Talk:Rigvedic deities

message: Article is just a list of vedic deities which is excerpted from Griffin's book. Some points need to be corrected also. Article needs total revamp . If needed, please use the works of Indian scholars as well in devising this article and do no just rely on western scholars' work.141.160.26.251 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs improvement 

message: Greek Gods - The Sanskrit Connection. I find it rather interesting in a comparative religious perspective. Komitsuki (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek gods with Sanskrit connections 

message: I, perhaps most of Indians, do not see Dakshina and Jnanam as being deities. Should we not remove them from the list? How do we counter removal of those names since they exist in Griffin's book? What was the logic that he used to list them as deities? Should we have two lists, one based on Griffin and another based on someone else? I know the answer is removal of those to deities; I just do not know how to go about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilkn, you need to find other reliable sources of equal stature that disagree. Then we can discuss them and arrive at a WP:BALANCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Kautilya3, I read the translation . The word is not even mentioned once in the translation. Will this self contradiction suffice? Further the meaning of the word is exemplified in  There is no mention of it being a deity. It is just a verb or the corresponding noun.  -- Wilkn (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the Dakshina article mentions it as being deified, you need to discuss it on its talk page. The Jnanam articles doesn't say anything about it. So you can delete the latter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dakshina and Jnanam 

message: There is no point in having an article called Rigvedic deities. By that logic, we can dozens of articles called Gitaic Deities, Ramayanic deities, Mahabharatic deities and dozen others? LearnIndology (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata all represent the same Itihasa-Puranic tradition of Hinduism, which is the dominant form of the Hindu pantheon. Whereas the Rigvedic deities represent a very different tradition that the later Itihasa-Puranic Hindu tradition. The epics and Puranas represent a much later and different religious tradition than the Rigveda, and while they do use some Rigvedic deities, they are completely changed in character and purpose. The Rigvedic deities (I actually think it would be better to rename this article as Vedic deities) are notable enough in their own tradition and have enough content on them, without later texts demoting their status among the pantheon and changing up their entire mythos. You can see on the pages of many Rigvedic deities that there is a direct contrast about the information from the Vedic tradition and the later Itihasa-Purana tradition. The gods are pretty much completely different, have different family trees, different myths, different personalities, and different views by their adherents. Whereas the Itihasa-Puranic traditions, which is composed of the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas, mainly focuses on Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, the avatars, Karthikeya, Lakshmi, Saraswati. Whereas the old Vedic deities are completely swept under the rug and are barely recognized. However, there is an extensive corpus on them, and they were certainly notable enough to have their own list. It is like how there is a different page for Yahweh and the God in Abrahamic religions. You will also note that there is a completely different page dedicated to the historical Vedic religion. Basically, the Rigvedic deities were part of a pretty much completely different religion than Hinduism, while the Itihasa-Puranic texts are from the same religion. And while Hinduism does affirm the Vedas, that affirmation is merely nominal as the later epics and puranas are pretty much a rejection of non-Upanishad content in the Vedas. To include Rigvedic deities under the banner of Hindu deities would be like redirecting Buddhist deities or Jain deities to Hindu deities. While there is considerable overlap on deities from those religions, they still are very different between those religions and cannot be completely lumped under one banner. While those deities like Buddha can be mentioned as a Vishnu avatar according to Hinduism, it is still important put them in their own category. Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is very obvious that different traditions were dominant during different time period in the history of Hinduism, but that doesn't make older traditions a different religion. LearnIndology (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Get real. Hinduism is a synthesis of Brahmanical orthodoxy with a broad range of non-Vedic religions, which cam einto existence after 500 BCE; Vedic religion was not Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect