Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:21, 7 August 2007

Hinduism B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Useless to argue with Christian and Islamic fears, about what Vedas are

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)

Vedic dating

There is a serious problem with the entire sections on Misplaced Pages on Hinduism or Indian History. Let me just focus on Hinduism for now.

The Vedas are arguably the oldest surviving scriptures that are still used. Most Indologists agree that an oral tradition existed long before some of them were written down only during the second century BCE. There has been religious scholarship on the Vedas for several thousand years, including commentaries contained in the Upanishads and later Sruti texts like the Brahmanas. Religious scholars like Shankaracharya (8th century AD) and Ramanujacharya (11th century AD) have even written commentaries (Bhashya) on these commentaries. All of these religious scholars rejected the need to date the Vedas as they were considered timeless.

However,for more than a hundred years, European colonial and Christian religious interests and related scholarship have attempted to ascribe a date for the Vedas, looking at them purely as Sanskrit literature viewed from a linguistic or Indo-European sense, and have created controversies based on speculative dates. These dates ignore millenia of religious scholarship on the Vedas and deprecate more recent archaeological, astronomical and population genetics evidence. Even the linguistic evidence is suspect because Sanskrit as a language was codified by the Grammarian Panini long after the advent of the Vedas. Further, the Vedas have been oral texts for a specific purpose; their precise meters and specified octave complexity are intended to deliver sound vibrations that convey meaning and context to persons in a meditative state, for assistance in realizing eternal truths. Considering that these are only religious texts, any attempt to date them outside of religious scholarship or the Indian cultural and historical context and related scholarship has no value, and therefore no date for the Vedas can be ascribed.

The above unsigned comment was added by User:Hulagu in this edit: Buddhipriya 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your point of view on these matters. You are quite right that there are many debates on the subject of dating. Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability which explains that content on Misplaced Pages must be based on citation to what would be considered WP:RS for purposes of the article. So a first step to resolving content disputes is often to agree upon what sources would be considered WP:RS. If there are any specific books that you would like to suggest be added to the mix, please give citation information for them here so other editors can comment on whether or not those sources seem like WP:RS or not. Removal of material that is already in the article and cited by WP:RS that have previously been considered acceptable can be construed as vandalism, so please don't remove such material in the future as you did in this deletion: Also note that edit wars are discouraged. Please take controversial material to the talk page. Buddhipriya 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the removal of sourced material in the following edit which cut WP:RS and replaced them with a reference that appears to be WP:FRINGE material : . A sample of the scholarship by S. Kalyanaraman on "Indo-European Linguistics (IEL), a belief system; reclaiming history of bharatiya languages" is available here: . Examination of the references used there shows a heavy use of self-published web sites and even Misplaced Pages articles as sources, which does not inspire confidence. Even Misplaced Pages does not allow the use of Misplaced Pages articles as WP:RS. I ask other editors for their opinion on this material, and I call for the restoration of the sourced material that was cut. Buddhipriya 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I don't believe you examined the source properly, or you wouldn't make this statement. There are several dozen references from peer reviewed material and books, some of which are now noted on Hinduism notice board. The reference I put in was not as an original reference, since the Kalyanaraman piece was just a collection of these texts and references. I can send you the complete document by mail or if you will show me how to, attach it on Wiki for review. Also, sourced material from authors with proven bias on this subject like Michael Witzel and his like cannot be on Misplaced Pages.

I am sensing that I am wasting my time your like, since you seem pretty entrenched in your biased views and representation on these pages. I suspect these topics are going to require arbitration and appointment of neutral, unbiased administrators. Hulagu 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

S. Kalyanaraman promotes "Proto-vedic Continuity Theory", a theory the content of which has never been very clear. It has no acceptance at all by professional linguists as far as I am aware, but if you can find evidence that unbiassed linguists take this theory seriously, we should like to see it. Te fact that he footnotes some legitimate sources, does not make his theory legitimate. Anyone can add footnotes to whatever they want to say. Paul B 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of standard References section

I have changed the layout of the References to comply with Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Sorry about that. Do as you please. JFD 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas not 4 Vedas

There are various discussions about the veda being 5 and not 4.... The vedas are not talking about these.. Should we consider added details about those... these are mentioned by Verses of Vemana. There are many discussions about this.. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vov/vov11.htm

There is a mention about Pranav Veda.. any details ???

I found the narration about the 5 (five) Vedas in the following book

• Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
• By Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
• Published 1928
• The Institute Original from the University of California

"Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute" This is the place in Pune where all the ancient copies of the Vedas are kept. The topic needs to be importantly mentioned. BalanceRestored 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Click to check the vedic verses and the clear citation of the 5 vedas http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1 BalanceRestored 10:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, please consult the many highly regarded books published on the Vedas (see for example this list of references), and don't base your edits to this well-developed article based on two line snippets on google books.
For your information, "Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute" is a journal publication of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, and any reference to it will require citation of the exact article title along with the authors. Also it is highly recommended incumbent that one read (and understand) any academic article completely and in its correct context before adding content from it. 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation is insufficient and vague, kindly quote with page numbers of the reference books you have read actually and with the exact narration. Also quote from where the narrations are taken. There are different versions about the numbers 5 or 4, and we will need to take the appropriate one only. Misplaced Pages is not a place for common belief I suppose. It is an encyclopedia. Also do you have any explanation about the material mentioned by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Again it is very apparent from your explanation that you have not read your self the reference books. Also you have not signed the above explanation. BalanceRestored 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Now can you provide the title and authors for the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute reference you cited ? Abecedare 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is that to do with the reference. Kindly explain. Is the book published or not? Also you just referred to me Merriam Webster Dictionary, what is that to do with what you just wrote above list of references.. BalanceRestored 05:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please click on the above Merriam Webster link!

Here is another quote from Michael Witzel, "Vedas and Upaniṣads" in Gavin Flood, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-3251-5. Pages 68-101.

"The Four Vedas are the oldest extant texts of India and contain religious and ritual poetry ..."

Abecedare 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

what is mentioned by the author and from where is this author quoting the reference form . I have refered about the Arthashastra mentioning about the 5 vedas.? Where is this author quoting the text from? and when what I referred is cited why are you removing the same?BalanceRestored 06:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I has also asked to mention where the narrations, the author of the book you are mentioning are been taken from. There are difference of opinions with regards to 4 or 5 which was already stated by me. I already mentioned we will need to go with the correct citation. You did not bother to explain the same.BalanceRestored 06:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of the publisher is R.N. Dhandekar at Bhandarkar Institute press BalanceRestored 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Newer Citations

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
• ISBN 8120816765

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)

Bhagvat Purana Pranav Veda

"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)

Various Books Refering the Pranav Veda

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
• ISBN 1417978465

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 Saṃyutta Nikāya ("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)

Did you read the references right? Was the google book mentioned above included in the references? BalanceRestored 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete research on the presence of 5 Vedas

"Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat"

• By Bruce M. Sullivan
• Page 8, Page 88, Page 7
• ISBN 8120816765

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"

Looks like you missed it. I re-edited the article using this book. Not the Google thing you mentioned. Kindly get the article back. Looks like you made an error unknowingly. BalanceRestored 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The material from that book that is available online makes it clear that he is talking about the Mahabharata as the "fifth Veda". That is an honorific idea. It is quite possible that he makes claims for some other scriptures as being a fifth Veda as well, or perhaps there is some metaphorical point involved. The entire body of academic study in this field organizes the Vedic corpus into the four main divisions. Please read WP:FRINGE. I ask for the second time, please give the Sanskrit name of a specific scripture that is being identified as the "fifth Veda". What is it, so I can look the work up? Either it is one of the works that is classified formally in some other way, such as the dance shastras (which I have heard called "the fifth veda" by dancers, or perhaps it is some mythical work. But what is the title of it? Buddhipriya 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read all the pages, I have provided the narrations. BalanceRestored 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also did you read this reference from Government of India. By Mysore (India : State), "Mysore State Gazetteer:", 1965, Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press, Page 220 . You seemed to have ignored even this..

