Talk:Vedas/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: henotheism

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shridharan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 18 March 2006
:I've removed the , 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)
thread_title: POV-Check details

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cosmogony 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ambedkar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rivers in Vedas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  God? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hindu Texts ??

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: cleanup effort?

message: 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)
thread_title: References and quotations

message: There is a pov notice in the article. Reading the talk page in a cursory way, I was unable to see why/how. Can we remove it?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an important distinction between what the vedas are (i.e. statements of fact about them) and what they mean to (modern) Hinduism (i.e. statements of belief about them).  Hindus claim no difference, but that is dogma, not fact.  Major parts of the article have been written in an unconsciously tendentious, i.e. essentially religious, manner. rudra 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that the Vedas are more often cited than read.  I am sure that if Wikipedia were being run by Hindus we would have claims that allowing IP users to edit is somewhere in the Vedas. This article is very long and has many unsourced statements.  It would be helpful if people would at least place  tags on statements which need more support. Buddhipriya 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IP addresses?  That's strictly chump change.  You have no idea. As Meghnad Saha once observed sardonically, "Everything is in the Vedas". rudra 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV notice

message: I have done some work on the dating section, and added two strong references for dates.  I feel that some brief statement of dating is to be expected in an encyclopedia article, and the citations should hold up against most challenges.  I agree with the approach that details of dating should go to the article on Vedic period.  I am sure others will improve things. Buddhipriya 11:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am finished with my edits for now 

message: I support the proposal which someone has made to merge the section on "Tradions" in the Vedas article with Shakha.  It will be much easier to clean up and do maintenance of that material if it is all in one place as its own article.  The level of detail needed to do this well would be excessive for the general article on Vedas, where I am guessing most readers want a digestible overview, not a heavy meal.  Much of the use of the Vedas article will be as fodder for schoolboys to plagarize homework assignments from, and we must consider the needs of the children. Buddhipriya 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  At least the table rightly belongs in the Shakha article.  rudra 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the table is the main thing that caught my eye in the main article.  The main article can simply mention that there are a lot of recensions, and then link to the details. Buddhipriya 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this proposal is non-controversial, so I am going to move the table now.  I will do it with one edit and then will leave the page alone for a day so if anyone wants to revert it it will be easy to do.  Moving the table will help get the mainline for the article clear, and then I will work on cleaning up the summary text about the branches in the Vedas article.  The cleanup of the actual table can begin in the Shakha article.  I assume that this proposal has been up long enough to give people adquate chance to chime in. Buddhipriya 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge material on traditions with [[Shakha]]