Talk:Vedas/Archive 4

message: Christianity and ISlam both fear hinduism so much that they will keep troubling you till eternity if you say something good about hinduism. So much so that on one hand they will try to say that Vedas are not for hindus only and on the other they will try to deteriorate hindu philosophy. As both Christianity and Islam have hardly anything significant to offer, they hate hindu philosophy so much that they want to tell hindus they are not hindus or that they are aryans who came from some other place. Who cares? It is in India that they created the whole stuff and become hindus or Sanatatan dharmi or whatever. It is in India that they created their sanskrit language. Is it so difficult to understand for these religion-biased people? Most of the hindu related topics on wiki-pedia are infested with such trolls and idiots.
:The above unsigned comment was added by 24.6.237.22 via this edit:  Buddhipriya 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless to argue with Christian and Islamic fears, about what Vedas are 

message: I have changed the layout of the References to comply with Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, which specifies that the Reference section is a list of works actually cited in Notes.  I think it is important that we raise the bar in terms of reference quality and citation methods for this article, and getting the critical apparatus set up per layout guidelines is a housekeeping step.  Once the References section exists, works that are repeated cited ("op. cit") can be mentioned in short form with authorname and page number, relying on the References detail.  For further information on this see: WP:CITE. Buddhipriya 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good to see support for improving the reference system, but I do not like the Harvard referencing templates and would like to remove them.  The templates are hard to use unless you are experienced with them, which makes maintenance of the article more difficult.  In particular, the use of named reference to create separate reference tags for every page reference is very difficult to maintain. Buddhipriya 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Do as you please. JFD 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that we leave the Harvard tags that you have added in place, as they are fine, but that the named tags be removed.  Generally it is good to use one system or another for citations, and once the article has standardized, it is good to discuss them on the talk page.  But in this case we are trying to introduce more order where there was little before, and so any move toward a system is good to discuss with multiple editors.  I feel strongly about the name tags, but it would be interesting to see if we can get more support for the Harvard method. Buddhipriya 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be rushing so fast to restore each other's edits that we have a novel sort of edit conflict (one that I wish we should see more of) :)  I think you should restore the Harvard templates that you added, as removal of the naming is the issue that I feel most strongly about.  I suggest that you fall back to the last version you made, and then we can examine the naming tags as a separate pass.  To prevent edit conflicts I will leave the article alone for a while so you can stabilize it as you think best. Buddhipriya 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the current version of the article, all sources listed under "References" use Template:Citation and the article itself is Harvard-referenced until the "Etymology" section. Have at it! JFD 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be interesting to just leave things as you have set them up for now pending input from other editors.  I am trying to warm up to the templates, but I admit I am concerned about maintenance of them.  Technically, I think that the actual Harvard referencing system would display the citations in the article text directly, as opposed to using footnotes.  That practice seems unpopular, and I do not support it.  My practice has been to put the same information as a Harvard reference into an unnamed footnote, which gets the result, but avoids the problem that if you have multiple citations to the same named footnote, if you later change one of them, others may have collateral damage.  That becomes a nightmare if you have an article with multiple editors, most of whom will not have a clue what citation system is going on. I have posted a comment on the talk page for the Harvard referencing to see if there is some workaround for the named references issue (on other articles where they have been used, it becomes rather complicated to make changes accurately, a problem which is mentioned from time to time on the talk page.  There is no rush, so I would suggest that we not expand their use pending more input. If I can't see how to get around the named references, then I would urge that aspect be eliminated. Buddhipriya 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created two versions of the article: one with all Harvard referencing and one with no Harvard referencing. See which one you like better. JFD 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this effort, which gives a very clear example of the difference.  One minor comment about terminology is that "Harvard references" are defined as: "Under the Harvard referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005)."  In other words, they are actually inline references rather than references which are implemented via raised superscripts.  The ambiguity of the term seems to be that the templates to carry the information normally carries in a Harvard reference can also be used within a raised superscript (implemented in Wikipedia as a "ref" tag) which is what the demonstration does.  The Harvard reference example you have done is very clear, and my concern is that since almost no editors on Wikipedia use this system, mainenance of them will be close to impossible.  The other related issue is the use of named references, that is, a ref tag which has a name.  The problem with maintenance of these is that since multiple citations in the article wind up being linked to one item, if any of them change, the potential exists to create errors in the others.  Wikipedia there are few editors who take a holistic approach to articles, and therefore I have seen various problems with synchronization of named citations over time as multiple editors with limited insight into the overall articles and the referencing systems change things here and there with no concern for the linkages.  For these reasons, I continue to prefer the use of non-named references.  It appears that the example you have put together using the Harvard templates has no named references in it.  Is that correct?  If so, that part of the issue is off the table. It will be interesting to see if we can get other editors to express an opinion on this matter.  Again, thank you so much for the effort you are putting in to improve the reference structure for the article. Buddhipriya 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct; the all-Harvard-referenced version contains no named ref tags. The all-Harvard version has the primary advantage of using the Harvard citation template (one click takes you to a full citation) and doesn't really require any more maintenance than unnamed ref tags without. It's not the end of the world if some references use Harvard citation templates and some don't; they won't interfere with each other. JFD 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to switch over to the all-Harvard version. If maintenance becomes difficult, I will switch back. JFD 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of standard References section 

message: Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

message: Finally an entire book that cites and talks about the 5th Veda. I am sure the presence of the 5th Veda cannot be just ignored.
"Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat"
*By Bruce M. Sullivan
*Page 8, Page 88, Page 7
*
The text says "The Mahabharata, in any case, does not say that each pupil learned one Veda from Vyasa, but that each pupil learned all five vedas"
The text says "The Arthashastra says that there are 5 vedas and the 5th Veda is ithihasa veda"
The text says "Vyasas repeated references to Vedic texts in his description of his own composition emphasize the epic's claim to be another Veda, the fifth Veda"
BalanceRestored 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newer Citations

message: "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah" In bhagwat purana it is clearly telling about the Pranava Veda. When Bhagwan (GOD) Talk to Uddhava. The text literally means One Pranva Veda is complete and all the other veda derived from the same. 
a community Vishwabrahmins in India follow the Pranava Veda. BalanceRestored 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bhagvat Purana Pranav Veda

message: The Astrology Of Personality: A Reformulation Of Astrological Concepts And Ideals In Terms 
of Contemporary Psychology and Philosophy.
*By Dane Rudhyar
*Published 2004
*Kessinger Publishing
*Page 128
*
Social Bibliography; Or, Physical Bibliography for Librarians
*By Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan
*Published 1952 University of Delhi
*Original from the University of Michigan
:All of this material related to the "fifth veda" is so far off the beaten track in terms of all other WP:RS on the topic that I feel the claims need to rise to meet the standard of WP:FRINGE claims.  There may be some grain of truth here, but the way this material is being presented is not consistent with other sources. I would like to get the discussion here to focus on which sources of the ones presented may be considered WP:RS.  Certainly none of the astrology material by Dane Rudhyar would be included.  If the other texts are hard to locate, verification of any of this will take effort. 
:It would be helpful if we can identify one or two key Sanskrit terms by which this supposed "fifth Veda" is called, as that will assist in index lookups in standard reference sources. Is there a name of a specific text which is claimed as a Sanskrit scripture? If we can identify the name of the scripture, we can look it up in the usual reference works on such scriptures.  Is "Pranava Veda" the only term to look up?  I am just beginning to search for references to this, and so far that term does not appear in the index either to Winternitz' History of Indian Literature or in The Vedic Age (Volume One of The History and Culture of the Indian People).  I am unable to find hard citation data for any of the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute citations which you have given, so the material is at this point not verifiable.  Please refer to WP:Verifiability regarding the need to provide citations that can actually be reviewed and confirmed.  Of the three tiny fragments of text that you have cited on Google books () I can identify a specific source scripture passage in one of them, a reference to an "otherwise obscure verse of the Saṃyutta Nikāya (I.29).  According to Winternitz the  ("Collection of Grouped Discourses") is a Buddhist scripture  (volume 2, which covers Buddhist scriptures, pp. 54-60 and passim).  Aside from the fact that it would be dubious to quote a Buddhist scripture as a source for Hindu canonical organization, perhaps the discussion is being influenced by a misunderstanding of the division of the Buddhist teachings in that work into five "vaggas" or "divisions" (Winternitz, volume 2, p. 56).  I do not know if this is a factor in the issue.  
:This link to Google books may be worth looking over from the point of view of what claims are being made (). That book refers to the idea of the Mahabharata as the fifth Veda, which is perhaps more of an honorific title than anything else. The Mahabharata is explicitly not included in the Vedic corpus, of course. Buddhipriya 06:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the references right? Was the google book mentioned above included in the references? BalanceRestored 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Various Books Refering the Pranav Veda

