think that we should use the correct form), but we should at least explain this in the summary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

'Veda' is a Sanskrit term for divinely revealed truth. 'The Vedas' are a collection of early Sanskrit chants of praise that were addressed to the gods, constituting a form of 'veda' but not the only (nor a complete) expression of it. It's true that you don't form plurals in Sanskrit the way you do in English, but using a fairly easily understandable collective form makes it clear that we're talking about the collection of 4 texts, not the concept of divine truth. Since the Vedas are almost always discussed collectively, it makes pretty good sense- not to mention the fact that pretty much any English language text that you pick up on this topic is going to refer to "The Vedas" (including scholarly ones). It might not be exactly orthodox Sanskrit, but it's well established, mostly harmless, and much simpler than expecting the casual reader to be able to judge on sight the difference between veda, vedā, and vedaṃ --Clay Collier 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quickly checking through the books I have to hand, I find Hinnell's The Penguin Dictionary of Religions saying that the Rig-veda, Sama-veda, Yajur-veda(, & Atharva-veda) "are sometimes inaccurately referred to as 'the Vedas', but Veda is one, and the reference should be to the three (or four) samhita [...] of the Veda." The Columbia Encyclopedia follows this usage ([2]). This isn't odd; the Rig-veda, for example, is also a collection, but referred to in the singular.

Still, I suppose that it's not crucial here (though could something be said in the article?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel is absolutely correct. 'Veda' is a much better title. Wikipedia is the perfect place to make a clean break from erroneous language conventions. Veej 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Veda is for 'knowledge'. That many people take it as revealed truth is only a belief, or respect for the wisdom contained in them. Vedas clearly mention the name and antecedents of the person who 'heard' them in their heart, as poets are wont to do (intuition, inspiration). They are not revealed truth in the manner of Qur'an. The verse writers are taken to be wise people but not as prophets or messengers. Aupmanyav 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] henotheism

The section "religious views" has been lifted from an earlier version of the Henotheism article. As it stands it's self-contradictory and inaccurate, so I've replaced it with a more recent version, but it may be worth asking whether it's appropriate here. The problems with the earlier version were the claim that Muller's account of paradoxes of Rig-Vedic religious culture were a "one man view". They were widely shared, and essentially the same difficulties of interpretation exist today. Anyway, the second paragraph only points out that monist elements exist, which is already expressed within the view that's supposed to be being criticised. So the "criticism" doesn't do anything other than ignore aspects of the text that it doesn't want to acknowledge. Paul B 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-Check details

1. It is better to provide traditional POV. For eg.,when discussing the time of creation of vedas, it should be mentioned that 'time immemorial' quality of the vedas.

2. It is not correct to add POV of historians - early/later vedic period etc. It may not be correct to say that vedic mantras could be freely interpreted.

3. POV on monotheism - polytheism, conclusions about additions and distortions (like vedic education to women etc) are to be reviewed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shridharan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 18 March 2006.

I've removed the {{POV-check}}, as it's unclear what you think that the problem is. You seem, in your first two points above, to be asking for a certain point of view to be added, and for cited scholarly views to be removed — which is the opposite of what should happen. Your third point is again too vague for me to be sure what you think is wrong with the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation of Vedas

I've added section to the Article called "Interpretation of content in the Vedas". There is a five part series called the "Divine Message of the Veds" that has interpretations of selected passages within the four vedas. I think these works add much value to the Vedas section. Let me know if you agree or disagree. User:Mtrack81 14:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your spelling to Vedas. IMHO, Veda is better than Ved. Aupmanyav 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmogony

Mel Etitis: I am surprised that when we talk of cosmogony in Vedas, how could we miss out on the 'Nasadeeya Sukta', which the whole world knows as the 'Hindu Creation Hymn'. And how can we miss out on the terrific iconoclastic thoughts contained in the hymn; and the questions on space, time, and existence which can easily be mouthed by even a 21st Century scientist, and the take on the idea of God. Are you not brave enough to face what a Vedic poet wrote some 5000 year ago? Aupmanyav 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're addressing me, nor why you do so in that confrontational tone. It's not my article (that's not how Wikipedia works). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis: I am sorry if I sounded confrontationalist. This is far from what I intended, I was trying to have some fun. Though I feel what is mentioned in the 'Nasadeeya Sukta' should find mention on the Vedas page especially in cosmogony. Aupmanyav 13:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a reference to the hymn, do so. You don't need to be brave! Perhaps the words might be "mouthed by a 21st century scientist", but perhaps he would not. Paul B 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The contents of the vedas: have they any moral or spiritual value?

