Talk:Śrauta

message: this should maybe just be a redirect to yajna, no need to explain the same thing twice. Shrauta is the vrddhi of Shruta and it deals with Yajnas, that doesn't leave much material specific to this article. dab (ᛏ) 07:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Shrauta may be linguistically related to Shruta. But it *is* a distinct tradition of Hindu Dharma requiring a seperate article.Babub 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right, but the major part of this is treated at yajna. At the moment, this article contains the term's etymology, a reference to yajna and a reference to patha, as well as a list of Vedic deities. The actual content relevant to the title is restricted to the "present situation" section. dab (ᛏ) 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shrauta tradition *consists* of all the things you've listed. Shrauta and smarta are the traditions deriving from shruti and smriti respectively. So the article is justifiable.Babub 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, India it is :)! Smartas are one of the four sampradayas of Hinduism. Within this, some smartas continue to practise shrauta rituals as prescribed in the vedas. For example, the smartas of Mattur, Holenarsipur and other villages in Karnataka as well as plenty of other places in South India still practise Shrauta as a distinct tradition. Nambudiris are the more famous among Shrautis but they are not the only ones. There are shrautis in Maharashtra too. See works of Frits Staal who has worked a lot in Shrauta field.Babub 07:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I realize that the Nambudiris are simply the best known, not the only ones. I have read stuff by Staal (especially Agni), but I am not an expert. I would very much welcome a discussion of other Shrauta groups to this article. Since we already have a Nambudiri article, they should be discussed. I see the future of this article in this direction, while the discussion of deities and yajnas can be summarized, but in detail belongs on the Deva and Yajna articles. As I said, I am not at home in this field, so I am careful with my edits, but I would suggest we discuss the relation between Smarta and Shrauta along the lines of what you just said instead of presenting them as antipodes. dab (ᛏ) 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled comments

message: why move to Śrauta?
* Suppoert Proper spelling, I guess: shrauta 10,000 hits, śrauta 18,000 hits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This arbitrary practice is why this mess exists in the first place. Just as we can get by fine with Rigveda, we can (as can the authors cited above) also get by fine with Shrauta. The page is apparently full of IAST now only because Ogress has (understandably inconsistently) made it so. I'd also like to note that your stance is also a complete volte-face.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two questions: what vote are you talking about? Śruti has apparently always been named such since it was first created in 2003. I retired in September 2015. It is 2016, how long are we going to continue to throw around this "diacritics on roman letters are hard" argument? There's a million pages with them. Radoševići (Srebrenica) is one I picked out of a hat. Ogress 12:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "" <— This vote. The point about Śruti is that its common name is Shruti just as it's Smriti and not Smṛti. And I'm talking about diacritics specifically with respect to IAST. We can talk about it until its pedantic use with no concern for the reader or the mangling of spellings everywhere is squashed.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: move page to Śrauta 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shrauta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070309063959/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/apr152006/metrosat1358342006414.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr152006/metrosat1358342006414.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Grihyasutras are Smarta, not Srauta  They are about domestic (Smarta) rites.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: MSW, your own sources distinguish between Srauta and Grhya.  For example, page 21 of Burde says "The Vedic ritual can again be divided into srauta and grhya rituals."VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: That is what the article states. Vedic (Brahmana) were divided into Srauta and Grihya. Which sentence is confusing you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grihyasutras are Smarta, not Srauta 

message: Lubin is tracing the homa tradition to the Vedic religion, not the other way around.  He says "All of these homas ultimately descend from those of the Vedic religion...."VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: Indeed. Feel free to reword it further, or just quote Lubin. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: @VictoriaGrayson: See Richard Payne's introductory discussion too, on history in the same Witzel edited book. May be worth summarizing it in a few sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages 152-153 of Lubin are about Gryhya, not Srauta. Lubin says "Vedic Rudra was especially associated with household affairs and the well-being of people and herds, but he was not a recipient of offerings in the srauta cult."  In fact Lubin specifically says "Such a radical substitution is not condoned in the srauta ritual texts, even later ones....."  Lubin says "the fact that it has been accepted as belonging to the Grhyasutra proper".   So its part of Gryhya, not Srauta.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Agnicayana and Rudra part. The Agnicayana is a Srauta ritual. Pages 151-152. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He says Rudra comes to be associated with Agni in the Svetasvatara Upanishad.  That is all.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: No. He writes quite a bit on Rudra. Both Taittiriya Samhita and Aitareya Brahmana mention Rudra in significant Sruti rituals, he is mentioned in later Srauta literature, so Rudra and srauta need to summarized in this article. I will give you a few days to improve this article in any way you feel fit. While you do so, I will check the other sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Where does Witzel say anything about substitutions in Blackwell Companion?VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: I will embed quotes with sources to make WP:V easier. BTW, some of your other changes look okay, but some don't. Perhaps, you too should embed quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First please quote where Witzel says anything about dough etc. substitutions here on this talk page.  Or atleast give a page number.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: Will you practice what you lecture others to do? Or do the rules don't apply to you for this article, just everyone else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing Witzel in Gavin Flood edited book. It is a different book than the one where Lubin's chapter is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask for a third time.  Can you please give the page number where Witzel talks about substitution of animals with dough in "Gavin Flood edited book"?VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Look at your own link.  You wrote in the article "Such developments and the evidence in Vedic texts, states Michael Witzel, suggest that Srauta rituals underwent historic reforms in the post-Rigvedic era (about and after 1000 BCE)."  "Such developments" refers to the previous sentence.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "such developments" refers to the paragraph. Witzel does start a section on page 77, in bold, "The Post-Rigvedic reform of the Srauta Ritual". Witzel also mentions many Vedic texts in the pages that follow. We can reword it, if you want. If that bothered you, can you explain the misrepresentation of sources by you in this article. Here is the diff of your edit. On which page does Witzel state, "Suffocation of animals, rather than decapitation, is part of the reforms in the post-Rigvedic (about and after 1000 BCE) Srauta rituals"? I see support for suffocation, but not the rest. Perhaps you can point me to the page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 74 says "decapitated".VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 74 is not discussing reform, is it? It is a Vedic ritual, variously interpreted. We can't (mis)represent it as a reform, if Witzel explicitly doesn't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes. But that discussion about Brahmanas layer of the Vedic text, and history, is not accurately summarized by your sentence. Witzel is merely explaining the intent behind reforms that can be attributed to late/post-RV political, social and religious changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are saying.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Read that reply and Witzel again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lubin 

message: Pasubandha is merely the Sanskrit term for animal sacrifice.  It is not a Srauta ritual.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the Sanskrit word means animal sacrifice. But what has that to do with naming/classifying a Srauta ritual as Pashubandha? I will add a source and reword where necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pasubandha

message: Lubin traces homa to Vedic religion, but homa is not the same thing as Srauta yajna.  Ganesha homa, Vajrakilaya homa etc. have very little to do with Srauta yajna.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homa is not the same as Srauta yajna. 

message: Your source says it arose in India, and then had extensions and offsprings throughout Asia:
VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @VictoriaGrayson: India is in Asia. Further, the first line of page 143 does mention Asia. There is no need to delete everything, just because of this Asia versus India point. You can change the wording instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source says arose in India