message: I've removed the following below text.
Philosophies and sects that developed in the Indian subcontinent have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). Two other Indian philosophies, Buddhism and Jainism, did not accept the authority of the Vedas and evolved into separate religions. In Indian philosophy these groups are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-Vedic" (nāstika) schools.
There are 66 more religions in the world who do not accept Vedas, but the text is specifically just mentioning the two. The text is crossing NPOV. Check list of religions, it is stating all List of religions other then Hinduism as Nastiks. BalanceRestored 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, a person who just starts editing on 7th of July understands things like POV, replying at talk pages that took me more than 3 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/R%C4%81jag%E1%B9%9Bha  You are surely someone in disguise.BalanceRestored 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , please do not become hostile.  It is a violation of the terms that you agreed to as a condition of lifting your ban which are listed  here. Buddhipriya 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texts are criticizing 2 important religions in India

message: Hi Everyone finally found the verses from Skanda Purana that clearly tells that the 5 Vedas are written by 5 main Rishis of the Vishwakarma Sect. 
The verses are as follows
RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid,  Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata ||Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha |
:This also clearly confirms the presence of Pranava Veda......BalanceRestored 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skanda Purana Verses

message: Can we use details from the website tirumala.org as a benchmark for issues those seem to be controversial?BalanceRestored 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that does not qualify as a reliable source especially on this topic for which numerous academic books and articles are available. Abecedare 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean to say a website that is run by the temple organization could be wrong? BalanceRestored 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reached WP:RS it quotes the following "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views", So you indirectly mean to say, the website owned by TTD Management cannot be considered "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" BalanceRestored 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is not authoritative on the subject of Vedas. It could be an appropriate source for information regarding the temple location, timings etc. Abecedare 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tirumala.org

message: Vasishtha is credited as the chief author of Mandala 7 of the Rigveda. any details?BalanceRestored 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vasishtha credited chief author of Mandala 7 of the Rigveda

message: Vyasa, known to be the arranger of the 4 vedas, himself has taught the 5th Veda to his own son. This is confirmed from Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 335-40 
It says Vyasa taught the first four Veda to his disciples and the fifth in secret to his "SON". BalanceRestored 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear Confirmations of the 5 Vedas

message: There was no invasion at all. India's native peoples founded the Indus/Sarasvati River civilization, developed Sanskrit and wrote all her ancient texts. European dates are all wrong. Rig Veda verses belie the old chronology (VI.51.14-15 mentions the winter solstice occurs when the sun rises in Revati nakshatra, only possible at 6,000bce, long before the alleged invasion.) Carbon dating confirms horses in Gujarat at 2,400bce, contradicting old model claim Aryans must have brought them. NASA satellite photos prove Sarasvati River basin is real, not a myth. Fire altars excavated at Kali Bangan in Rajasthan support existence of Rig Veda culture at 2,700 bce. Kunal, a new site in Haryana, shows use of writing and silver craft in pre-Harappan India, 6-7,000bce.
India's history goes back much farther than anyone knew, perhaps 10,000 years. India need not be indebted to others for her rich and ancient traditions. The Vedic texts, thought to be part mythology, are being vindicated by scientific evidence to be the world's oldest factual account of human experience.
Check research work by B.G. Tilak, P.C. Sengupta, S.B. Roy, Pargiter, Jagat Pati Joshi, Dikshit, K.N. Shastri, Sri Aurobindo, Hermann Jacobi, S.R. Rao, Dayananda Saraswati, Subash Kak, David Frawley, B.G. Sidharth 
Source: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/12/1994-12-08.shtml BalanceRestored 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of Veda

