Talk:Vedic period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...


Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

/archive1


Removed this sentence - Its early phase saw the formation of various kingdoms of ancient India. First of all we do not have much of archeological evidence to back this claim. The literary evidence which is pretty much what we have for this period points at tribes than kingdoms. --Kaveri 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not say entire corpus and means rather most of it. Epics Ramayana & Mahabharata are not mentioned. It can be re-written as most of the corpus of....

I'd forgotten about the Indus, and so the sentence can be written as "...in Northern and north-western part of the Indian subcontinent...." As for seamlessly evolved, the reasoning was given in my last edit summary. It's not POV, but an observed occurrence and transition.

"Aryan" is a controversial term, though not a PoV in the strictest sense of the term. Controversial in the academia. Till that time, "RigVedic people" is alright. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I reworded some of the intro to make things clearer. "seamlessly evolved" is still clearly POV. You need to attribute a claim like this to a reliable source that uses the word "seamlessly". Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
IAF, you want to discuss the history of Hinduism, I suggest you edit history of Hinduism. It is enough to simply link to that article from here. Your emphasis on post-Vedic developments is perfectly off-topic to this article. The Vedic period by definition is the period when the Vedic corpus originated (Rigveda down to and including the Shrauta Sutra literature, but not including the epics). "Aryans" is a controversial term, but the compound "Rigvedic Aryans" is perfectly uncontroversial and straightforward, just like Indo-Aryans. "Rigvedic people" is possible but the term gets about a quarter of the number of hits of "Rigvedic Aryans" on both google scholar and jstor.org. I don't see why you should be allowed to degrade an article that is informed by academic scholarship into something that is ok but amateurish. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DBark...er I mean DBachmann what you have just labelled as amateurish are pertinent facts. What you've done is plain and simple vandalism. I don't think that you are even grossly mistaken when you equate the composition of the Vedas as something other than or differently related to Hinduism. The most important aspect of the Vedic period is this : the ritualistic culture that was executed by a casteist society reverberating with Sanskrit shlokas. This is not only largely intact even today, but is also flourishing and in no danger of decline. Do you even know this ? Are you aware of the goings on in these parts of the world ?

And except in your imagination, epics were not included or implied in the article. I just old Grover that the epics needn't be included and that 'corpus' need not mean the entire corpus but 'most of the corpus'. Grover, I neither have and nor do I need a source for something that is so common in India. That somebody huddled in the European heights did not bother to write a citation acknowledging that fact is not my problem at all. An encyclopaedia is more than a cobble of sources and references. Try finding about yagya services, poojas, vedic rituals etc. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi IAF. None of this discussion actually addresses the issues that Dbachmann and I have mentioned in our edit summaries and discussion. For example, the sentence:
The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when most of the canonical Hindu texts primarily the four Vedas, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language.
is poorly structured, vague ("most" of the canonical Hindu texts -- how are we counting?) and written in substandard English. The sentence "This civilization seamlessly evolved into Hinduism and the associated Indian culture that is known today" clearly violates both Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and NPOV in that it expresses an opinion (not an undisputed fact) without either supplying a reference or attributing the opinion to a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia's policies to be a more effective contributor to Wikipedia. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong. You on the other hand are talking about semantics and phrasing, on which again I don't see any problem. Since the compositions are only a handful, they can simply be enumerated without any mention of 'most of the Hindu corpus' (though this phrase comes close to expressing that most of the holy 'stuff' was concretized at that time and remains today). Again, if you are not aware, a few hundred million Hindus still perform those same yagyas seated with a purohit who chants from those very texts. Till recently, it was accompanied by animal sacrifice in very few places until the law caught up with all that. You cannot equate the dead Greek and Roman ancient cultures with the core elements of Vedic period that have survived and thrive today. Bachmann rants shrauta without realising that most Indians haven't even heard of this term and that this practice is conciously followed in some quarters just for tradition's sake. Your perception of Hinduism stems from the latter formulations of numerous of Gods and Goddesses and glorified by Raja Ravi Varma's paintings. That's evolution with inclusion, NOT a sudden turn-around from a to b. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This is all your personal opinion or belief. Wikipedia isn't interested in your (or my) personal opinions or beliefs, but only in referenced facts. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Your assertions are not backed by the sources. --PatLarsen 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The very first line of Bible is utterly ridiculous. It ends with a reference !! Does every major fact also have to be sourced ? Are there litigation hawks sitting out there who microscopically scrutinize every line ? Even if you think that all that's a PoV, wikipedia ediion demands that you too first verify whether that is true or not, and then add a source or reference or remove it. Deleting it without performing this step is totally wrong. That the Vedas and all other later texts are canonical Hindu texts is referenced in their respective articles on wikipedia itself. I can understand removing the "...seamlessly eveolved..." sentence, but what I see here is an attempt to obliviate the fact that these are Hindu texts. The latter constitutes vandalism of the first order.