Content is taken from Dr. Babasahebs Ambedkars illuminating Book " Riddles in Hinduism" visit link below for the complete Book

http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm#r06 --Yeditor 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put this very long new section into order, but in the end had to give up and just remove it. It's a personal essay, with some very dubious reasoning, and I found it impossible to rewrite it in neutral, encyclopædic English.

As an example of the faulty reasoning, just take the first paragraph:

"If the Vedas are to be accepted as binding and Infallible then what they teach must have ethical and spiritual value. Nobody can regard a rag to be binding and infallible because a Philosopher like Jaimini came forward to lend his authority to such a proposal. Have the Vedas any ethical or spiritual value? Every Hindu who regards the Vedas are infallible is bound to consider this question."

Why must something have moral and spiritual value (whatever "spiritual value" means) just because it's binding and infallible? There could, for example, be a binding and infallible train time-table, or a binding and infallible set of rules for winning at chess.

Perhaps the idea is that for one and the same thing to be both binding and infallible it must be both prescriptive and descriptive (presriptive for the binding part and descriptive for the infallible part), but even if this goes through, it's not clear that only morality is both these things. Most philosophies of science, for example, have been both descriptive and prescriptive. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just cut-n-paste from a chapter of one of Ambedkar's books, which is preumably still in copyright. Paul B 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism has many kind of people in its fold, many do not consider Vedas to be infalliable or apaurusheya, and do not consider them binding. It is not necessary that they may have equal ethical or spiritual value in every word of every verse. Jaimini may have said many things. There may be some value in all what he has said, some value in something that he has said, and also no value in all things that he has said, that would depend on the disposition of the person who is reading it. Also the person reading it may be a wise person, he may be of limited intelligence, or he may be an outright fool. 'Munde Munde Matirbhinna'. Aupmanyav 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating Vedas

Reference to ancient Egyptian texts the "Story of Sinhue" and the "Ipuwer Papyrus" is superflous, there is no need to mention it with reference to Vedas. To date Vedas at 1,500 BC is completely baseless (if I could say, shit). How do you, then, explain the beginning of the year and sacrificial ceremonies with sun at Vernal equinox in Beta Geminorium (Punarvasu) according to B. G. Tilak (Aditi period). That is 6,000 BC. You must understand that Vedas are the songs of an aboriginal people. Aupmanyav 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dating ancient (and mediæval) Indian texts is notoriously difficult; it's best not to present one theory as simple fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. But the article says 'The newest parts of the Vedas are estimated to date to around 500 BCE; the oldest text (RigVeda) found is now dated to around 1500 BCE'. This is based on guess, while Tilak was talking about evidence contained in the text which has been overlooked. Aupmanyav 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, in every case I've seen, evidence is textual evidence is brought forward only to be refuted. The Judæo-Christian Bible is probably the most investigated and researched book in the world, and scholars still disagree about the proper dating of it various parts (not to mention the earlier versions for which we only have textual evidence). The dates mentioned in the article aren't at all certain, and may well be wrong — but it's odd to say that they're merely guesses, as though scholars have simply tossed a coin.

Of course, the problems are exacerbated here by the insistence by some nationalists (on little evidence, to be honest) that dating the Vedas, as well as the status of other historical theories such as the Aryan Invasion, etc., are merely the result of Western prejudice, so that solid evidence for them is deemed overturnable with the whisper of evidence the other way.

That Indian thought and civilisation goes back far more than 8,000 years is undeniable, and that it predates most other civilisations, but that the Vedas do is rather less clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact that River Saraswati dried up (as believed by modern geologists) around 1,900 BCE makes the date given (1,500 BCE) laughable, because by that time Aryans had made Saraswati valley their home (Arya Varta), so that when they moved to other regions (Kashmir, Maharashtra, and others), they were still known as Saraswats. So the migration and settlement must have been at least around 2,500 BCE.