message: Please avoid revert wars. Take a step back, be cool and talk out the issue. Cheers! Vassyana 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy to say, but frankly unhelpful. Read the discussions. Paul B 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the discussions. Revert wars and edit warring are not acceptable. They will not solve the disagreement. Please seek assistance if you cannot come to an agreement. Vassyana 16:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but empty moralising adds nothing helpful. If logic, evidence and consensus is persistently rejected by an editor their edits must be reverted. Your links are to WP policy that differs from what you claim. Asking someone to read the discussions has nothing to do wiyh assuming "bad faith". 3RR has not been broken and none of the reverters of Balance Restored have been guilty of "tendentious editing" since there is no attempt to supress anything. The relevant facts about the notion of a fifth veda were already there.Paul B 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Vassyana's position in this matter is not helpful, and at this point amounts to encouraging soapboxing by BalanceRestored.  For those who may not have the background on this situation, BalanceRestored was put on indefinite block for previous disruptive behavior, but that block was unilaterally lifted by Vassyana, supposedly on a zero-tolerance basis.  Since then the pattern of soapboxing and failure to comply with WP:RS by BalanceRestored has not been perceived by Vassyana as violations of the zero-tolerance arrangement.  Regarding the facts of the matter, no WP:RS that I know of supports the idea that there is a "fifth Veda".  It falls under WP:FRINGE.  Buddhipriya 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have expressed my views on the issue at User_talk:Vassyana#What_to_do?.  Abecedare 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An ANI is in progress about this  that is similar to this previous one along the same lines.  I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: .  BalanceRestored violated one of the terms of being unblocked by reverting the article twice in a period of less than 24 hours  and , which should earn an automatic block under the so called "zero-tolerance" policy. Buddhipriya 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to help me understand the allegations that you are making against the editors who are trying to manage the WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material that BP is adding, can you please provide specific diffs of edits that you consider inappropriate? Without seeing specific diffs I am unable to understand what you think is out of line.  Regarding your suggestion about mediation procedures, I am beginning to feel that it may be helpful to ask a mediator to assist you and I to reach better agreement on this matter, which involves possibly over-broad use of administrative rights by you.  Do you feel that mediation would be helpful to discuss that, or would you prefer to continue to engage in dialog informally? Buddhipriya 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel I'm being overbroad in exercising my discretion, but it's certainly possible I'm wrong. Please feel free to engage me on my talk page or drop me an email. I am also sometime available on IRC as Vassyana, if you would prefer. If that dialog is unsatisfactory and my behaviour honestly concerns you, I would strongly recommend asking another admin to review things in relation to my judgment on WP:ANI or ask for community feedback regarding my actions on WP:RFC/U. If I cannot allay your concerns, it is important that you seek those additional routes to have my actions reviewed to ensure that I retain the community's trust and receive critical feedback if necessary. Cheers! Vassyana 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: The idea of a "fifth Veda" is hardly novel or unusual and has been extensively discussed since at least the mid 19th century in English language literature. Whether this "fifth veda" is one or both of the epics, the Puranas, the epics and Puranas, the Pranava Veda, or the Natya Veda is certainly debatable (though the Mahabharata is the thing most commonly called the "fifth Veda"). Regardless, it is not at all disputable that the Panchama Veda exists in theological and pragmatic practice at least as far as English reliable sources spanning over the past century and a half are concerned. I don't think BR's presentation of this issue is fully balanced or correct. However, neither is the avoidance of actual discussion by claiming it to be FRINGE, which for the concept of a fifth Veda is patently false. Vassyana 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!!!! It was clear to me that BR pushing nor the removals were balanced. Well said! Sethie 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wait a minute. BR was going on about this "Pranama Veda" of his. The "fifth Veda" thing can be mentioned in passing, and it is still mentioned in the current revision. Nothing wrong with that at all. We can even create a disambiguation page at Panchama Veda, linking to (a) Natyashastra, (b) Itihasa, (c) Puranas. That's really all there is to say about it. dab (𒁳) 20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: in fact, I have just created a "Fifth Veda" stub, which people should have done long ago instead of wasting time bickering. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant Dab. Sethie 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dab's analysis that the rhetorical concept of "Fifth Veda" is best handled in a separate article for what it is, a sort of promotional slogan for works that aspire to some level of prominence, but which are extra-canonical from the point of view of the actual Vedic scriptures.  What BR has been discussing is not that, but a different WP:FRINGE religious assertion that a specific text (apparently of recent composition) is actually part of the Vedic canon, which is completely without foundation.  To put this in Christian terms, the term "Bible" is often applied to works to express the idea that they are a standard of information on some topic.  We have for example "The Diet Bible" (ISBN=0913087033), "The Freelance Writer's Bible" (ISBN=1879505851), etc.  If I were to try to get one of these books listed on Wikipedia in the article for the Bible by claiming that the book should be listed as a work of canonical scripture I might encounter resistance from other editors there.  That is essentially what BR has been trying to do here, despite many strong academic proofs that the notion is incorrect.  