I am not reverting now, I'll wait for a reply other than "that's just PoV". Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a more explicit statement that the Vedas are Hindu texts, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. The removal was not vandalism, however: please be careful with this term, which has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Grover, in that case you should have added to that yourself as soon as you came to know about it. Inaction is also violative of the sort of "spirit" of wikipedia, though not technically illegal. If you knew it and still deleted it, then that was vandalism. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grover Cleaveland, you yourself stated that an "explicit statement that Vedas are Hindu texts" shouldn't be anyone's problem. Now it seems that you have a problem. An explicit statement i.e. other than an acknowledegement in the main or lead statements has different implications and meanings, which I have explained previously---wanton dissasociation of what you call "classical Hinduism" from the Vedic period. Firstly, they are Hindu texts and always have been continously, by virtue of sheer adherence to ancestry. There was no "revival attempt" or a conscious adaptation of these texts as sacred ones, at any point of time in India's history.
These texts and their use of being recited at fire rituals and sacrifices has been followe verbatim, and unconditionally. That "classical Hinduism" with temples and other gods evolved later with the advent of Puranas and the epics, had no bearing on the importance of these texts.
So, the current edit which I made is not only correct in the context of today's of Hinduism, but has always been so; its only that the makers of these texts did not foresee the evolution of the religious practice that they'd spawned. The further conclusion and point that is driven home here is, that Hinduism is an evolution of the Vedic period's religious practices, and not a sudden radical change wrought by whatever reason, which just somehow chose to retain the sacredness of the Vedic texts. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
IAF. I'll go through your changes in detail.
The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when canonical Hindu texts, the four Vedas primarily, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language. The associated culture, sometimes referred to as Vedic civilization, was centered in northern and northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Based on literary evidence, scholars place the Vedic period in the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE, continuing up to the 6th century BCE.
The only problem I have with this is that is not written in fluent English. I guess this can be fixed.
Vedism's core ritualistic nature remained conserved and further evolved into contemporary religious practices that came to be known as Hinduism.
This is a more problematic. First, what is meant by "Vedism"? Second, the claim that "Vedism [whatever that is] ... remained conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- i.e. the claim that (presumably) the religious practices of the Vedic period are "conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- definitely needs to be backed up with a reference. Even if it was referenced, this article is not really the appropriate place for such claims, since it is about the Vedic period as such, not about the history of Hinduism. 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF, I don't know what "Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong" is supposed to mean, but I must ask you, once again, to refrain from edit-warring over topics in which you plainly do not have the necessary expertise. You may be a competent editor in articles on fighter airplanes, I don't know, but you are not being helpful here. Please refrain from pushing this any further, or alternatively, sit down with academic literature and actually learn some basics before you waste the time of other editors. Also, your various truisms on current Hinduism simply aren't on topic here. If you must fill talkpages with this, please do it at Talk:Hinduism or some other pertinent place. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] texts

IAF, I don't know what you are trying to do, but you are evidently not capable of phrasing it correctly. The Vedic period by definition is the period of composition of the texts in Vedic Sanskrit. This includes the three Vedic samhitas (RV, YV, AV; SV being practically identical to RV), as well as the Brahmanas, besides some of the oldest Sutras and Upanishads. Together, these texts form "the four Vedas". Read our Veda article. While Vedic Sanskrit defines the Vedic period, there can be reasonable estimates as to its absolute duration. It turns out that it corresponds roughly to the millennium 1500 to 500 BCE, with its main flourishing falling into the Early Iron Age, ca. 1200 to 700 BCE. The period 1500-1200 BCE can be considered the early Vedic (or Rigvedic) period, the period 700 to 500 BCE can be considered the late Vedic period. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All that may be true and are just technicalities, but it appears that you are hell-bent on also removing the phrase "canonical Hindu texts". I don't think think you are just carelessly pressing the undo button, as you could have added your above mentioned facts without removing that phrase, just as easily. That action is clearly not unwittingly done. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