A few other points to note:

• The "Seer of the Fifth Veda" is a 1984, PhD thesis of Bruce Sullivan, and while it is interesting to read, it is hardly accepted in the mainstream given the lack of citations to it in scholarly journals or academic reviews.
• The 1990 edition of the book is titled, "Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa and the Mahabharata: A New Interpretation.", which demonstrates that even the author thinks of the idea of the "fifth veda" as a novel interpretation.
• You are quoting selectively from the book; for example page 8 the book not only 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" but also talks about how the Puranas have a conflicting version.
• Another example of the author himself stating the weidely accepted version is found right at the beginning on page 2, where he writes, "He is traditionally credited with arrangement of the vedas into four texts, as well as the composition of the epic Mahabharata, many Puranas and other works", as well as, "He is credited not only with arranging the collection of the sruti ("Revelations") into the four text of the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Veda, but also the composition of much of the smritis ("Tradition")" (emphasis added; IAST not transcribed).

Also as mentioned by Buddhipriya, the the "fifth Veda" and "Pranava vedas" raise WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG issues and we will need solid authoritative citations in support of such claims. Abecedare 07:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The text I wrote was as follows

There are number of citations in the Vedic texts that cite the possibility of there being a fifth Veda.

This time I did not write there are Five Vedas ... I did mention possibility..

The Vishwabrahmin community in India follow the Pranava Veda, according to them is the 5th Veda. I cited the text from Government of India (is that not solid???). Any reasons for ignoring that too?BalanceRestored 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again there are big seers in India who say the Vedas are 5, they say thing because they did study them all their lives. There are surely non-conclusive assumptions about the same. I do agree. But what's the harm mentioning what is written? Hey not everything you hear is alway true. Truth is sometimes beyond it. These books I mentioned and there are lots of citations about it.. It is important for the details to be mentioned. Any reasons why we should ignore these citations?BalanceRestored 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Mysore State Gazetteer", 1965 being a gazetteer, would be an excellent (though outdated) reference for the geography of Mysore, and perhaps an acceptable reference for its demographics circa. 1965. However it is far from a reliable, authoritative source on the Vedas. And again you miscited the refernce which does not mention Vishwabrahmins on page 220, but only Panchals. Abecedare 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I must ask that BalanceRestored comply with WP:CIVIL and stop referring to the fact that we are disagreeing with the points being raised as "ignoring" the issues. We are disagreeing that the material says what you think it does, and we do not agree that the sources are WP:RS. You still have not answered my question regarding the actual Sanskrit titles of any works that may be involved, making it very difficult to do any sort of independent search for citations on the matter. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Buddhipriya 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vishwabrahmins, Vishwakarmas, Panchals are the same. Their gotras are the same. You can check and research about the same. Now the topic of discussion is not about Vishwabrahmins or Panchals, the thing you both persistantly ignored the "Government of Indias" quotations.

You mention it Panchals

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

Or Vishwabrahmins

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

Or Vishwakarmas

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

What ever you feel you are comfortable with you can mention it.. Panchals, Vishwabrahmins, or Vishwakarmas. BalanceRestored 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a good reason not to quote about the 5 veda that is mentioned by Government of India?BalanceRestored 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: The "Mysore State Gazetteer", 1965 being a gazetteer, would be an excellent (though outdated) reference for the geography of Mysore, and perhaps an acceptable reference for its demographics circa. 1965. However it is far from a reliable, authoritative source on the Vedas."

Spamming this page with unrelated content (as above), is not helping your cause and is disruptive. Abecedare 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind.. it is better to get experts resolve this problem. Do you mind helping me with that. Or you have a problem even with that.BalanceRestored 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. Abecedare 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

guys, try to be constructive. The Mahabharata is obviously irrelevant to the Vedas themselves. You are free to claim even today that there are six or seven or any number of Vedas without any impact on the actual Vedic literature. The Vedas themselves talk of triplicity, and in late Vedic times a "fourth Veda" appears. The Vedic period ended, but of course people in the Maurya or Gupta period could well get the idea that, hey, if a "fourth Veda" can be introduced, why not a fifth? This is certainly a respectable topic, to be treated under "reception of Vedic literature", or "importance of Vedic texts in Hinduism". Not relevant to the study of the Vedas themselves, but of great importance to the study of Hinduism and history of Indian thought. Try to just move such discussions to the relevant place instead of calling each other names. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(Pranav Veda) Pranav OR "OM" is itself a veda there are various texts about the begining of the creation etc, this Veda has been there among the Panchals / Vishwabrahmins what ever you call it who have 5 rishis those are clearly mentioned in the Yajur Veda itself. It is said that the 1st Veda Pranav Veda has been written around 10,000 years ago other are written much latter. If it is not mentioned here on the main page the other people who could be knowing more in details will not easily reach the page and write about the facts. But, strictly not mentioning about "OM" at it at all, is a big question. I know all these things because it is often discussed among the community members and when I try to find facts around the same, I do find them. Now it is up to you all to mention the same or not. See I myself am a lot Blind about the Vedic Scripts and am enjoying all these competitive claims about the facts from AB and BPriya because the more I am challenged the more I learn. It gives me more boost to get things and prove what I claimed is right. It makes me happier, finding the facts to be true. I've ordered for this book, hope it reaches me soon and I am able to make better claims. Again I understand this is something we've too never heard before. I too just heard about the same. My reaction was the same as all you are having.. 5 Vedas.. at first I said.. what the....... why are all these people talking all these.. !!!!... but after finding facts, they seem to be true, I needed to bring that here as I felt it was important and something we all could learn if it is really true.. Well I did mention about "5th Veda" and all it's citations, now it is up to you all to research about it. I will surely give up after making some more attempts. I don't want to suddenly bring out things which you people never heard... at least it is visible to me.. i see there's something in these books I did scan, you all don't see no problem ..... BalanceRestored 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the questions... was such a book there...is such a book there.. http://www.aumoneworld.com/books.html .. I do see one.. BalanceRestored 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pranavan Vedam"

• by Dr. S. P. Sabharathnam
• A fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe and the ancient science of Pranava Veda or the cosmic life force. Written by a master in the Agamas.BalanceRestored 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've myself never read this myself. I did try google, amazon books ... it is not found there.BalanceRestored 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created the page Pranav Veda, I hope there will be more inputs about this treatise.BalanceRestored 10:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Texts are criticizing 2 important religions in India

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)

Crossing NPOV There are not just 2 but 66 more religions. This is a strict no-no at wikipedia.BalanceRestored 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI.. "nāstika" this is a very cheaply looked up term in India. It is very similar to calling niggers etc. They should be removed from Wiki I suppose.BalanceRestored 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to get involved in one of these Mera Bharat Mahan disputes, but nāstika just means that Buddhists and Jains don't think that there is a God (... नास्ति, one might venture to say), which certainly no Buddhist or Jain would think is anything to be ashamed of. The reason to remove this stuff is probably that it's POV, but more that it's a sort of tired, Sarvepalli Radhakrishna (no offense to the great man), "there are six schools of Indian philosophy," POV than that it's pejorative. Rājagṛha 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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/Special:Contributions/R%C4%81jag%E1%B9%9Bha You are surely someone in disguise.BalanceRestored 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)

Veda written by the Sons of Vishwakarma

||Shree Ganesha||

As cited at http://www.amcreativityassoc.org/ACA%20Press/Global%20Correspondents/Global_1999.pdf

Considered to be the son of the Vasuprabhasa and his wife, Yogasiddha, according to one tradition, Visvakarma had five faces, ten hands and from each of the face he begot a son. Like their father, each of the sons was extraordinarily talented and versatile in all fields and because of their stature, they were also awarded the title of Maharishi (great sage or saint) (Sharma, 1989). Each of the five sons gave rise to a major artistic lineage, and theoretically any artist can trace his mythical descent to one of them. The five sons of Visvakarma are claimed to have been the first blacksmith, the first carpenter, the first founder, the first mason, the first goldsmith, variously and the succeeding generation of the craftsmen are supposed to be their progeny. Roberts (1909, p.11) quotes a passage from the Vedas:

Manu was a blacksmith and author of the Rig Veda. Maya was a carpenter and author of Yajur Veda. Twashtak was a brass caster and author of Sama Veda. Shilpi was a mason-architect and author of the Atharvana Veda. And Vishvagna was a goldsmith and author of the Pranava Veda. IT is written by Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. BalanceRestored 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article you have found, (i.e.,The Divine Creativity: The Mythical Paradigm and Lord Visvakarma by M.K. Raina; as well as the references it cites) is an excellent reference for adding material to both the Vishwakarma and the Vishwabrahmin articles, and I would highly encourage you to work in that direction. However the tradition you quote above about the origins of the Vedas, is just one of many such legends associated with their origins, and is not notable enough for inclusion in this article. Abecedare 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Abecedare I too am of the same opinion of yours, but any particular reason for that? But I personally think that no author should be credited with writing the Veda until and unless it is 100% proven. I too understand that Vedas are a big thing for the Indian Subcontinent. I have read the passage that says Roberts has quoted the citation from Veda. I have pasted the same so that a relevant research is done in that direction. If the names of the sages are truly mentioned in the citations, there should be no harm in mentioning the same.BalanceRestored 08:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

tirumala.org

Can we use this website as a benchmark while quoting important controvercial issue

IT is written by Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. Page Number 10. Well I could not reach this book. If someone ever reaches this book and the page number and the verses that quoted the same, It will be an interesting discovery. The author quotes the following Manu was a blacksmith and author of the Rig Veda. Maya was a carpenter and author of Yajur Veda. Twashtak was a brass caster and author of Sama Veda. Shilpi was a mason-architect and author of the Atharvana Veda. And Vishvagna was a goldsmith and author of the Pranava Veda. is taken from VEDA itself. So, after reading which Veda is the author talking about and which verses are telling the same we can quote that to the main page. BalanceRestored 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the information given in that book conflicts with many standard reference works on this subject, it constitutes a type of WP:FRINGE claim that certainly need not be mentioned in the article. Unless this myth can be shown to be notable, as could be done by finding references to it in a range of WP:RS, citing this sort of story would give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe idea. Buddhipriya 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the names are found in the Verses of Vedas should that be still a WP:FRINGE claim?? does the above narration referred narration "Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. Page Number 10." look like he is quoting something from the Vedas? Could be false, Could be he lied that all together, but who knows, the names of the sages followed by the Vishwakarmas are definitely seen in Yajur Veda 4.3.3, that is something we should not forget. But I've hardly seen western authors who researched in India quoting things for no reasons. I did never find one. BalanceRestored 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more website quoting the 5 vedas and they are said to be written by Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi, and Vishwajna 5 vedas written by Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi, and Vishwajna the website quotes content is taken from 'origin of the Vedas provided by Spiritual Origin Of Vedas.'

BR, I hope you realize that this is a satarical, humour piece about religion. Please read the source you cite completely to make sure that the quotes are not taken out of context. Abecedare 08:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew that was a one, but I just pointed out so that it be understood that it is not something that people have not already talked about. Any way I found some light about the same from Skanda Purana. I am focusing on the same. Once I am clear with the evidences, I will put that in the main article. :)BalanceRestored 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Skanda Purana Verses

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)

tirumala.org

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)

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)

You mean to say a website that is run by the temple organization could be wrong? BalanceRestored 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vasishtha credited chief author of Mandala 7 of the Rigveda

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

Clear Confirmations of the 5 Vedas

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)

Age of Veda

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)

A German scholar and an Indian scholar simultaneously discovered in 1889 that the Vedic Brahmana texts describe the Pleiades coinciding with the spring equinox. Older texts describe the spring equinox as falling in the constellation Orion. From a calculation of the precision of the equinoxes, it has been shown that the spring equinox lay in Orion in about 4,500 BC.

The German scholar, H. Jacobi, came to the conclusion that the Brahmanas are from a 

period around or older than 4,500 BC. Jacobi concludes that “the Rig Vedic period of culture lies anterior to the third pre-Christian millennium.”22 B. Tilak, using similar astronomical calculations, estimates the time of the Rig Veda at 6,000 BC.23

More recently, Frawley has cited references in the Rig Veda to the winter solstice beginning in Aries. On this basis, he estimates that the antiquity of these verses of the Veda must go back at least to at least 6,500 BC.24 The dates Frawley gives for Vedic civilization are:

Period 1. 6500-3100 BC, Pre-Harappan, early Rig Vedic 

Period 2. 3100-1900 BC, Mature Harappan 3100-1900, period of the Four Vedas Period 3. 1900-1000 BC, Late Harappan, late Vedic and Brahmana period

Professor Dinesh Agrawal of Penn State University reviewed the evidence from a variety of sources and estimated the dates as follows:

1. Rig Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BC
2. End of Rig Vedic Age - 3750 BC
3. End of Ramayana-Mahabharat Period - 3000 BC
4. Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-2200 BC
5. Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-1900 BC
6. Period of chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BC
7. Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400-250 BC

The Taittiriya Samhita (6.5.3) places the constellation Pleiades at the winter solstice, which correlates with astronomical events that took place in 8,500 BC at the earliest.

The Taittiriya Brahmana (3.1.2) refers to the Purvabhadrapada nakshatra as rising due east—an event that occurred no later than 10,000 BC, according to Dr. B.G.Siddharth of India’s Birla Science Institute. Since the Rig Veda is more ancient than the Brahmanas, this would put the Rig Veda before 10,000 BC.

Maurice Winternitz, A History of Vedic Literature, Vol. 1, p. 277.

B.G. Tilak, The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas (Bombay: 1893)

For example, Rig Veda, verses 1.117.22, 1.116.12, 1.84.13.5.

Source:http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDFBalanceRestored 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas

There are 5 Vedas against the standard 4. There are evidences for the same

There are various texts that talk about the Vedas being 5 in number. Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas. Mahabharata said to be written by Vyasa, says that Vyasa taught one more Veda to his own son Shuka. Written at Mahabharata Shanti Parva 335-40

• The Religious Authority of the Mahabharata: Vyasa and Brahma in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-401, Bruce M. Sullivan it quotes "Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas."
• "Mysore State Gazetteer", Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press (1965), Page 220 says The Panchals are said to follow five Vedas (instead of the standard four), the fifth being the "Pranava Veda"
• Pages indexed in google for the term "5 Veda" 700+
• Pages indexed in google for the term "fifth veda" 11,700. There are various assumptions for the same.
• Skanda Purana the biggest among the Puranas clearly mentions the original people to whom the 5 Vedas belonged (Still to confirm this) The verses are as follows "RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid, Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata || Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha"
• kamakoti.org "Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham" says "There are five Vedas if you reckon the Yajur Veda to be two with its Sukla and Krsna divisions." so they agree that there are 5 vedas, the sentence is very much "confused" looks like the sage knows there are 5 vedas.
• "Psychic Science April 1931 to January 1932", Stanley De Brath, Published 2004 Kessinger Publishing, New Age / Parapsychology, ISBN 1417978155. Says "The Newest Physics", "A remarkable little book a new astronomy and cosmic Physicology "merely to introduce the larger work" page 122. The author G. E. Sutcliffe claims that in is based on a method entirely new in Europe. This method is said to be contained in the Pranava Veda, A Sanskrit text from the East.
• "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One eva={{Used to put emphasis}} soPura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. Now people who read this line from Srimad-Bhagavata and still say , NO NO NO or write something else, which is 100% crystal clear, I think they need a doctor. My friends we all agree that Vyasa divided the 4 vedas from some big text (Veda) to simplify it. It was the pranava veda he did that from. Now, this is what people say and talk about. Truth needs to be found, this is what something that's commonly talked. Again.. there's something else also about Pranava Veda that sounds silly.. but I will keep that a secret. Ok, you all scholars, great editors, which TEXT VYASA DIVIDED to make that simple? IT WAS THE VEDA so which VEDA? does anyone know that?BalanceRestored 10:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vyasa has said to have divided the Vedas in 1180 Saakaas and each shaka is associated with a Upanishads. So there should be 1180 Saakaas in all. Now why are there only 108 Upanishads today?? BalanceRestored 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote which idea is true, or decide which view is right.

Just do what you did, cite your sources.... and please be citing them accurately!

