Talk:Vedas/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Etymology of root vid-

I have finished going over the etymology section, moving all the etymology references to one place and giving references to three reliable sources for the Sanskrit. In working on it it seems to me that the POV warning flag had been applied to this section because of the controversy over Indo-European roots. I am not sure why this needs to be in the article, and I have moved the content here in case anyone wants to work it further. One of the footnotes was in fact not a reference, just a call for a citation. Buddhipriya 01:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The Sanskrit root vid is believed to be derived from the Proto-Indo-European root "*weid-", meaning "see" or "know"[1]. "*Weid-" is also the source of the English word "wit", as well as "vision" through Latin. The Czech and Slovak words for "science" are "věda" resp. "veda", derived from western Slavic "vědet" resp. "vedieť" for "know". Veda may also be derived from "vedana," Even the -uid in Celtic Druid seems to compliment "*Weid-" (Druid meaning knowledge of the oak). <ref>One can discover the Indo-European connection {{Fact|date=February 2007}} of the word through the Dutch word "weten" (to know) or Russian word "ведать" (''vedat’'' in transcription, literally "to know"; though "ведать" is not too common nowadays, replaced by its synonym "знать" (''znat’'', which is also attributed to be derived from Sanskrit word [[Jnana]]).</ref>

Next steps

The article is already looking cleaner. My plan for next moves will be to clarify that the term Vedas is used in two ways: 1. The Four Vedas (which each have an article), and 2. The vast Vedic corpus, which includes a lot of other things. It should be easy to tighten that up and remove some of the remaining redundancy regarding structure. Last step could be to clean up the sections on study and what they say. Personally I think the material on what they say should mostly be found in the detail articles, keeping this at a high level. I will pick away at it with this strategy unless someone has a better plan. Buddhipriya 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked on the "Categories of Vedic Texts" section and cleaned it up. I will leave the article alone for a day or so to see how others react. For this section I am drawing heavily on Axel Michaels, whose 2004 book is very current and in my opinion is one of the best single-volume resources in the field. Buddhipriya 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The mythology about VedaVyasa really needs to go. It is a puranic fairy tale, and a silly one at that: it only makes Hindus look foolish for believing something not only grossly improbable but also counterfactual in that the Rgveda without a doubt existed before any of the others. More precisely, this is not a fact, indeed nowhere near, about the Vedas. At best, it is a statement about a (latter day) belief regarding the Vedas. I made the same point in the "POV Notice" section of this Talk page a while back. rudra 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the edition and translation information to the respective main pages. rudra 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work, clears out some underbrush. I also want to work in a little bit about the age strata that the materials have because it helps put into context some of the dating discrepancies. These books were not like Harry Potter novels, issued on a specific day with people outside bookstores in sleeping bags awaiting the first copy. They grew gradually over time, and in some cases the weight of the barnacles is greater than that of the ship. Buddhipriya 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In looking at what is left, the section on "Cosmogony" is unsourced and looks to me like it should go. It is not encyclopedic in tone and now conflicts with the tone of the rest of the article. Does anyone disagree about that section being removed entirely unless it can be sourced? Also note that the etmology portion conflicts with the newer etymology section that was added in the last round of changes. Buddhipriya 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And ho heaved. rudra 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

These sentences sound very odd to me especially since they are written in the voice-of-the-encyclopedia:

"Rig Veda is considered by many to be a book written by barbaric culture worshipping violent Gods. Sri Aurobindo realised that this was due to the biased view of Westerners who had some preconceived views on Hindu culture."

Firstly, "is considered by many" sounds far-fetched to me and secondly. using the word "realised" says that not only is the first statement true, but also that Sri Aurobindo's explanation is correct; even though the latter clearly is an opinion. Can someone take a close look at the section ? Abecedare 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be junked - it has no place in an article about the Vedas. A separate article on what some people think of the Vedas might carry such material, and even then it would have to be worked on. rudra 07:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the section, which was poorly cited to begin with. It think the idea of adding something about modern interpretations is not bad, but it would need to be built from scratch. As it stands the article is now getting fairly clean regarding the topic of how the actual body of Vedic scripture is defined, as opposed to what it means, which is very different issue. Buddhipriya 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the Atharvaveda section and made an effort to source it. I hope others will look at the changes and correct any errors I have introduced. Buddhipriya 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories of Vedic texts

The categorization described in this section does not seem clear to me. For example, I assume the four Vedas ("in a strict sense to the four Vedas.") refers to Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva; but then later in the section these are said to be "Samhitas" and hence only one of four collections (Samhita, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads) that "are considered Veda in the strict sense." So we seem to have two different definitions of Vedas even in the strict sense and there seems to be a snake-swallowing-its-own-tail appearance about the categorization. Do others feel the same way ?
Here is what Witzel's says in his article on "Vedas and Upanishads" (before he goes into more detail):

  • Vedas are divided into four parts: Rig, Sama, Yajur and Athrava.
  • Each part is divided into four levels: Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishads.

Thus the Samhita collect the mantras from the four Vedas, the Brahmanas the ritual commentary etc. Do you think this explanation is clearer (even though it too is a simplification) ? Also how does it compare with Max Muller's classification ? Abecedare 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't clear, but then again, a clear exposition doesn't seem to exist in the sources :-) The shruti/smriti distinction per se, without specifics, is basically Puranic/Dharmashastric (I'm sure there are shlokas for this), with roots probably in the Atharvavedic literature. The basic tug-of-war, of course, was the extent of shruti, the unstated socio-political purpose being to put certain texts - (later) Upanishads, mainly - into the implicit category of undebatable, unimpeachable, unquestionable authority. Further complicating the matter is that the fourfold division of samhita-brahmana-aranyaka-upanishad is not so easily established in practice, especially in the case of the Black Yajurveda. This is a nasty gotcha, as otherwise it would be both simple and accurate to say that the "strict" sense of "veda" refers to samhitas only. The more I think about it, though, the problem is really not with the "strict" sense, but the "loose" sense, under which the Puranic claim to be as good as the vedas pulls everything, from Puranas to Itihasas to Agamas, into the class of "veda". Perhaps for now we should simply leave out any attempt to delineate a "strict" sense. rudra 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare has correctly spotted a wording issue and I would like to check the Witzel text in detail. Do you have a full citation so I can see if I can get it? There is no conflict, just a different terminology. I will try a copyedit to see if I can resolve it prior to seeing the actual reference you give. I agree with Rudra that on a practical level the problem is with using the term "Vedic" to cover yesterday's astrology column. Buddhipriya 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the exact reference:
Witzel, M. "Vedas and Upaniṣads" in , "Blackwell companion to Hinduism", Flood, Gavin (Ed.), Blackwell Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-631-21535-2
(page 69 to be exact). By the way, I agree with Rudra and you that this is a matter of phrasing rather than content ... and possibly some of the confusion may be intrinsic and thus unavoidable, but maybe we can reword the section to make it as clear as possible. Abecedare 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have the Blackwell companion on order based on a prior mention of it by you, so I will look forward to reading it. Look at the changes I have just made. Under schools see: "Traditionally all of the Vedic schools are classified into four major categories corresponding to the four Samhita: Rig, Sama, Yajur and Athrava." I think that is what Witzel is referring to, and the detail in the article on Theological Schools is where I have been slogging through details. Your other comment had to do with how this tallies with Muller, and it looks to me to be the same wine in a new bottle. Buddhipriya 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new version. I have made a few minor style/wording edits and two minor but content-related edits:

  • I changed "divine wisdom" to "revealed wisdom" since it can be argued that even smriti contain some divine wisdom; but only the sruti are considered "revelead" or apaureshya.
  • I changed "There are four categories" to "are often categorized into four" to emphasize that this is just a matter of convention/convenience and not somehow the "truth".

Does that make sense ?
The Blackwell book is good overview of the contemporary scholarship on Hinduism and a its references can be mined for details. Hope you find it useful too. Abecedare 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'll also be fine if the whole Witzel bit is kept out of the section for conciseness, since the average reader will hardly care about the alternate explanation. Abecedare 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I like your changes. Personally I do not like Witzel's terminology, so if you think it does not need to be there I will encourage you to remove it.
There are many problems when trying to shoehorn all of the various texts into this system of classification. Douglas Renfrew Brooks discusses this problem in his book The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Śākta Tantrism. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1990) ISBN 0-226-07570-2. Brooks problem is how to classify the Tripurā Upanishad, a tantric text which bears "Upanishad" in its name. He devotes an entire chapter (pp. 12-39) to the problem of locating the text within the (usually) mutually contradictory categories of Vedic and Tantric, including the way in which late works would appropriate Vedic classifications for their own use. Another example that I would put in this category is the Ganapati Atharvashirsa which purports to be an Upanishad but which is clearly a late work that would probably be rejected as "Vedic" by most outside opinion. Buddhipriya 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The main underlying issue is that all these classifications are retrospective and therefore bound to be imperfect and contentious, especially since so many variants of each of these "documents" can be found. The same problem exists even in identifying/classifying gospels (or even Shakespeare's plays). Another demonstration that all religions share a common truth :-) Abecedare 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I like the new version, and the finessing of "strict" :-) There are some material that could be worked on, though:

  • Aranyakas aren't really "further interpretations". They are basically Brahmana-like texts (but can even have Samhita-like portions! - like the Aitareya Aranyaka), and can be differentiated according to more than one possible criterion: (a) greater emphasis on meanings; (b) relatively newer practices (i.e. supplementary, weren't around for the "first cut"); (c) "advanced" rituals, not for ordinary praxis; (d) some combination of the previous, such as the pravargya, whose "true meaning" is reserved while the performance is public and common.
  • Upanishads as "mystical or spiritual" overstates the difference from Brahmanas and Aranyakas, IMHO. The terms I've seen that seem to capture the shades more accurately are "exoteric" (B, A) and "esoteric" (U), all these works being concerned with meaning of some form anyway.

But I don't know if that much detail is worth it. rudra 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording was based on the reference given, and I would avoid getting into details here, as they can go to the article on those works for more detail. Rudra, would you do a cleanup run on the Upavedas section? I just removed some junk but I do not have any references at hand for them right now. That is one of the sections I have been avoiding. I need to search for a solid listing of what is in and what is out. Buddhipriya 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My preference is to junk the section completely. The bit about "derived from" and "application of" is bogus, at best a pious myth - and a perfect example of how the mere word "veda" operates like a persuasive definition, which was, of course, precisely the intention behind the coining of "upaveda". But getting rid of it completely is only inviting a futute re-insertion by some well-meaning ignoramus. I'll try to reduce the section to some form of one-liner to keep them at bay. rudra 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, done. Not a one-liner, though. rudra 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The Blackwell Companion I had on order finally arrived, and I read the Witzel article in it that Abecedare previously cited. As we surmised it basically just a restatement of the material we had. The end of Witzel's article includes "A Synopsis of Vedic Texts" which looks similar to the one that was moved to Shakha and which I have been picking away at. Now that I have the apparent source in front of me I will continue to absorb that table into that article. Buddhipriya 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sacred dance as an upaveda?

An editor recently added sacred dance without a citation to the sourced list of upavedas that Rudra and I just updated with citations. My reversion of that unsourced change to a cited list was reverted by another editor whom I generally respect, so I do not want to revert the reversion. However I do want to point out the the change to content is unsourced, and I cannot confirm that change. It is possible that natyashastra in general is in some list. On a process level I recommend that it be removed until the statement can be sourced. Buddhipriya 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no citations on the material it was added to. Shouldn't that be removed too? IPSOS (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you check the edit history for the page you will see that Rudra and I have been doing a major rewrite, and the citations for the things that are in the list now are in the prefatory sentences to the list. If this is unclear, perhaps we can change the presentation of the citations, but I would not add uncited material. You are pointing out a good formatting issue with the list, which will invite future additions of whatever comes into people's minds. If you agree with the general idea here, if you wish to revert the unsourced item (dance) in the next few days we can work together to get the citation format more ironclad. I cannot do it tonight because I am going to bed soon. Buddhipriya 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a citation on each line. It's uncited. In any case, the breadth of Gandharvaveda is well known. Are you sure this is a topic you're familiar with? IPSOS (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The citations are Monier-Williams and Apte. I believe the original edit (long ago) sourced the list from Apte. Footnoting each item strikes me as hypercorrectness (a bane on many Hindu-related pages). rudra 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with you there. I reverted the removal b/c it is common knowledge that dance is part of the musical arts. I was surprised that any editor of this article wouldn't know that off the top of their head. A quick Google search on "Gandharvaveda dance" would have resolved the question immediately. What I don't understand is why people are so quick to remove things that they don't take the time to do a quick basic reality check first. Frankly, I think it is an editor's duty to try to find a quick temporary web reference first, and only remove if they can't find a reasonable amount of verification. This should be especially true for editors who do not have an in-depth understanding of the topic. I see the work of many experts being nibbled to death by those who are too quick to apply the "rules". Many articles end up looking like they have been cobbled together by someone whose only knowledge of the subject was gathered as they were writing it! IPSOS (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. On balance, though, I don't think it's necessary. By that I mean: it's going to be very hard to find a definitive reference. The HA link can't be considered authoritative, and I have my doubts about the reliability of a site that offers "Lemurian scrolls". And here's another link that suggests a different classification altogether. It's a mess, because there is really no "gandharvaveda" per se. It's a category, or rubric, not a text, and so what's (supposed to be) in it is up for grabs. rudra 06:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro focused on the Vedas.