um, no, the Vedas obviously are Hindu canonical texts, today. They were, of course, no such thing during the Vedic period itself, because they were only just composed at the time and there was no "Hindu canon" then, so that insisting on the "Hindu canon" in the lead of this article is simply an anachronism. There is, of course, nothing at all to be said against pointing out the central position of the Vedas in the Hindu canon in the Vedas article: try to recognize an article's scope and keep the article lead subservient to that scope. This isn't a content dispute at all, but a simple matter of WP:LEAD. A fact that is perfectly pertinent tot he lead of the Vedas article is not necessarily pertinent to the Vedic period article: there is a reason these are two separate articles, viz. their scope isn't the same. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to hammer in your impregnable head before, "Hindu" itself is a Persian label, and that the history of Indian religions is a history of continuous evolution. If you read the section just above this one, it is also an uncontested fact that at no point in India's history was there a sudden concious revival attempt to stake claim on the Vedas as being 'Hindu' texts. You do know that religions like cultures evolve. Unlike Christianity that froze permanently after JC's death and after the Bible was released, the Vedic cult, its streams, tributaries, new entrants kept bubbling and continued to do so as late as the 19th century.

So whatever that's written in the article is not only relevant, but a necessary mention also without which the article would be incomplete. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point. I repeat, this is the Vedic period article. You seem to want to discuss the Vedas. Pray do that at the dedicated Vedas article. The fact that the Vedic cult "kept bubbling" into the 19th century is relevant to Historical Vedic religion, to Shrauta, and to History of Hinduism, but it is ostensibly irrelevant in an article on the historical period of the Early Iron Age, because the 19th century is not part of the Early Iron Age. thanks. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give an example :- Suppose an article on 'Early Flight' is to be written. So it can anassumingly begin with : Mankind has always thought to have stirred up imaginations of flight, with depictions on xyz paintings, the Pushpak Vimaan in Ramayana, and Leonardo da Vinci's epoch drawings that roughly resemble a modern-day helicopter.....

Now your argument is akin to saying that there is no need of linking a modern helicopter to Leo's drawings because that belongs to a different age. The fact is, that those drawings strikingly resemble a chopper and IT MUST BE MENTIONED, otherwise the article will lose credibility.

In the same way the Vedas are Hindu texts and if we mention that the Vedic period heralded these texts that were to become Hinduism's canonical texts, what can be possibly inaccurate or irrelevant about that ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that helicopters (in your simile: Hinduism) must be mentioned in an article on the Renaissance (the period of Leonardo da Vinci, in your simile: the Vedic period). The problem isn't that I am dead opposed to mentioning Hinduism. Grover cleveland's version is perfectly fine. The problem is, IAF, that you are not helping. You have no idea of the subject matter, and your English is terrible. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way it is. If you were less pushy, you could contribute with suggestions for angles missing from the article, but your stubborn approach really result in an overall contribution that is not helpful in any way. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with you DBachmann is that you have a tendency to convolve simple discussions to your own fancy. And learn how to comprehend a simple paragraph first. Its not a rock edict for God's sake.

I said, the article on 'Early flight' (where'd you drag Renaissance from) can correlate da Vinci's drawings to modern choppers, and very rightly too. Now when did I disagree with Grover's version. I was talking of your edits, sir; in between Grover rehashed the sentence to include Hinduism (my version), whereas you were hell-bent on removing Hinduism altogether. All this while giving a cloak of "poor English" and "subject matter" as cosmetic reasons. 'sacred Hindu texts' may sound 'wrong', which Grover reintroduced after correction, but which you were repeatedly removing altogether.

I have a better idea of what I'm talking than "experts" like you. If you are an "expert", then I fear where wikipedia is headed.. .. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic Period 26000

Gupta, R. C. (1990). The Chronic Problem of Ancient Indian Chronology. Ganita-Bharati 12, 17-26.

"R Gupta in his paper on the problem of ancient Indian chronology shows that dates from 26000-200 BC have been suggested for the Vedic 'period'."

found in *Indian Mathematics: Redressing the balance, Student Projects in the History of Mathematics. Ian Pearce. MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, St Andrews University, 2002. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"have been suggested" is correct. Suggested, that is, by random clowns. Contrary to appearance, Wikipedia articles do not really aim at collecting all of the nonsense that has ever been said about a given topic. The page intended to address this point can be found at WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)