Paul it is really bad form to remove citations just because they don't agree with your view. Personally, I have never heard of the five veda idea myself, but until you or me gets out the refferences he has provided, we have no place to remove them....Maybe the section could be touched up a bit.... However, please do not remove his citations unless you have them in front of you and they don't say what he claims they do. Sethie 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC

Sethie, you don't understand what you are talking about. Anyone can add a 'citation' by finding online a suitable sounding text and putting it in refs. It's a form of footnote faking. The article is about the mythical role of Vyasa in Indian tradition. It does not justify any claim that there is an extant '5th Veda'. Balance Restored is absolutely obsessed with this point and has trawled web pages in repeatedly in support of his claim. He could easily have written something on the concept of the fifth Veda as a lost text or as a way of speaking about somje aspect of relgious practice or tradtion. But he does not. He just repeatedly adds the meanngless assertion that there is a fifth Veda without saying what is meant by that. Paul B 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold my friend, I am a Vishwakarma my self. First find out facts and then tell things. People have tried to destroy books, records. There are lot of things in the past that I will be ashamed to mention. There are over 40 lakh Vishwakarma in India who follow this Veda are currently a minority community which lack in Numbers and hence things are not known much. Just because one section of the society believes in otherwise and things have been not researched does not mean it is not there. BalanceRestored 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If they follow this Veda then you will have no problem producing an edition of the text of it then will you, or at least a discussion of its content? Paul B 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I have clearly mentioned citations for the Arthashastra and referring the same I have written things. Why should cited narrations be removed. BalanceRestored 09:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The formula for atom bombs are not given in public. They are secrets. Don't you have heard about the Puspak Viman, Things flying, etc etc in the Vedas? The veda is hidden.BalanceRestored 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You say you follow it but can't say what it is. Isn't that rather odd? Instead you quote from sources such as gazetters that say "so and so says there is a 5th Veda". The point is that various authors mean different things when they use this term. For example if you type "fifth gospel" into google you will get many hits referring to a "fifth gospel", which is a term used by different authors to mean a variety of different things. Adding a section to the article on The Gospels saying "many authors have said there is a fifth gospel" would be pointless and uninformative. The Pranava Veda page is itself a disambiguation page because the term is used to refer to several different things (just like "fifth gospel" - or fifth Beatle!). There is nothing stopping you adding an informative section on this concept, but you cannot do so because you show no sign of understanding what the actual issues are. Paul B 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look an encyclopedia is a referece book for my knowledge. A researcher can reach here. He needs to find every little details about a topic. False, True everything. Let the future decide what's false and what's true. First even I thought it could be false, after talking to many people and discussing with many and finding real time evidences there should be a reason not to quote the same?BalanceRestored 11:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This reply indicates that you are impervious to debate. Just answer this: what is the fifth Veda that you follow? Paul B 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow the 5th Veda "Pranava Veda" (like you all follow the Rig, Yajur, Sama, Artha without reading the text just talk about the same) about that you can clearly see here.

• Pranavan Vedam
• by Dr. S. P. Sabharathnam
• "A fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe and the ancient science of Pranava Veda or *the cosmic life force. Written by a master in the Agamas."

This is indeed a very rare text, but I can see the same. Do you see it.? I do see this is a book that has pages and is not just OM. BalanceRestored 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a book about the concept of the Pranava Veda. It not an ancient text itself is it? Even the title refers to the PV as a "cosmic life force" not as a text. Paul B 13:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, please see the first sentence of Vedas#The Four Vedas section, which I added after reading the cited article and IMO presents the 5th veda concept in context (although even this may be giving the idea endue weight). Abecedare 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me understand how one sentence is undue weight? Sethie 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that I added that "compromise" sentence, I can certainly live with it; but to answer your particular question: the reason that even one sentence can be undue weight is because scholarly review articles and books written on the Vedas (such as the ones by Michael Witzel and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentioned in the references) do not find this trivia important enough to mention in works which exceed the length of the wikipedia article by a factor of around a 100. Also see the discussion in this above section. Regards. Abecedare 17:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cool, I like it. I say we add in one more of balanced restores refference to that section and be done with this. Having sat with it, I concur though that it doesn't need it's own section for sake of WP:UNDUE. Sethie 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, please review the "BR references" at the top of this section, or in earlier sections (such as ) and see if there is a single source you consider to be a reliable secondary and authoritative on this subject on which 100s of academic books and 1000s of scholarly articles have been written. The Sullivan thesis (published in various versions) is the only credible source among these, although I have already explained my view of using even that source in greater detail several times above. Abecedare 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How can 5 be 4?? and why you removed the citation about Arthasastra? On what context is the reference from Arthasastra removed?

BR you are again edit-waaring on the Vedas page and have already violated the condition under which your indef. block was revoked. Also see WP:PSTS. Abecedare 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look you can take that unreferenced not topic about my ban at my talk page. It is not answering to my question. I am not edit warring, I questioned you the reason for removing the reference from Arthasastra is this text wrong? You have not bothered to answer the same. It is not me but you who is edit warring BalanceRestored 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Would a reference to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories be helpful here? -- Zamkudi 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say Arthasastra is a Fringe? BalanceRestored 10:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that there were five Vedas that existed sounds like a very minority view, much more like a fringe theory not worthy of inclusion on any encyclopedia. -- Zamkudi 11:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided with many references not one. There are many many more. Try reading Mahabharata Shanti Parva. I've also mentioned the topic number, that varies from books to books. Things are crystal clear.BalanceRestored 11:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Vishnu Puran says that there are 4 vedas I suppose, we have 18-20 important Puranas also. Skanda Purana too says there are 5 vedas, Mahabharata says it, so what is fringe? 5 Vedas or 4 Vedas?BalanceRestored 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But can we be sure that the 5th veda referred to is the book in question? The Sullivan book included in the references says that Mahabharata and Natyasastra both described themselves as the "5th veda". That makes at least 7 vedas, counting the Pranava Veda. Also, until and unless we actually have documented evidence for the factual existence of the Pranava Veda, we can't refer to it specifically, as we can't refer to something we can't verify. The article Vishwakarmas indicates that the Pranava Veda is "not a text but the notion that 'Aum is the Veda". On that basis, maybe change the first sentence to "several other texts including the Mahabharata and Natyasastra refer to themselves as the "fifth Veda", and the Vishwakarmas hold that the Aum itself is a '5th veda'"? John Carter 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I think your idea of expanding that sentence to briefly mention that some (not only Vishwakarmas) consider Aum to be the fifth (or even the primal) Veda is a good one. Does anyone have a specific reliable source to attest this fact ? Abecedare 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the claim that the Epics are "the fifth Veda" is an honorific statement. I am not aware of any WP:RS that would agree that there are more than four Vedas if by that term we are referring to the canon of Hindu scripture that is generally recognized as authoritative across multiple schools. In line with sourcing for WP:FRINGE theories of this type, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Buddhipriya 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> I completely agree that the claim that the Epics (or Aum) are "the fifth Veda" is an honorific statement, and that is exactly what the article would say, once we have a solid reliable source attesting to that. To be clear, I am thinking of changing the first sentence in the Vedas#The Four Vedas to something along the lines of:

Four texts are traditionally accorded the designation of Veda, though several other texts including the Mahabharata and Natyasastra refer to themselves as the "fifth Veda". and the syllable Aum is in some contexts referred to as the primal or the Pranava Veda.

Of course the exact wording will have to be adjusted depending on what the cited source says exactly. Does that make sense? By the way it would also be preferable if the second sentence of the section used a secondary source as a citation, in addition to/in pace of direct reference to a primary source (Vishnu Purana) Abecedare 22:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that putting that material into the lead would give WP:UNDUE weight to these fringe statements, particularly to the statement that om is the Fifth Veda. If it goes in anywhere, it should not be in the lead. I am sure that I can find a source for the honorific references to the Epics, but it may take a few days to find it. I am aware of a religious view in which all shruti are considered to be "emanations" or "vibrations" which have propagated from om, but finding a citation for that may also take a bit of work. It is a religious notion which needs to be clearly kept separate from any type of systematic ordering or canonical enumeration of the various categories of Hindu scripture.

Regarding the use of scripture as a citation, while any particular scripture may be a WP:RS primary source for what that scripture itself says, what that scriptural statement means in most cases will require citation of a reliable secondary source. If, for example, I am writing an article about the resurrection of Jesus, I can cite the Gospel accounts of that event as primary sources related to that belief, but I cannot use those sources to establish the historicity of the event. Buddhipriya 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation for the use of the term "fifth Veda" as an honorific for the Mahabharata, and as a bonus we have a "Tamil Veda" as well. This occurs as a comment in a section discussing tensions between orthodox Brahmanism and popular religion. It says that: "The one solid good that was achieved, however, was that popular methods of religious instruction were evolved, the contents of the learned books brought to the knowledge of the masses at large, and certain high ideals of virtue which constitute the priceless heritage of India, like the dutifulness of Rāma, the chastity of Sītā and Sāvitrī, the brotherly love of the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata heroes, the religious devotion of Dhruva and Prahlāda, the truthfulness of Yudhiṣṭhira, the charity of Śibi, Karṇa, and Hariścandra, and the achievement of Viśvamitra in re-establishing the principle of social eminence according to personal qualification, were held up before the public for admiration and emulation. No wonder that the Mahābhārata should come to be regarded as the fifth Veda, open to all alike, the Purāṇas to be religiously recited, and in the South the popular devotional literature should come to be known as the Tamil Veda." (Quotation from Bhārataratna Bhagavan Das, "Introduction", in: CHI, volume 4, p. 11.)

The reason why I quoted this passage at some length is because in context it clearly shows that the use of the term "Fifth Veda" to describe the Mahabharata is intended as an honorific, not a literal classification of the epic work within the formal system for Hindu scripture. Further, it establishes that the time period for this view was post-Vedic. It also brings out the tension between orthodoxy, which limited access to formal scriptural study in ways that gave rise to alternative popular religious models, including popular epic and puranic materials. Buddhipriya 05:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a second citation for the term "Fifth Veda" as an honorific for the Mahabharata, plus a bonus regardng the fact that four Vedas are recognized by the Mahabharata itself. This is from one of the standard early Western authorities on the Mahabharata, E. Washburn Hopkins. In the section on "Divisions of Vedas" he says of the word "veda" that "The word is used also of the epic, Vyāsa's Saṁhitā, the fifth Veda." (Quotation from Hopkins, E. Washburn. The Great Epic of India. 1901, page 7. Reprint edition: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1993, ISBN 81-208-0995-5.

On pages 2-4 Hopkins discusses the standard four Vedas, which are mentioned in the Mahabharata. He refers to them as the vedic "caturmūrtiḥ, or fourfold Veda..." (p. 2). He notes that "The epic even has caturveda as an epithet of a man, - 'one who knows the four Vedas'" (= cāturvaidya, p. 3). He also mentions the threefold Veda is a distinct grouping and refers to "The tradition of 'lost' Vedas" (p. 3) but the note given for that comment does not seem relevant to the present discussion, and I have been unable to find further discussion of that idea in that book. Buddhipriya 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another spin on the "Fifth Veda" is given by Maurice Winternitz, who gives a different approach. This citation documents the generalized use of the term "veda" to cover non-Vedic materials. This discussion comes in the beginning of his section on the popular epics and the puranas. In this quote he makes reference to the Purāṇas and the Itihāsas (used here either as a synonym for the Purāṇas or to refer to another class of narrative literature, see footnote 1, p. 311.) Winernitz says: In the later Vedic texts Itihāsa and Purāṇas are very frequently enumerated beside the Vedas and other branches of learning; the study of them counts as a work pleasing to the gods: in fact the Itihāsapurāṇa is actually called 'the fifth Veda.' Winternitz has a footnote on this "fifth Veda" comment saying (note 4) "The theory that there was a book called 'Ithihāsaveda' or 'Itihāsapurāṇa' is advanced by (various scholars). But the very passage... which is quoted by these scholars, proves that 'Itihāsa' should be interpreted, not as a single work, but as a class of literary productions: for 'Veda' only means a certain kind of learning, not a book: Āyurveda is 'medical science,' Gandharvaveda is 'music,' Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, etc., are classes of texts, and not single books. Thus 'Itihāsaveda' is not any particular book, but that branch of learning which consists of legends, stories, etc."

Winternitz' discussion of the use of the word veda in its general sense of learning is useful, and ties back to the vague definitional problems we have had with the upavedas. And lest there be any doubt, Winternitz lists the standard four Vedas on pp. 53-54 of volume 1. He notes that this group of four that have come down to us may not reflect the entire corpus which may existed in some distant past: "There must once have existed a fairly large number of Saṁhitās, which originated in different schools of priests and singers, and which continued to be handed down. However, many of these 'collections' were nothing but slightly diverging recensions - Śakhās, 'branches,' as the Indians say - of one and the same Saṁhitās. Four Saṁhitās, however, are in existence, which differ clearly from each other, and which have been preserved in one or more recensions. These are: ..." (etc. with list of the standard four). Buddhipriya 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The practice of referring to the Puranic corpus as the "fifth Veda" is specifically refuted in this passage from a standard textbook on Puranic literature: "In spite of their early title of 'fifth Veda', the Purāṇas do not in fact carry the authority of scripture."

Refs

1. Flood 1996, p. 82 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlood1996 (help)
2. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/vedol-MG-X.html
3. Radhakrishnan & Moore 1957, p. 3 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRadhakrishnanMoore1957 (help)
4. Witzel, Michael, "Vedas and Upaniṣads", in: Flood 2003, p. 68 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFlood2003 (help)
5. Sullivan 1994, p. 385 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSullivan1994 (help)
6.  ???
7. Bhattacharyya (Editor), Haridas (1956). The Cultural Heritage of India. Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Four volumes.
8. Winternitz, HOIL, volume 1, p. 313. Book citation for HOIL: Winternitz, Maurice (1972). History of Indian Literature. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Second revised reprint edition. Two volumes. First published 1927 by the University of Calcutta.
9. p. 4 in: Cornelia Dimmitt and J. A. B. van Buitenen, Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Purāṇas. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1978, ISBN 0-87722-122-7.

Reverts

Please avoid revert wars. Take a step back, be cool and talk out the issue. Cheers! Vassyana 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's easy to say, but frankly unhelpful. Read the discussions. Paul B 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have expressed my views on the issue at User_talk:Vassyana#What_to_do?. Abecedare 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

(Outdent) I will again repeat regardless of behaviour edit warring and revert warring is not acceptable. It is not empty moralizing since 3RR makes clear any revert warring is unacceptable and subject to blocking. One does not have to make more than 3 reverts. That is simply an upper limit. If I block BR, I will block several other editors involved in related conflicts as well. This is not a matter of one user being in the wrong. I am being lenient because I feel mass blocking will do little to resolve the problems. I encourage everyone to take their content disputes to dispute resolution. I will also be very blunt and say that in at least some cases there seems to be a bit of baiting going on to try to force other editors to violate the rules (general or specific restrictions). Vassyana 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

guys, what is this even about? The notable thing is the extension from three to four Vedas in the post-Vedic (Mauryan) period, viz., the recognition of the AV as a Veda. Still later (early Middle Ages), it became fashionable to call things "fifth Veda". We can mention this and be done, but it's not relevant to the topic. Pranava Vedam is the title of a book by S. P. Sabharathnam . If BalanceRestored wants to write an article about that, let him, but not here. However, it does not appear obvious that he even has access to this book, since all he keeps quoting is the "fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe" blurb from from aumoneworld.com; no further information on this book seems to be available online. These appear to be publications by Ganapati Sthapati's "College of Architecture & Sculpture" but that's just a guess. Either way, this stuff has no place here. I second the assertion that Vassyana's "intervention" has been unhelpful. It is BR who keeps inserting blatant nonsense. Reverting this stuff is straightforward protection of WP content, and if BP persists in his present behaviour, he is headed towards a block for disruption and revert-warring. WP can indeed be "edited by anyone", but this doesn't mean that we are expected to prance around ad infinitum with people who cannot or will not accept the rules. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Veda

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)

Thank you!!!!! It was clear to me that BR pushing nor the removals were balanced. Well said! Sethie 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Brilliant Dab. Sethie 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

realizing that even the Chandogya Upanishad has itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ, I have to admit that the concept is older than I thought. It is still clearly a topic of Vedanta, and should not be discussed here. But I apologize for dismissing it out of hand. It does seem to have roots in the first texts of Vedanta, and thus does reach into the Vedic period itself. Far from being canonical, of course. The term should be mentioned here, but discussion belongs in a separate article. dab (𒁳) 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Outdent) One can be flippant and dismissive, while still acting in good faith. You obviously feel the comparison is apt. However, many Christians would be similarly inclined to accept such an analogy in regards to the Deuterocanon or Gospel of Thomas. In fact, some are inclined to much more severe language than that. ;o) However, an article about the Bible would be terribly incomplete and non-NPOV without a mention of those widely discussed subjects. Similarly, the Panchama Veda is widely discussed throughout a vast number of reliable sources, such mentions date to the Vedic age and English references are available in large number dating back through the mid-18th century. At least a brief discussion, not a single sentence mention that says nothing of the topic, is warranted to provide appropriate coverage. Your dismissal is no more apt than others' attempts to give a single view. Vassyana 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