I changed the intro to describe what the Vedas are in an NPOV manner but with regard to the Vedic people. Arguably, the Vedas as a "corpus of text" would not be of interest (nor available) to anyone if it were not for the Vedic tradition, and therefore I think this is only fair and mirrors handling of Christian and Jewish "Scriptures".

Also, I think the intro benefits from describing quickly what constitutes the Vedas, and what they mean today to those traditions. In doing so, I use terms (and translations) that the Vedic people themselves use and avoid using words that may introduce biases or connotations (e.g. Vedic traditions never consider or refer to the Vedas as "texts" or "writings").

Finally, I cite the various dating controversies and moved the elements of Vedic studies and its importance into that section.

Regards. Savyasaachi 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make changes to sourced text. If you wish to provide additional sources, please don't hesitate to add additional footnotes, or if you do not have references, suggest your ideas for changes here and perhaps someone else can find references for you. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Buddhipriya 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. It is perfectly acceptable to make an introduction cover the overall topics discussed in detail on the page. Those sections on the page are expected to have sources and citations. In that regards, I have not added ANY controversial or new item. I have simply clarified what the Vedas are. For comparison, take a look at various intros, especially on sacred texts. An intro merely provides the intro, and there is no reason for the intro text to be lifted word-for-word from some "source", as long as it aligns with and does not go against verifiable sources. Also, per Help:Reverting policies, let's discuss and edit specifics to improve rather than reverting. Thanks for your contributions in improving this page. Regards. Savyasaachi 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing Wikipedia:Lead_section guidelines, and I see that while trying to write an intro "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" I have been remiss in "sourcing as appropriate". I am fixing that. Help appreciated. Savyasaachi 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not continue to rewrite sourced material in ways that changes what is cited to WP:RS. Can you specify here what specific point you think should be made so we can get agreement on how to source it? Please see WP:CITE for information on citation methods used in this article, which currently makes use of inline citations. Also see Wikipedia:Guide to layout for information on how the Notes and References section work together to provide a critical apparatus for the article. If you are not sure of how to cite something, please put the information here on the talk page so other editors can assist in examining the claims and determining best reference format. Regarding the importance of citations, see Wikipedia:Verifiability which says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
Regarding reversion of your edits, you are making so many changes in so many sourced areas it is very difficult to untangle the changes. Can you please focus on one point at a time so it can be dealt with clearly? Once one point has been settled the next can be taken up in turn. Making many changes at once makes it difficult for other editors to follow your logic, thus increasing the chance that your changes will be reverted. In effect, making mass edits invites reversion simply due to the complexity of the changes you are proposing all at once. The issue of dating has been discussed at length, and the prior decision here was to not cover dating in detail. One issue you seem to want to raise is the highly controversial dating theories which are rejected by academic sources.
This is the language currently in the article regarding revealed wisdom, which is one of the issues you are trying to change: "In any case, dating is of little importance to the religious significance of the Vedas. According to strict orthodox Hindu interpreation the Vedas are apaurusheya ("not human compositions"), being supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti ("what is heard").[5] Hinduism is known as the Sanatana Dharma ("Eternal Law"), referring to this belief in the ageless nature of the wisdom it embodies." that language was developed as a result of prior conflict resolution over these points. Can you say specifically what you don't like about the current wording?
Since it seemed important to you to get this idea into the lead, I moved the existing sentences into the lead, with their existing citations. Does this address what you were trying to accomplish regarding that point in particular, or is there some other issue? Buddhipriya 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, regarding multiple edits. Thanks for clarifying the various policies, esp. regarding the citations.