The geography presented in RigVeda is very different from that of India with the nine or ten-month sacrificial year (Navagwah, Dashagwah), Ati-Ratra (long night) ceremony of not more than 100 days, the thirty sisters (dawns) who tarried for long, and the sun which got stuck up in the middle of the sky. The textual evidence can be refuted only by irrational scholars bent on not accepting it (many western scholars or 'Aryans are indigenous' Indians). Dating of Judeo-Christian Bible nothing to do with the subject. Toss a coin, that is exactly what Max-Mueller did. 250 years for RigVeda, and the same for Aranyaks, Brahmans, and Upanishads; and arrived at a grand date (very gratifying to missionaries). Is that history? It takes millenia to come up with the sort of facts and philosophy as mentioned in these books. The recession of equinox from Punarvasu to Orion, Orion to Pleidas, Pleidas to Arietis is clearly mentioned in the RigVeda and Sanhitas. That is a clear 8000 years. BTW, research says that RigVeda was initially in prose, it was turned into verse by the Sanhita writers, i.e., RigVeda is older than the first song in the world (barring mama's lullaby). So what Avesta says is correct, Aryans were displaced from their homeland by cold and snow ('And Angre Mainyu sent a great serpent' - glacier). Avesta even has a deluge story with a difference, snow in place of water. (http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-contents.html) Aupmanyav 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in other discussions, the identification of the Saraswati in the Vedas is (to put it mildly) uncertain. The main problem, though, is that you're merely gesturing vaguely at complex issues, making accusations with no evidence, calling things clear when in fact they're obscure and wrapped in poetic imagery and metaphor, etc., etc. Claims like "It takes millenia to come up with the sort of facts and philosophy as mentioned in these books" is at best suppositional.

The views for which you're arguing are minority views, held almost wholly by people with independent and unconnected reasons for wanting to dispute current scholarship. The scholarly consensus is against you. perhpas its wrong and you're right; perhaps, but that's not the point here. We are committed to such policies as Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and so on. I'm working on an article that will deal with these sorts of disputes; when it's ready to be added to Wikipedia, I'll place a link in this and other relevant articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, there is no accusation, only discussion. Saraswati (Milky way) was the original Aryan celestial river, whose divine waters (apah) were blocked by dasyus and then released by Indra every year, it was a renewal of the year. When the homeland was lost and the tradition forgotten, Aryans named many rivers as Saraswati during their travels. One of the candidates is Hari-rud in Herat (mentioned in Avesta as Haroyuvaiti, their sixth home), another was in India (Hapta-Hendu, their fifteenth home). I would leave Max Mueller's estimation of 250 years for RigVeda to your understanding. In what way you consider Tilak's research as not original and not valuable (he was preceeded and followed by many other scholars holding similar views, both Indian and Western)? One name which comes to my mind is Wintzel as it was mentioned by Tilak many times, I can find more from his book. Please do not dismiss contrary views as vague and belonging to a minority, reason. The story is very simple and crystal clear unless somebody would not wish to see it. Problems arise only when one tries to avoid the obvious. Aupmanyav 10:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You've accused scholars who hold different views "irrational", and of merely tossing coins.
Your insistence that the interpretation you favour is "crystal clear", so that anyone who disagrees must be wilfully blind or just stupid, is also unacceptable.
It's a simple fact that the majority of scholars, Indian and non-Indian, reject the view that you're pushing. The only reason for this that you seem able to offer is that they're either intellectually corrupt or monumentally inept in their field. That's not an intellectually respectable approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be doing the same with Tilak's theory. Aupmanyav 09:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No; I've pointed out that this is a minority theory, which is at least in part motivated by extra-scholarly political factors, and that the majority scholarly opinion rejects it. Besides, how would my actions somehow mean that your accusations weren't really accusations? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, Howdy? Sometimes the minority may be correct. Please do not accuse Tilak of extra-scholarly factors. Had it been that, he would have tried to prove (as many Hindus do) that Aryans were indigenous Indians. Aupmanyav 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambedkar

I have added a whole section on the criticism of the vedas. This is essential to maintain the balance in the article. The Text has been taken from the scholarly book of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar , "Riddles in Hinduism" All material is properly referenced to the Vedas. Do not delete. This is the second time i am doing this --Yeditor 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it will continue to be deleted. Anyone can read Ambedkar's views on the website devoted to his work. Inserting a very long unattributed lump of his work is not appropriate, and is contrary to WP policy. By all means add a summary of his arguments, attributed to him, with a link to the webpage giving the full text. Paul B 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivers in Vedas