The "Fifth Veda" and other notions like "Dravida Veda" seem to be perfectly valid topics in the medieval Tamil Bhakti movement. Now why could BalanceRestored not just go to the Bhakti, Alvar, or Divya Prabandha articles and constructively contribute to these instead of racking people's nerves with his obscurantist non-sequiturs at this, perfectly unrelated, talkpage? This article doesn't have to include each and every unrelated notion just because it has been dubbed "Vedic". We don't treat Vedic metal, and we don't treat Maharishi Vedic Medicine, this is stuff to be linked from a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate out the religious and other views

When some one looks up Vedas, he may be looking at it from a religious perspective as much as a linguistic perspective. I find this article written from a linguistic perspective. Both views can be represented, if required. But, for a linguistive view to take such a complete control of a wikipedia page on religious texts is completely unjustifiable. This article needs to be updated completely and/or a separate page created to give information about the vast religious scripture that this is. I find this problem in most Hindu scriptures I have looked up. I do not know if this is a problem only with Hindu books or a general one concerning all religious scriptures

(The above unsigned comment was made by User:70.190.229.114 in this edit: . Buddhipriya 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

the historical religious perspective is at historical Vedic religion. The later mysticist perspective is at Vedanta. The recent revivalist literature, which may be the "viewpoint" you are looking for, is treated at Hindu reform movements, and sub-articles like Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo. The problem is that every century employed these texts for its own puropses. But we could well introduce a short section giving an overview of that. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When a person is talking about "Vedas", what is the chance that he/she is looking for a linguistic perspective? Neither Vedanta nor the recent revivalist literature about vedas is "Vedas" . When you talk about Vedas, you should provide the religous information about the vedas, what they contain and how they are used as per Hindu tradition(s). A linguistic perspective of Vedas could be an addendum to the page. It should not be the page itself.

the post-Vedic Hindu traditions are at Vedanta, Astika and Hinduism. Are you suggesting we just redirect this article to one of those? You can find all the material you are looking for at these articles, but this is the article on the Vedas, not the post-Vedic traditions that grew out of them. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A page should be written to encompass all the perspectives of a topic rather than be dominated by one. What do you think a person wants to know when he is looking for info on Vedas? He is looking for info on what they are, a brief intro to them, how they are used and so on. He is not looking for a linguistic interpretation of vedas alone. This should obviously be part of the page. But, it should be a part and not "THE" part of the page. Look at the Vedas article. When I was searching for information on Vedas, this page provides very little. The information about the religious purpose, significance and use of Vedas is present in very little amount. Instead a linguistic perspective that treats them as interesting books to interpret and date seem to dominate. That is a serious problem. --Sriksk21

Vedas Divisions

Is there any rule in Hinduism that Vedas be only divided in 4,5,6,7 etc? Vyasa divided it into 4 for everyones benefit. But is that a hard and fast fact that there be only 4 divisions. What if others have only recited the 1st one itself and like it that way. It was also quoted at places that Vyasa tried other permutations and combinations. So, why only mention 4 predominantly?BalanceRestored 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Veda Classification

Changed the heading of the topic from 4 Vedas to Veda Classification to understand that the actual Veda is being simplified and not four different vedas where written/created. The mentioning of 4 vedas passes the message that 4 vedas where created. The fact is that 4 Vedas where classified from a main Veda.BalanceRestored 10:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do reliable sources generally say about the Vedas and their numbering? That is what we should report in this article, regardless of how "true" that is, or not. Vassyana 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

the topic of this article are the four canonical Vedas, in Vedic Sanskrit, dating to the Vedic period. There are other things called "Veda", which is why we have Veda (disambiguation), but they do not fall within the scope of this article. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I will need to check for sources about the Main Veda being divided, to check the same about various permutations and combinations made by vyasa, one can visit Vyasa, it is written that "Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara... and consequently eight and twenty Vyasas have passed away; by whom, in the respective periods, the Veda has been divided into four. The first... distribution was made by Svayambhu (Brahma) himself; in the second, the arranger of the Veda (Vyasa) was Prajapati... (and so on up to twenty-eight)." so, writing 4 Vedas at the Vedas passes the messages that there where 4 different Vedas written.BalanceRestored 06:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Got the source,

Vyasa compiles the four Vedas (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.4.15–25)

• Vyasa foresaw the degradation of Kali-yuga
• He divides the Vedas into four parts
• The 108 Upanisads: philosophical discourses are part of the Vedas
• Then the fiftth Veda: the 17 Puranas (except Srimad-Bhagavatam) and Mahabharata (includes Bhagavad-gita) (Again the fifth Veda, the further comments after ":" seems to be interpretation, need to check)
• Vedanta-Sutra, the essence of the philosophy (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.5.4)
• Srimad-Bhagavatam, the ripened fruit, the natural commentary of Vedanta Sutra (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.5)

First he divided the Vedas into four, then he explained them in the Puranas, and for less capable people he wrote the Mahabharata. In the Mahabharata there is given the Bhagavad-gita. Then all Vedic literature is summarized in the Vedanta-sutra, and for future guidance he gave a natural commentation on the Vedanta-sutra, called Srimad-Bhagavatam” (Bhagavad-gita Intro)

The Lord continued: "Srila Vyasadeva has summarised the direct meanings of the mantras in the Upanisads in the Vedanta-sutra.”

Source: http://www.iskcon.com/education/culture/2.htm BalanceRestored 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now if "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is for simplification divided in to "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Vol 1", "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Vol 2", "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Vol 3", should the book name be changed to "Vol 1", "Vol 2", "Vol 3". Now what if during the 28 classifications done by Vyasa some have accepted to recite the Vedas Vols as 5, and some have accepted to recite the Vedas Vols as 4????BalanceRestored 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So the inference I can draw from my logic is there is only "1 Veda" others Rig, Sam, Yaj, Art, Iti, etc etc are simplifications of the main Veda. Infact should not be called Veda also, they are volumes/classification of Veda, writing 4 Vedas and being hard and fast at it is not correct. Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc, etc are different divisions of science. Now, Natyasastra is a division of veda that talks about dance. The Sthapatya veda teaches all things related to Architecture. There can be 1000's of difference simplification derived from the main Veda. So, Vyasa divided 4 he could. Now what if others wanted to divide that in to many other volumes???BalanceRestored 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the word science, Veda in simple words mean "Knowledge", I can use my mind and create any knowledge. Why only 4 knowledge, is that good enough to cover everything in the world.??BalanceRestored 07:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Upa Veda means, something that is derived from? Natyashastra cannot be derived from any of the 4 Vedas. So, it is the main one. Similarly there can be other Main knowledges that cannot be derived from the only 4 knowledges. So, just staying hard and fast on the 4 main divisions for knowledges it self is incorrect. Kindly everyone behave a bit logically instead of making the knowledge a rule. This is why there are so many problems on earth. Being hard and fast at 4 divisions and telling that this is Hindusim, is teaching wrong. This is a big loop hole then. Again for all the critics this is not what's actually taught. People are interpreting things wrong.BalanceRestored 07:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This could be the truth, The first veda is pranava (AUM) veda, that is the whole knowledge of the world. The Rig, Sam, Yaj, Arth are only the 1st level 4 divisions of the main knowledge. But, it is quite apparent that there could easily more first level divisions to the main knowledge. BalanceRestored 07:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vishwakarmas have always protested the only 4 divisions of the Vedas you can check things. So, please include what we have done all these years also. So, just telling that Hinduism is with loop holes just because some interpret it foolishly and teach wrong is wrong. Please comment.BalanceRestored 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, the Vishwakarmas obey the 4 divisions of Vedas and also the 1st one AUM and so, to avoid any loop holes. Now what exactly the main saints at my community do obey, I do not really know. I need to find out. This is only my personal interpretation. BalanceRestored 07:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The society is not just made of the teachers, they are made of everyone. So, is Hinduism, just because 1 section is interpreting things wrong. Does not mean everyone is and the entire Hinduism is. So, critics kindly consider us too before you draw conclusions. BalanceRestored 08:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if some scholar can explain how the 1st 4 divisions are 100% complete. I will change my personal views too.BalanceRestored 08:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The 4 divisions are not "100% complete", they are simply what is conventionally understood by the term "Veda". Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not "Truth". If you are looking for "Truth", don't read an encyclopedia, ask a guru. Other meanings go to Veda (disambiguation). The article on Aum is at Aum: If you can document how Aum came to be considered the "first Veda", you are free to do that, at Aum. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Hey Bhagwan" (OH GOD) "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One Pura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. is this not there in Srimad-Bhagavata?BalanceRestored 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this already documented?BalanceRestored 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now what I was pointing out isn't it logical?BalanceRestored 08:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to write for such a long time, is first understand things and then quote them properly. They are just documented perfectly. Just we need to learn to read that properly.BalanceRestored 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, that's why we have the policy of WP:RS. You are supposed to study reliable sources first, and then report on them. You still seem to fail to understand what Misplaced Pages is about, we are not looking for "truth". What you want to discuss is a valid topic, but it belongs on Vedanta, since it is unrelated to the Vedas themselves. That said, we could add a "Brahmanas" section here, and I am sure you can find enough mysticism in the Brahmanas already. But I am afraid the Puranas are really offtopic. dab (𒁳) 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say I will need to find another WP:RS book that has already interpreted "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One Pura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. as the source of Pranava, being the complete Veda to add a section at wikipedia, if a entire community in India follow the same, to make hinduism 100%.? Even if the Srimad-Bhagavata is clearly talking things, and is blunt clear. Well now what do I say. I really don't know any, I have already pointed out that if the main veda is included as well as the 4 divisions only then that makes sense. Now you all mention it or not, it is up to you all :)I will surely write that at my blog, Atleast I am free to do that. BalanceRestored 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