Buddhipriya 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your examples are a bit flippant and dismissive of the topic. Depending on the "version" of the Panchama Veda, it would most be like mentioning the Deuterocanon or some of the wider apocryphal works, following the analogy. It would hardly be inappropriate to have a section discussing the concept, provided NPOV is followed. (A good example of such NPOV would be having the main focus of the section be primarily on Mahabharata as "fifth Veda" and secondarily on Pranava Veda and Natya Veda as each being commonly discussed as the Panchama Veda, since those are most commonly discussed as such.) Just some thoughts. Whether or not it is literal or metaphorical, it is widely discussed and, as close above (and in other places in the talk page and archives), mention of a fifth Veda itself dates to Vedic times. Vassyana 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you do not agree with the point I was trying to make.  Let me try to make it a different way.  Asserting that a specific work is part of a canon (that is, a defined group of texts which are accepted as part of a formal grouping) is a different matter from asserting that a text is of the same type as texts which are canonical.  BR has been persistently arguing the first case, which is not supported by any WP:RS.  Dab has correctly addressed the issue of the second case by creating a separate article for that category of extracanonical works which at some time, by someone, have been asserted as having "Vedic" status.  The problem behaviors shown by BR in this debate are not related to this content issue.  They are related to persistent inability to provide WP:RS for the specific claims being made.  If you review the list of references which I added to this page with various examples of "fifth Veda" claims (), I hope you will reconsider your charge that I have been "flippant and dismissive" of this subject.  In fact it took quite a bit of work to dig out the references to WP:RS which I supplied.  Buddhipriya 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. Not all of your actions and statements have been flippant. However, comparing the concept of Panchama Veda to trying to include "The Diet Bible" (ISBN=0913087033) in canon is most certainly flippant and dismissive. While Dab's action of creating a separate article to discuss this widely addressed issue is most certainly appropriate, excluding it from any discussion in this article is certainly not and contrary to NPOV. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are saying a summary section of the topic does not belong in this article.) Vassyana 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with your characterization of my remarks, which were trying to give an informal view of the use of language in this case, as either dismissive or flippant.  You may not find the analogy personally useful, but please do not question my motivations in making it, as I think the analogy is an apt one.  Your accusation suggests that I have not acted in good faith with regard to this matter, which is not true.  You also have made an incorrect conclusion regarding what my position might be regarding a summary section on the topic of the generic concept of Fifth Veda to refer to many non-canonical works to which that term has been applied.  The term "vedic" is so overused that it is almost meaningless.  I would not object to inclusion of a single summary sentence along the lines of "Various works that are not part of the Vedic canon have been called the 'Fifth Veda' in an honorific sense." If I recall correctly, a previous version of the article had language similar to that but it may have gone missing in recent edit rounds. Buddhipriya 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You keep referring to the general issues of the term "Fifth Veda" as a generic concept, which I agree has been around for a long time, and which I provided various citations for.  That is not the issue that BR has been arguing for.  The generic idea is a more general concept that other editors have brought forward in response to the specific WP:FRINGE assertion which BR has been making, which is that there is a specific text that actually is the Fifth Veda, which is known to members of a specific Indian caste, and that that work is a secret text that is not available to the general public.  See this edit summary for a concise statement of that view: .  If you check the edit histories and talk pages for the various articles where this WP:FRINGE idea has been inserted you will see that BR is not making the same case that you are making.  In this edit, the text is referred to as a "fascinating treatise", indicating that a specific text is being cited: .  Assertions about the author of the text are made here, with objections to the interpreation and sourcing included in this diff: .  This content dispute has been about those claims, not about the generic issue of use of the term "Fifth Veda" in other contexts.  Buddhipriya 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right that the specific answers provided by other editors to "What is the fifth Veda?" were incorrect solutions. Similarly, I believe that excluding the discussion about the Panchama Veda is similarly flawed. I hardly think it is a "generic concept". It means very particular things to individual people and groups. For example, the Mahabharata is very commonly called the "fifth Veda" (or "Panchama Veda"), most often in an honorary sense, but also (for some) a very literal sense. In both instances, sometimes both epics are taken together with the Puranas to form the fifth Veda. That's all without discussing Pranava Veda or Natya Veda. Certainly at the least, a modest paragraph or small section are warranted for a widely discussed topic. Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* :o) Vassyana 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 'You're quite right that the specific answers provided by other editors to "What is the fifth Veda?" were incorrect solutions'. No-one said and such thing, and no-one provided "incorrect solutions" (to what? A crossword puzzle?). They provided examples of the use of the term. Your comment about the Mahabarata suggets that you haven't followed what other editors have written and, indeed, what is already in the article. Paul B 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read over the discussion again. Providing a single answer to "What is the Panchama Veda?" is certainly incorrect and an edit you opposed. Your response to my comments involving the Mahabharata indicate that you have a gross misunderstanding of what I was saying. I am asking for the topic to be actually addressed instead of the article having a couple interesting, but throwaway, facts. Vassyana 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth Veda 