The main motivations for my edits are as follows: (a) Vedas being the foundation or "core" (or some such suitable word) to the Sanatana Dharma traditions and how they are regarded within those traditions, should be clear in the first one or two sentences. The current wording seems too sterile, academic, and ultimately lacking in conveying the general import of the Vedas. (b) Related is the issue of word connotation. In particular, the term "scriptural" introduces two inappropriate connotations in terms of current widely used dictionary definitions: (i) the notion of writings (which the Vedas explicitly were not for a long time) and (ii) a sense of, from, or related to the Scriptures (in the Bible). (c) When attributing beliefs, e.g. "Orthodox Hindus believe..." it is then unnecessary and worse, derogatory, to further add "supposedly, allegedly.." etc. in the same sentence. (d) The astika and nastika classification probably belongs in the intro but should be made concise (e.g. the classification implies that there were differing positions). Also, as sampradayas such as the Kamakoti Sankaracharya and Vedanta proponents consider the Vedas universal, there is no reason to geographically constrain the terms unless proven otherwise. Regards. Savyasaachi 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your thinking. I think all of your points are reasonable. In my view it would be best to take them one by one and try to get wording that is acceptable and also in compliance with WP:RS. This article is subject to contentious editing from time to time, and has been stable for some time. So if we can work carefully to adjust language it will be a good role model for handling of material of this type. Shall we work on your points in order? Regarding a), I moved some existing language into the lead. Can you suggest a specific improvement for the sentences that now read "According to strict orthodox Hindu interpreation the Vedas are apaurusheya ("not human compositions"), being supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti ("what is heard").[2] Hinduism is known as the Sanatana Dharma ("Eternal Law"), referring to this belief in the ageless nature of the wisdom it embodies" ? The phrasing "orthodox Hindu interpretations" was arrived at to reflect the fact that not all Hindus believe this, and that Hinduism varies quite a bit in what core beliefs are held. Is there a particular source you can quote that may have a better wording? Note that the goal is not for us to say what we believe, but rather to report what WP:RS have said on the subject.
Regarding tone, note that we are writing an encyclopedia article, not a religious tract, so it is important to try to find language that represents a neutral point of view and which would be viewed as "encyclopedic" in tone if anything. For an example of a mature article that has developed an encyclopedic tone over time, see: Bible. Many Christians consider the Bible to be the revealed word of God, but the article does not assume that is true or even emphasize that point in the lead. Buddhipriya 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. Also, it was not my intention to create contention, I was merely striving for balanced NPOV. Of course, I agree completely with the goal being an encyclopedia article. I did look at both Bible and I would also like to point as an example the article on Koran. In the case of the Bible article, the phrase "Word of God" is mentioned. The challenge I see for this article is the paucity or lack of easy availability of published material that would meet WP:RS yet be representative of what is generally believed (not limited to what I or you believe, and neither just what academics outside of the Vedic tradition publish). A start could be made through the Darshanas (which may also suffer from the same WP:RS problem). I will think about the suggested improvement for the sentence over the next few days after going through some of the published material. Regards. Savyasaachi 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
An issue with religious sources is that they may be cited with regard to what they contain, but they are generally not WP:RS when considered from the frame of reference of history, anthropology, etc. Finding a balance between quoting scriptures and quoting scholarly opinion about scriptures is the trick. Buddhipriya 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The citation regarding Vedavyasa

I am transferring one of the citations to here to clarify what edit is being made. This is the citation involved. The problem is that the language "the current arrangement" is unclear. It is dropped into a section discussing the academic system of arrangement for the entire Vedic corpus, which is not what the Vishnu Purana was discussing. The idea is probably usable, but how best to word it so that it does not disrupt the flow of the present cited material?

Puranic accounts attribute the current arrangement to Vedavyasa[1].

I worked the quote into the section on the four Vedas and provided a dating citation for the Vishnu Purana, which is the source used for the story. Buddhipriya 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)