you misunderstand. This isn't the Hinduism article, where discussion of Puranas would be perfectly alright. You are suppposed to find an academic source that pushes back the concept of "Pranava Veda" to the Vedic period. That is, to the Shrauta Sutras at the very latest. The Srimad-Bhagavata isn't Vedic, and is hence irrelevant here, ok? dab (𒁳) 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Don't write it then. I fully agree with you. Let this loophole in about the theory of "Knowledge" Vedas be as it is. Well again there are things to ask, why western authors who researched Veda prominently wrote about the 1st four divisions, and often told that they are the Vedas, ignored what we (Vishwakarmas) had said? and did not highlight things much? They have used the Puranas to interpret the age of Vedas as they were written later. So why such big sentences where missed out?BalanceRestored 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the Western Authors who come to India did not research the age of Vedas using the puranas, you are a very old researcher dab(𒁳). I have seen you writing things from 2006. You could easily tell things?BalanceRestored 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, I've had this conversation about 50 times. No, the age of the Vedas is not estimated based on the Puranas, which are medieval texts unaware of the Vedic period. It doesn't matter of what I am sure: If you can present an academic source, you're fine. dab (𒁳) 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, I found a source discussing the cultural impact of the Vedas. Why is it always me that has to go and find sources for points other people want to make? It is your job, BR, to present sources of this kind.

• Smith, Brian K., Canonical Authority and Social Classification: Veda and "Varṇa" in Ancient Indian Texts-, History of Religions, The University of Chicago Press (1992), 103-125.

this appears to be a good summary of the position of the Vedas in post-Vedic Indian culture. See if you can use it to support what you want to say. dab (𒁳) 10:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think even this is a good one which mentions the Sanskrit sources well.

• Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Institutions of India
• By John Muir
• http://books.google.com/books?id=_VCXTBk-PtoC&pg=RA1-PA22&dq=vyasa+divided+Veda#PRA1-PA20,M1 ::*books.google.com (readable)

excellent. feel free to use that. Now, I've introduced a "Vedanta" section, where we can briefly discuss the Vedantic take on the Vedas. But a detailed treatment of this really belongs in the Vedanta article. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say we cannot use this source to describe that the main veda was divided into 4?BalanceRestored 10:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean? It is completely undisputed that the Vedas was divided in four (at least by the Gupta period; The Brahmanas know three Vedas). Muir's book dates to 1861, and may thus not be completely up-to-date, but it's a start. It can be used as a source for History of Hinduism. On this article, we can use parts that focus on the concept of "Veda". dab (𒁳) 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vedas" you wrote, it is Veda (Pranava Veda, I know you will not agree with the same. Still), We will need to remove the 4 vedas because up to the 28th life of Vyasa, he has tried many permutations and combinations. Again, the 4 vedas mentioned is also not complete Veda, you will agree me with the same.BalanceRestored 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We will need to mention that Vyasa made 4 different classification. Four is predominantly accepted but it is also written that he did the classification many times so just mentioning 4 will not justify everything b'se we will need to mention all his classification in the same subtopic.

SO, if you all are ok we can change the topic from Four Vedas to "Veda Divisions" or Veda Classifications, We will also need to clearly mention that there was 1 veda at the start. Sorry I mean there is only 1 veda and all the Rig, Sama, Yajur, Art are its 4 classification. BalanceRestored 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, did you at all listen to anything I said? The "one Veda" concept is Vedantic, and has nothing to do with the canonical division of the actual texts. The Vedantins don't care about the texts, they care about Brahman/Atman. This article is about the texts. Please try to keep the separate epochs and schools separate. We are not discussing "truth". Vedanta says there is "one Veda". Fine, so cite it in the Vedanta section, or in the Vedanta article, but don't mess up the part discussing the actual Vedic texts. What is difficult to understand here? Are you playing stupid maybe? Or are you really unable to grasp that an encyclopedia should discuss separate issues under separate headings? dab (𒁳) 11:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab I know you are a expert, kindly be polite, and avoid using terms like stupid etc, I have respect for you. I ask you clearly since you have researched a lot, is there 1 veda or 4?BalanceRestored 11:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You just wrote "what do you mean? It is completely undisputed that the Vedas was divided in four (at least by the Gupta period; The Brahmanas know three Vedas)." and now you are telling that the one veda concept is about Vedanta??. I am certainly not playing stupid, I am only going by what you are writing. BalanceRestored 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

alright, BalanceRestored, I do suggest that you read the whole article as it stands, carefully, so you will get an understanding of the claims made (and the claims not made). Once you have done that, we can discuss remaining problems with references or due weight that the article might have. dab (𒁳) 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The topic is headed "Vedas" and not "Veda", can this be explained? Was 1 veda not divided into 4 different divisions? so, how Vedas, it should be Veda.BalanceRestored 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You write the following... "BalanceRestored, did you at all listen to anything I said? The "one Veda" concept is Vedantic, and has nothing to do with the canonical division of the actual texts." can you explain me what does "canonical division" mean?BalanceRestored 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OED:

• canonical: "Of the nature of a canon or rule; of admitted authority, excellence, or supremacy; authoritative; orthodox, accepted; standard."
• division: "The action of dividing or state of being divided into parts or branches; partition, severance."

feel free to look up such things on your own, too. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So you do agree that the Veda OR Vedas were divided!!!! So, initially how many Veda or Vedas where there?BalanceRestored 12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

this is getting silly. Why don't you read the article? In Vedic times, there were three Vedas, one for each type of priest involved in the sacrifice. Later (Maurya period), it became common to call the Atharvaveda the "fourth Veda". Thus: the "original" (Vedic period) division is threefold, the "classical" (Maurya/Gupta period) division is fourfold. End of story. "Fifth Veda" is a concept like "Fifth Element", it is a symbol of transcendence, not an actual text. Calling things the "Fifth Veda" is like calling things "quintessence". Now please stop asking this, as it's been explained to you several times over. dab (𒁳) 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid words like "silly", "stupid". I've seen those been used often when a person does not know what to answer or caught in trouble. BalanceRestored 08:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"End of story." who decides this? In science, the facts are updated every second. Is that not a fact about religion. Is religion a FIX? Who decides that one should stop at 4 veda? when we know that 4 vedas clearly do not comply the term Complete "knowledge"? Again, forcing the entire world to accept the 4 division is an injustice. Isn't it? :)BalanceRestored 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On what basis is the division of the Vedas stopped at the 4th? there is natyaveda, "Sthapatya Veda" kindly cite the Antient book that says to stop at the 4th division it self. BalanceRestored 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it written anywhere in the Vedas that there are 4 divisions only? kindly cite if it is? You do not believe in the Puranas, in Puranas it is written about Pranava Veda being a complete collection of all the text. So how and why stop at 4 vedas? BalanceRestored 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Veda

The book Holdrege, Barbara A. (1995). Veda and Torah. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791416399. has a distilled and succinct discussion about the definitions of Veda and how they have expanded. See page 7 (rough transcription):