message: The reading notes of  have been moved to User:BalanceRestored/Notepad. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BalanceRestored

message: At Page 18 it is written "According to the orthodox views of Indian Theologians", and it is not "orthodox hindu", are "Indian Theologists" and "orthodox hindus" same?BalanceRestored 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the "orthodox" is intended to weaken the claim. If we just say "in Hindu interpretation", we will allege that each and every Hindu subscribes to this, which would be much more in need of a citation than the weakened statement. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not make it "According to orthodox Hindu interpretation the Vedas are apauruṣeya" to "The Vedas are apauruṣeya", the citations are already there. This one sounds more diplomatic. This does not include or exclude any particular section. So, there should be no problem.BalanceRestored 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vedas are for everyone. BalanceRestored 09:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sarveśāṃ cādhikāro vidyāyāṃ ca śreyah: kevalayā vidyāyā veti siddhaṃ" - Adi ShankaraBalanceRestored 09:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: DAB at one instance you say, we cannot have things of our own. Again you are trying to write something that's not cited the way it is said. You all taught me about WP:SOAP. BalanceRestored 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not "trying to write", I am graciously explaining an English sentence to you. I don't insist on the "orthodox". Any suggestion for a better phrasing? Just removing the "orthodox" is not an improvement, since it will just result in an even stronger statement. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the edit.BalanceRestored 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: orthodox Hindu interpretation

message: Well, I don't see anything that's talking about teachings of the Vedas. What exactly does it teach is not much covered. It will be great if someone starts a section here on the same. I've see that the currently article does not highlight anything about the Vedas teachings. BalanceRestored 05:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently there's hardly anything that's written at Etymology and usage.BalanceRestored 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe only the most important (meaning it is the major aspect of) teaching should be covered. My reason is that a article should only include facts, and the most important teaching will cover roughly what it is. Overly noting the teachings in the article may violate WP:OR or WP:NPOV, since it could use some point of views. Any thoughts or criticisms are welcome. --Hirohisat Talk 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachings of Vedas

message: ::::I would support the suggestion to request either a topic ban or a more general sanction, since all efforts to explain WP:SOAP have failed to change the behavior patterns.  Buddhipriya 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have left a message on User:Vassyana's talk page. Once we here back from him, we can proceed to WP:AN or WP:CSN. I think this has gone far enough. Abecedare 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, the reason why I think that some official sanction is needed is that in the absence of any clear community ruling on this, simply ignoring an editor (which is my interpretation of what you have suggested above) could be considered to be a violation of WP:CON on my part.  As I understand Wikipedia policy, I have a duty to engage in good-faith dialog with any editor who comes forward unless some community process has validated that the editor's views can be dismissed without prejudice to me.  I also fear that some of your comments above may be perceived by BR as simply rude, rather than constructive, and thus may simply lead to escalation of conflict rather than removal of it.  Can you comment on the issue of duty to participate in good-faith dialog until such time as an editor has been sactioned?  I ask this question because I have not participated in many sanction cases until now, and thus may be incorrect in my understanding of processes.  Buddhipriya 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: how to deal with spam, SOAP, UNENC and/or cluelessness

message: Lord Vishnu is astika or nastika? Do you not mean to say GOD supports, teaches, and follows nastika??BalanceRestored 09:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Vishnu in his 9th birth taught Buddhism, (to follow nastika) right?BalanceRestored 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the Vedas? The only way in which it is connected is that nastika refers to not accepting the authority of the Vedas. Your personal commentary on whether Vishnu preached nastika since particular traditions regard Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu has no pertinence here. Wikipedia merely reports what is mentionedd in reliable sources. We don't deduce anything from them ourselves and write our own evaluations. That is Original research and is not allowed here. GizzaDiscuss © 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be there no attempts to ask editors to actually think logically? to build awareness about facts? Not everything that's researched could be right. I did try to show quotes from important personality too. Well if every editors thinks it is right to say Lord Vishnu preached nastika and asked his devotees to follow nastika, fine not a problem.BalanceRestored 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I believe that answers your question. Now may I ask you a question. What is your understanding of the phrase, verifiability, not truth? I think it is crucial that you get this right if you want edit prosperously at Wikipedia. Please answer this directly. Please don't ramble on something else. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is true that BR is (very obliquely) trying to introduce the viewpoints of Swami Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda, along the lines "the Vedas were written by magic space Aryans, and are aware of radio-astronomy, nuclear fusion, UFOs and what have you". It doesn't matter that it is obvious 19th century romanticist/mysticist/fundamentalist nonsense (in a nutshell: "theosophy"), this stuff is certainly notable, and these Swamis certainly deserve their own articles. The question is, how notable is this stuff to this article? The question is about WP:UNDUE, not WP:V ("Vedas: see Theosophy"?). I did offer BR he could introduce a new "Hindu reform movements" subsection and write a concise summary of all this. He quite apparently isn't prepare to actually document what he is talking about, but prefers to keep littering this talkpage with sibyllic comments. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1

message: Who is A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada???? BalanceRestored 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A person who has been practicing Hinduism, just not preaching all his life is no one to comment???BalanceRestored 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if I misunderstood what your question but to paraphrase it, you appear to be saying why Prabhupada can't have his opinions on Hinduism and "Nastika" mentioned as fact even though he has practised Hinduism all his life. If so, devotional views are welcomed here as long as enough context is provided and it is mentioned only to an extent. We have a Vedanta section on this page for this reason. GizzaDiscuss © 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2

message: "Anantah vai Vedah", the Vedas are endless, "Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" says the following "We cannot claim that all the Vedas have been revealed to the seers. Only about a thousand sakhas or recensions belonging to the four Vedas have been revealed to them." from the book "Hindu Dharma" http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap12.htm
:And this means what exactly? It might be intended to mean nothing more than that all knowledge is not contained in the texts we call Vedas. Paul B 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" is Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Feel free to discuss his views in detail on his own article. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the sixty eighth Shankaracharya's views at his article. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all could be in the 4 Vedas

message: Dear Editors, the views from Shankaracharya's are highly regarded in India. A seer in India is only titled Shankaracharya after a very great discussion among all the Indian Vedic Schools. According to "At the Eleventh Hour: The Biography of Swami Rama By Rajmani Tigunait", Page 174, , "In Hindu society the Shankaracharya is comparable to the Pope in Christianity". Currently the article Veda is importantly lacking views from the Shankaracharya's. Comments from the Shankaracharya's on the Vedas are considered very important. It is requested to present important discussions from the Shankaracharya's on Vedas be present at this very article. BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound to ask me, how's Pope related to Bible? and what's Bible to do with Christianity?? :) BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, Shankaracharya's noted commentaries on the "Vedas" pertain more to the Upanishads than the Samhita. That is why his name frequently appears on the Upanishads page compared to this article. GizzaDiscuss © 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, we are still discussing the notion that "the Vedas are infinite", aren't we. That would belong under the "Vedanta" heading I suppose, where Saraswati Swamigal's statement would make for an excellent illustration that the notion of "Vedas" in current (and classical) Hinduism is completely severed from the texts themselves. "Veda" is a mystic catch-all term thrown about without the least reference to anything that is actually in the texts known as the Vedas. Indeed, since the "Vedas are infinite", these texts can only be an infinitesimal fraction of the actual "Veda", and can therefore be ignored as irrelevant. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No [[Shankaracharya]]?

message: In the first bit, couldn't Sikhs be combined with Buddhists and Jains as nastika?  Why are they mentioned separately, if they also do not accept the Vedas?71.191.42.74 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikh status 

message: The Vedas and any Vedic literature that have been preserved by school of thoughts and by teaching traditions in India actually bears no connotation to Hinduism as such, as the word Hindu does not even come among the thousands of verse. The word Hindu is the etiquette that Mughals gave to people residing in the territory of India and Pakistan of yore whereas the Vedas does not make any discrimination, it is pure spirituality and it would be a gross exaggeration to even consider it as part of a so call religion as the message is strictly universal.
Throughout the ages this has been confined to high caste men in India, violating the ancient tradition of transmitting the knowledge of the Vedas, hence it being considered as the property of a few.The first major revival came with Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, hundred and eighty years back, which brought a revolution in the spiritual, political and religious landscape of India. He prone spirituality, and reaffirmed the role of religion as that to lead to spirituality by eradicating many flaws where falsehood and false practices were among the major ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veesham (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The philosophy of vedas 

message: I think it is important to state what method is/was being used by the researchers to arrive at the dating. Currently that's not mentioned. 
*Age is being arrived with the help of Carbon Dating etc has to be mentioned, 
so that it is clearer for the current generations to know if the findings where based on appropriate methods.BalanceRestored 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: I know of no evidence that Biblical literalism has played any significant role in the dating of the Vedas. It certainly does not with modern scholars. Evidence need to be cited to reliable sources. Thomas Trautmann's Aryans and British India, and his later writings discuss the histories of these ideas in detail, as does Arvidsson's Aryan Idols. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible and dating

message: I found the following description of the Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas in the introduction: "human expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge." That is not true. The Buddhist view is that the Vedas are not expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge. I do not know the Jain stance but it is no doubt the same. I have included a reference on the Buddha's stance. Mitsube (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but describing them as "heterodox" is like describing islam as a "heterodox" christianity. It is not, its an independent religion. Buddhism and Jainism is not hinduism, they're independent religions. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam was in fact seen as a Christian heresy for centuries. It's an excellent example of how you can't just draw a line between "independent religions". It is a matter of definition, and often also of opinion. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas 

message: I got this nice text  that states 3000 BC and 2000 BC could be the date when Sarasvati River disappeared. Saraswati is the most celebrated river in the Rig Veda and it's being mentioned in nine of the ten Mandalas!!! 
So how's that the dating of Rig Veda is given much later around 1700 BC here? If the river was exiting when Vedas were written it should be lot earlier anywhere beyond 3000 BC. How's the dating derived by the authors? BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: read Rigveda. The Bronze Age dates concern the oldest core of hymns exclusively, anyway, the actual redaction into the samhita dates to safely within the Iron Age. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute garbage. This erroneous dating of the Vedas in general and specifically the Rg Veda to 1700/1500BCE reflects the gross bias and eurocentricity of the so-called scholars such as Max Muller, Jones etc. Although the article vaguely hints at the hymns being composed around 3000 BCE, its predominant emphasis that the Rg Veda was "composed" and written in and around 1500 BCE stands out like a sore thumb.  As BR above has stated, a 'book', in this case the Rg Veda, that refers to a geographical territory somewhat specifically (Saraswati River) cannot be ignored.  If the river had disappeared around 3000 BCE, the Rg Veda must have been 'composed', or discovered (revealed?), much earlier than that. Michael Witzel is a philologist first, not a historian or an archeologist. Therefore, his tall tale about the dating of the Vedas is purely erroneous and should definitely be removed from the article.::  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rig Veda Dating looks wrong

message: The "Vedic" articles will always get editors without the first clue who still take it upon themselves to "correct" them. Well, many technical articles get this, even in physics topics etc., but for some reason this effect is a couple of orders of magnitude more severe in Indian topics than on average. This may be cultural, in some cultures it is more important to assert knowledge than to fiddle with technical details. I presume this is what Amartya Sen calls The Argumentative Indian. 
The solution, in my opinion, is semiprotection, not appeasement by streamlining the article in an attempt to make ill-advised "improvements" as unlikely as possible.
Experience shows that once a technical article is well-developed, chances of anonymous editors making an edit that actually improves the article rapidly falls to zero. "Edit this article right now" is Wikipedia's secret of success for starting out coverage on badly documented topics, but the same principle becomes an impediment from the moment an article reaches a certain level of sophistication. We have long-term semiprotection exactly to account for this, and there is no shame in using the tool wherever it benefits the project.  --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: anonymous "improvements"

message: In the Hinduism page it say's that Hinduism is the oldest known religion I think. So if the Vedas are the oldest known then well then here scripture in Hinduism, does that make the Vedas the oldest known scripture's? Or maybe the oldest known religious scriptures? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Vedic scripture the oldest known written scripture? ?