This refers to the flow of Ganga in the Vedas. What RigVeda says is that Ganga emerges from the mountains and flows directly into sea with great noise. That is problematic. The sea is far away from the place where Ganga comes out of the mountains. Of course, thre was a sea in the Indo-Gangetic plain before the sedimentation, but according to geologists that was 200 million years ago when Indian plate rammed into the Eurasian plate. My reference to flow of Ganga is based on Tilak's book. Please do not think that by this I am trying to prove Vedas to be 200 million years old. There was no disappeared tributaries of Ganga. On the other hand, geologists opine that due to techtonic upheavals, Ganga captured waters of Yamuna, which was ealier a tributary of Saraswati, around 1,900 BCE, thereby aiding the its disappearance. The other factor that may be involved is climatic changes resulting in lesser rainfall. (http://www.aryashaadi.com/SocialOrganisation/Brahmin/Images/saraswati_river.gif, http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps/saraswati.gif, http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps/ssys.jpg, http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/kach/isro1.jpg) Aupmanyav 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created two images about River Saraswati using GoogleEarth, the first shows the not-so-dry bed of the river (after all River Ghagghar flows in its place, green line in the upper half of the image) and second shows the point of capture where River Yamuna which pirated its waters is closest to its course. (http://groups.msn.com/reviversoftheancientindianglory/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=961) Aupmanyav 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God?

Okay, let's get one thing clear: Brahma is not God nor is anyother entity in this polythesistic religion. This reference to sing "God" is only recent, and is the Indian's way of either selling out or assimilating to the West. In some english re-write interpretation of the Quran, authors will print "God" in place of "Allah", so as to make it more pallatable to the westerners. In this instance it is okay, since Allah is Arabic for "The God", and Christian Arabs also call God, Allah. It is printed that way in the Arabic Bibles. MPA

Depends on the belief of the person. Please note the difference between the two words, Brahma, the creative principle, one of the trinity, the other two being Vishnu (Preservation) and Shiva (Destruction). This is basically a Vaishnav belief. Worshippers of Shiva would resent his being associated only with destruction. Brahman, on the other hand is the substance/power of the universe, some Hindus will associate it with consciousness (Saguna, with attributes in certain circumstances), others would take it to be Nirguna (without attributes). Please do not try to understand Hinduism if you are not serious about it, because you would find it beyond a limited intellect. Hinduism is not only polytheist, it is also dualist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, henotheist, atheist, and whatever else. Hinduism never placed any bars on personal beliefs of its adherents and accepted all conclusions arrived in good faith as valid with the Vedic verse 'Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' (One exists, people of good intentions see it variously). What always stood apart and was unalienable, was Dharma (Duty/Right Action, to family and society, and not personal belief). Of course, Hindus will like westerners (as also muslims) to understand their belief better, but we do not have a salvation army or tablighi jamaat. Aupmanyav 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, while much of what you say is correct, MPA also has a point, and in any case you should not make personal attacks on other editors (read WP:NPA and WP:AGF). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken, but did I make a personal attack? I said MPA needs to be serious about study of Hinduism. Without interest, study, intellect, it is no use trying to understand eastern philosophies, which do not have one or two-line solutions. I do not know what point you found in his message, the only thing he said was that Hindus have taken up one God only to impress the westerners (.. Indian's (misplaced comma) way of either selling out or assimilating to the West). One God theory in Vedas might be 5,000 years old and as you know that is not the only theory. Aupmanyav 12:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Vedas originate in India?

This statement is not proved in any way. As B. G. Tilak opined, Aryans lived in sub-arctic regions and migrated to India (as well as other countries in Europe). Otherwise, would any one please explain the phenomenon of 30 Ushas, or the Ati Ratra (Darker nights) of upto 100 days and no more, and a Satra (year) of nine or ten months (Navagwah, Dashagwah), the 304 days old Roman calender and the name of the last month of the Julian calender (December - 10th). Aupmanyav 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sir, you are wrong. Read Aurobindos Secret of the Vedas. In the Vedas everything is symbolic. Night symbolises Ignorance. The 10 months Ritual by the Rishis to bring light(Knowledge) has its own deep meaning, but I dont have time to explain it here. Shiva bakta 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This probably is the greatest problem in the study of Vedas. Vedas themselves are really not telling anything. People find meanings by interpreting them symbolically and allegorically where they are not really intended. Taken as a literature how can we do that? You can take any Children's story and give it imaginative meanings and sense. This is exactly what I see is being done to elevate the texts of Vedas to the status of scriptures. They are what they say. Human expression of wonder on natural forces. To see beyond that and insists that they are supposed to be more than that is simply imposing one's own imagination into it.

This is simply one opinion, far from being undisputed. We represent the range of legitimate scholarly opinion. Paul B 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you have not answered even one of the questions I raised. At least give me a link where I would find the answers from legitimate scholars. Which is the organization which provides legitimacy to these scholars? Do you have to be a christian or white skinned to become a legitimate scholar? Regards. Aupmanyav 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great foolishness to try to look for secrets of Vedas from Aurobindo or Swami Dayanand. Aupmanyav 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to Shiva bakta. What arguments do you mean? Are you referring to Tilak's claims re the Arctic? Paul B 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shiva bakta, Everything is Vedas is not symbolic. Do you mean that Vedas do not contain any statement of observed phenomena? That way you can distort the simple sentence to mean anything you wish to. Aurobindo and Dayanand have done just that, Arth ka Anarth (changed meaning into garbage). Aupmanyav 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a student of these issues, but I honestly feel that Vedas are actually encrypted. What I mean here is that decoding what they want to say makes a lot of sense. I do not support Aurobindo or Dayanand but there are examples which show how things can change drastically if the meaning of just one word is misinterpretted. For example: the word GAVA can be interpretted for "Cow" as well as "Earth". With this confusion and half th knowledge, a sloka which was written as an astronomical theorem was misinterpreted by a researcher. It is but obvious that decoding without understanding and insight would do nothing good. In fact it could make the vedas a laughing stock!! Regards

Sure, the correct meaning is given only by Brahma Baba. Aupmanyav

How can you be sure about the "correct meaning" - if at all there is one. As long as we insist that they are not a direct statement but is an encoded message, unless we get the decoder how on earth can we be sure?

Why should we not accept the clear apparent meaning and assume that it is an encoded message and arrive at a wrong meaning? Do you read the sentence I have just written and understand the meaning? Now if I say it is an encoded message and it means arrival of a train in Bombay at 10:30 from Delhi, would you agree to it? Do you require a decoder for such statments? Aupmanyav 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu Texts ??

The term 'Hindu' was coined much later. It would not be fair on other philosophies like Buddhism or various other cults like Shivaites or Vaishnavites, if this philosophy of the whole civilisation was classified under one nomenclature.

And your point is? This is sort of Sectarianism leads to violence and hatred. True, Hinduism is a foreign word, but thats how the Westerners know us, and we should stop petty squabbling. Besides, the Vedas are the supreme book whether you worship Shiva or Vishnu. This is the point I was trying to make when I edited the original page which said Hindus worship dozens of Gods. But you havent read the article, you are just tring to confuse the issue. Shiva bakta 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Actually, the word is put to much speculation regarding (1) when the word was coined, and (2) what the word actually means

It is "commonly" believed it meant indians, but even that is put to speculation, so vedas are better left as hindu scriptures itself. Leafy 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup effort?

it is sad to have such a central article in such a state. See Vedic civilization/EB 1911 for how an encyclopedic writeup could look like (the 1911 account, of course later literature should be added to that). dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Dab. But first, this kind of scholarship may have dwindled, second, the scholars do not think of coming to Wikipedia (it is not that scholarly, with all the trolls around, and may be with Scholarpedia), and third, they would not have time to fight the Dasaragnya war necessary here. Aupmanyav 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and quotations

I think it is truly sad that the person or people who wrote the majority of this article used quotations from 18th and 19th century books which are biased in themselves. Furthermore, I believe that the dispute about religion on this page should not be an argument at all. We are not here to impose views on to other people, but rather to help show the facts which can themselves show real truths. Thus, about the religion, try to write in an unbiased way no matter how correct you think you are.

It would be a good idea to register as a contributor rather than leaving a post unsigned. Aupmanyav 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/d/Talk%7EVedas_a79d.html"