The term is used in the brahmanical tradition to designate a corpus of texts or teachings in at least four different senses. (1) The term Veda is used in its narrow sense to designate the four Samhitas, Rg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and Atharva-Veda, and Atharva-Veda, which constitute collections of verses (rcs), sacrificial formulae (yajuses), chants (samans), and incantations and imprecations (atharvangirases or atharvan) respectively. The versified portions of the Samhitas are termed mantras. (2)The term is subsequently extended to include not only the four Samhitas, but also the Brahmanas, sacrificial manuals attached to the Samhitas; the Aranyakas, "forest books" that reflect on the inner meaning of the sacrificial rituals; and the Upanisads, the latest speculative portions of the Vedas; (3) In post-Vedic speculation the term is extended even further to include the Itihasas epics (the Mahabharata and Ramayana of Valmiki), and Puranas, which are respectively designated as the “fifth Veda.” (4) Finally, Veda becomes an encompassing symbol within which can be subsumed potentially all brahmanical texts, teachings and practices

The subsequent pages of the book review how the process of expansion and assimilation occurred in post-Vedic times. This definitional issue of Veda is already dealt with in the Veda (disambiguation) page, and partly in the sections on the Brahmanas, Vedanta, Vedanga, Other Vedas etc that have been recently expanded. Do we need to discuss it to any greater depth ? Abecedare 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What a fascinating book you have uncovered. The quotation is spot on, and is consistent with the standard academic views. I do not see any need to discuss this basic issue further. Buddhipriya 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

very good. we seem to be arguing about (3) and (4) at present, which are suitably discussed in the article now -- Vedantic "fifth Veda" is (3) and "Pranava Veda" and "Dravida Veda" are (4). What is missing is perhaps that (0) veda is the generic word for "knowledge" (as in Ayurveda, Dhanurveda etc.) -- that is, in a Sanskrit text, it is always ambiguous whether we are talking about veda "knowledge", or Veda "Veda". This being en-wiki, we don't have this problem, but the existence of the ambiguity in Sanskrit may be noted. dab (𒁳) 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Veda means nothing else but Knowledge. So, right now what is apparent from the text veda, which you all are presenting is that knowledge can be only 4 fold. BalanceRestored 10:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that's not true. Abecedare just cited a perfectly good source to the contrary. You might as well say that "Bible means nothing else but Book", because of the word's etymology. Veda is used as a proper noun from earliest times, and in English, it is nothing but a proper noun. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend Oxford says in Sanskrit Veda means "Sacred Knowledge" BalanceRestored 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, do we go by Oxford??BalanceRestored 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Nobody disputes veda means knowledge. That's quote different from your claim that it "means nothing else but 'knowledge'": in Sanskrit, "Knowledge" came to be used as a proper noun, just as the Greek ta biblia "the books" came to be a proper noun. Please, I think anyone reading the article as it stands should be clear about these things. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then can you tell me what does it mean by strictly staying by only the 4 divisions of vedas?BalanceRestored 11:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple Meanings

• Rig-Veda Knowledge of the Creator and Creation
• Yajur-Veda Knowledge of Sacrifice
• Sama-Veda Knowledge of Music
• Atharva-Veda Knowledge of Science

I'm thinking of adding these simpler meanings of the Four Vedas. Kindly let me know if some of knows definite sources for the same. BalanceRestored 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

you made these up, didn't you? The literal translations are, "verse knowledge", "sacrifice knowledge", "hymn knowledge", "firepriests' knowledge". Anything else will need attribution. There is no way you can translate rik as "Creator" or atharvan as "Science". dab (𒁳) 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I took them from Śruti, so I think we should remove the invalid definitions from Śruti too, but obviously I did not write those. BalanceRestored 10:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

oh dear ... never use Misplaced Pages as a "reliable source", I guess. It's very simple. Vedic religion had three collections of verse for three classes of priests. That was a technical division of liturgy and sacrifice. Three priests -- three specialist manuals. It was only much later that this was wound up in transcendental mysticism, that's Vedanta, which has its own article at Vedanta. Of course Vedanta should be mentioned here, but it is not the focus of this article. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

to be fair on Misplaced Pages, Śruti is tagged with {{unreferenced}}. These tags are there for a reason... dab (𒁳) 11:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, should we merge the Śruti article into this one? After all, it merely explains a technical term describing the position of the Vedic literature, and it might be better to give that a short section here. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very optimistic about the discussions on Śruti being very large than you think. There may be many rules and regulations (guidelines in simpler terms). If we merge that into Veda which is already very large, it might become a huge amount of text and later a problem loading the same into a browser. Again, I am a learner of these, and not at all in a position any better than yours to decide the same.BalanceRestored 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

you see, if at some point we should indeed have a lot of technical material regarding shruti, we can still branch the article out again, at that time. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that currently Śruti has nothing to say that is not already said in this article. But can we hold-off a potential merge/redirect for a few days ? I want to see if there is anything interesting to add to that article, but may be able to give it a try by only the end of the week. Since shruti, is linked to from numerous Hinduism articles, it may be useful to have a short, accurate and sourced discussion of the concept. Abecedare 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

sure -- I'm a mergist, but obviously there is nothing wrong with a short and to the point article on the concept. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would not merge the articles. The concept is distinct from the application, the article about the Vedic canon is really a different issue because it needs to catalog texts. The concept of shruti itself is interesting and can be elaborated on. The fact that the present article is poor does not justify merging it. I have been discovering many articles of that type, which I would classify as technical terms in Hinduism, that have extremely poor articles but which if gone into can make quite complex pieces. The work on Svadhyaya, for example, is expanding that considerably, and while in present shape it has some poor sourcing, the ideas are all distinct. I just looked at the technical term Nirvikalpa and found it to be almost complete nonsense. Buddhipriya 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best to get necessary citations about Śruti, there are lots about it. Yes, there are many more Sanskrit terms such as Śruti that needs to be elaborated. BalanceRestored 09:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In Vedic times, there were three Vedas

This is a new discussion start by dab (𒁳), In Vedic times, there were three Vedas and 4 divisions where made out of 3. According to my knowledge what we are said is there was one big veda and as it was very huge, vyasa divided the same into 4. BalanceRestored 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"what you are said" is a question of what sources you use. Is your source a Brahmana? Cite it under "Brahmana". Is it an Upanishad or an Aranyaka? Cite it under "Vedanta". Your source is Itihasa? Cite it at Itihasa, or consider introducing a new "later traditions" section. Simply cite your source, alright? There is no point at all in posting this on talk every day if you cannot pinpoint your text, with book, chapter and verse. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

yes that is what I too say. Pin point this very narration about the 3 vedas being divided into 4.BalanceRestored 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the following

this is getting silly. Why don't you read the article? In Vedic times, there were three Vedas, one for each type of priest involved in the sacrifice. Later (Maurya period), it became common to call the Atharvaveda the "fourth Veda". Thus: the "original" (Vedic period) division is threefold, the "classical" (Maurya/Gupta period) division is fourfold. End of story.BalanceRestored 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article veda quotes the follow "Of these, the first three are the principal division, also called trayī, "the triple Vidyā", that is, "the triple sacred science" of reciting hymns (RV), performing sacrifices (YV), and chanting (SV).", that again quotes the 3 initial divisions. So, where did these 3 divisions come from?BalanceRestored 09:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

stop it. The article cites lots of Vedic reference to a threefold Veda. It isn't my fault if you refuse to read. The three division "come from" the fact that there were three types of Vedic priests, ok? And this maybe came from Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, which is both pre-Vedic and prehistorical. I ask you to cite your source for this Vyasa-divided-single-great-Veda thing. I don't doubt there is a source for this, but we need to know what it is. dab (𒁳) 09:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I am sorry if it has troubled you. You seem to take this personally, take it lightly. You again write "The three division", I hope it is understood that there has to be something that has to be divided from.BalanceRestored 09:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you or any researcher do not know it perfectly. Again, do any of you researchers have the original 1st print of the Veda? No, so how do you know ever this book was written?BalanceRestored 09:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it from word of mouth?BalanceRestored 09:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The vishnu puran states

"Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Institutions of India"

• By John Muir
• Published 1861
• Williams and Norgate

Page 20 quotes, "The vishnu puran gives the following account of the division of the Veda, described as having been original but one, into 4 parts, iii,2,18 (Wilson's Trans page 270)"

Now can we quote the same?

Read the open book at http://books.google.com/books?id=_VCXTBk-PtoC&pg=RA1-PA22&dq=vyasa+divided+Veda#PRA1-PA20,M1BalanceRestored 10:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Unknown-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles