Talk:Historical Vedic religion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:30, 16 June 2006 editAnirudh777 (talk \| contribs)151 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:07, 15 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Historical Vedic religion/Archive 3) (bot
(652 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~WikiProject~~ ~~Hinduism~~}}		{{talk header}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Historical Vedic religion/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=Low\|history=yes\|history-importance=mid\|assess-date=March 2012}}
			{{WikiProject Buddhism\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Hinduism\|importance=High\|phil=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Nepal \|importance=Low}}
			}}

			==Norman C. McClelland==
	I'd like to see a timeline/chronology of the various schools and branches of Vedic religion and Hindu philosophy. Many of these articles are devoid of any kind of historical dating.
			I have been reading about Brahmanas and Brahmanism and just thought to share ] here - "The term Brahman is derived literally from the Sanskrit for "prayer." Brahman or ''Brahmin'' also refers to the Hindu priestly caste (one who prays). This is especially true when pluralized to Brahmans, or even Brahmins. This term as spelled ''Brahmana(s'') also can mean a priest, but is more often used to refer to certain priestly literature composed shortly before the ''Upanishads''. The term ''Brahmanism'', therefore, refers to that stage in the development of Hinduism, in which both the ''Brahmanas'' and ''Upanishads'' were written." ] (]) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

			:"that stage in the development of Hinduism" sounds like another example of writers using imprecise terminology; we're talking here about the development of Brahmanism, which ''preceded'' the development of the ]. "About the Author. Norman C. McClelland is a retired teacher, independent scholar, and a Zen dharma master, ordained by the Venerable Karuna Dharma"; "retired teacher, independent scholar" doesn't sound like ]. ] - ] 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

			::Regarding the author, I think I came across the source from wiki itself (not trying to say that it means it can be considered reliable though), while I was reading some Buddhism concepts - see ] (seems the source was used by you - I feel it's doesn't seem right to consider and use a Zen dharma master's source as reliable for a Buddhism concept and not reliable for a Hinduism concept. I think we can discuss the source part on ] talk - sorry to post that quote here, I thought it might be helpful here.). ] (]) 11:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	:Indian history is horribly difficult to date. The Indians never invented "history", and with the Puranic period at the latest, everything that was venerable was automatically dated tens or hundreds of thousand years, to the point that Indian records of dates became meaningless. Before we have external accounts (], Chinese Buddhist etc.), the safest bet is to date by linguistic criteria, c.f. ]. Even medieval India is difficult to date within one or two centuries or so. Of course there are scholarly accounts we should report, but there is very little certainty. For the purposes of this article, Vedic religion proper flourished between roughlt 1200 and 500 BC. After that, "Vedanta"; classical "Hinduism" and Puranas from the early Middle Ages. Arguments from Astronomy, or, worse, geology (Sarasvati), are usually worthless Hindutva red herrings, and at best circumstantial evidence (see the ''Pleiades'' reference in the ] article ). ] <small>]</small> 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

			:::{{yo\|Asteramellus}} yes, I noticed the same, and also wondered if that isn't a double standard. Yet, it depends on the kind of info; when an author is not a specialized scholar of Hinduism, and states {{tq\|The term ''Brahmanism'' denotes the stage in Hinduism's development when the Brahmanas and Upanishads were composed.}}, implying that Brahmanism is a form of Hinduism, whereas specialized scholars clearly state that Brahmanism is ''not'' Hinduism, as also stated in this Wiki-article - then it's clear that this is not a reliable source, and that this statement is incorrect, or at least imprecise. That the Brahmanas and (early) Upanishads were written in the late Vedic period, that's uncontroversial, of course. Regards, ] - ] 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	Dear Dbachmann - Although I appreciate the majority of your edits to this page, I feel the details you added regarding animal sacrifices and vegetarianism were a bit one-sided and incomplete. I don't mind both theories being mentioned if you like, but please don't remove the additional details which are how animal sacrifices are actually described in the Vedas & Puranas. Best Wishes --] 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
			::::@] Thanks so much for moving this here. I was not quite sure best way to move the discussion and was going to ask you, and you read my mind. Seems McClelland is not the only one who uses such words - so doesn't seem like the words are writers' using imprecise terminology. I did a google books search and found others that mention similar things. e.g. "" (maybe not quite academic) says "Brahmanism - the complex sacrificial religion that emerged in post-Vedic india (c. 900 BC) under the influence of the dominant priesthood (Brahmans), an early stage in the development of Hinduism. It was largely as a reaction to Brahman orthodoxy that religions such as Buddhism and Jainism were formed." Don't want a continued discussion, so I am ok with not including the "stage in Hinduism's development" here. ] (]) 21:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

			:::::{{yo\|Asteramellus}} dictionaries are not the best sources for complicated topics like the history of religions. The statement {{tq\|It was largely as a reaction to Brahman orthodoxy that religions such as Buddhism and Jainism were formed}} is a controversial, outdated statement; Jainism and Buddhism are typical for the eastern Ganges Bassin, which was 'barbarian territory' for the Brahminical ideology of ]; while the oldest Buddhist texts incorporate Brahminical phrases, they typically use that vocubalary to present typical Buddhist ideas, which are quite different from Vedic culture. See Richard Gombrich, ''How Buddhism began'', and Johannes Bronkhorst, ''The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India''.
	:"incomplete"? How does that excuse your removals? If you only added things, we could discuss the merits of your additions, and possibly salvage some points. The Puranas don't enter into it, this is the ''Vedic'' religion article. If you want to insinuate that "animals may not have been really killed" in ''Vedic'' sacrifices (not Vaishna, not Puranic, but Vedic), you'll have to bring on some rock-solid academic references. ] <small>]</small> 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
			:::::Some more incongruencies: "post-Vedic" for most authors means after 500 BCE. And of course, Brahmanism is an element of the development of Hinduism - but one preceding the ], in which Brahmanical culture, carried by migrating Brahmins, was synthesized with local traditions, a complex process of ] with elements like royal sponsorship for prestigious, expensive rituals like the horse sacrifice (Brahmins charged money!); Brahmins offering rituals and ceremonies for non-Vedic deities (Brahmin-family moves outside Aryavarta, kids are hungry, neighbor asks for a ritual for a local deity; what matters more then: ideological purity, or hungry kids and an angry wife? 'I told you, we shouldn't have gone here; the k8ds are starving!'); and local traditions attracted by the high status of Brahmanical culture, assimilating their god into the Vedic pantheon, as an avatar of Vishnu. ] - ] 02:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@] thanks. I was just trying to highlight that what McClelland said might not be writers using imprecise terminology as seen by one such ] in google books. I am sure there are more such sources and tertiary sources using different wordings, but outside my interest area and maybe don't have enough time! ] (]) 12:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Sources for Historical Brahminism section ==
	Dear Dbachmann - I hardly removed anything. You don't know the exact details of the sacrifices from 2500 years ago. Any knowledge on them is somewhat speculative - the traditional view still held by followers of the Vedas is that they did not include actual animal killing. Where are your rock-solid academic references from 2500 years ago? At least give room for both opinions. I will not delete any valid additions you may wish to add --] 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
	:I am most open to giving room to the full spectrum of ''academic'' opinions on the ''historical'' religion. This is, academia speculating about the time 2500 years ago, not "academic references from 2500 years ago", of course. You are most welcome to hunt for your own opinion in Indological literature and quote that. It won't do, however, to gesture at "traditional views" without proper citation; obviously there are such traditional views. They have a very long article, over at ], no dispute about that. I have no doubt that there ''are'' academic attempts at proving "Rigvedic vegetarianism", however fringy; find that literature, and you'll be welcome to quote it as minority opinions. I will not, however, search for your references for you. ] <small>]</small> 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

			@] I see you reverted my edit that I had done to remove the source that doesn't mention Brahmanism specifically. I thought we can discuss here, instead of me reverting your edit. You mentioned that "Witzel describes the development of the Vedic religion and in the Kuru kingdom in the late Vedic period, though he doesn't use thiz phrase.''"'' The source is used for: "''Brahmanism'', also called ''Brahminism'', developed out of the Vedic religion, incorporating non-Vedic religious ideas, and expanding to a region stretching from the northwest Indian subcontinent to the Ganges valley". To use Witzel as source for this, wondering if it would be ]. This is not something that I have read much and not quite familiar, but got interested after reading the discussions at the History of Hinduism page. ] (]) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	:Why has someone removed my additions to this article?

			:{{yo\|Asteramellus}} "expanding to a region stretching from the northwest Indian subcontinent to the Ganges valley." Read Witzel's article; it's amazing. ] - ] 20:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	== Dbachmann ==
			::@] read a bit, but still not sure why using Witzel here won't be considered ] - maybe I am missing something and not able to read meanings between the lines in the source because I don't have enough knowledge in this area. ] (]) 12:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Quotations ==
	Why are you removing all my writings with referances? You seem to be some sort of fundamentalist bent on showing that Vedic religion is "dead" religion with only historical value. What is your problem?

			@], discuss your concerns here, instead of edit warring. While some scholars consider it "questionable", others do use the term. Using quotes would mean supporting and giving more weight to the former. Both Vedism (and it's cognates) and AH should be used without quotes. The prominent "sometimes" before the usage of AH and VH, as well as the note added by Joshua Jonathan is enough to show that the term is opposed by some scholars. ] (]) 10:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
	::you might be asked the same thing: Your additions are welcome, but by adding your views, you have removed perfectly valid parts of the article, leaving me with the choice either to revert you, or to invest a quarter of an hour to separate the valid parts of your edit. Please begin with ''either'' removing things, with justification, ''or'' adding things; if you do both at the same time, you risk being reverted wholesale. Also, you seem to misunderstand the scope of this article. This is not the article on ] in general, it is the article about the religion in times of ]. Your statement of "] consist of Samhitas, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas and Upanishads" is wrong; this is a list of ], which is not the same. The Vedas proper are just the four Vedas (RV, YV, AV, SV), both samhitapatha ''and'' padapatha. Vedic Sanskrit texts include the Brahmanas and ''a few'' (five or so) Upanishads, plus if you like some ]s and ]s (you are ''very'' welcome to add details about those, they are awfully underrepresented). That's it. Anything else goes on ] and/or ]. If you are not interested in the historical stratification of Vedic texts, you may be more interested in editing these articles. I am no fundamentalist, I am just trying to keep this article on topic: its ''scope'' is historical, this doesn't have anything to do with 'value' at all (I shouldn't even have to point this out) ] <small>]</small> 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

			:Thank you for self-reverting (you also restored an earlier version before that; both are fine by me). ] (]) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
	:You say: "Also, you seem to misunderstand the scope of this article. This is not the article on ] in general, it is the article about the religion in times of ]". Well, then it should be more properly titled "History of vedic religion". As long as the tile remains, my edits are perfectly valid. Also, I will give my justifications for removing in the future. Thanks for telling me.
			:{{ec}} Restoring the stable version of a page is not edit warring. Please read ]. I don't know if you're new here, but repeatedly reverting to a ''new'' version is the definition of edit warring.

			:Regarding the speech marks, I disagree that the "sometimes" makes up for the fact that the term is disputed. It used to say "incorrectly", which is more appropriate. "Controversially", "contentiously", etc., would work too. "Sometimes" does not imply that the term is controversial and opposed by many writers on the subject, it just suggests it's not used all the time. ] (]) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
	:You say:"The Vedas proper are just the four Vedas (RV, YV, AV, SV), both samhitapatha ''and'' padapatha. Vedic Sanskrit texts include the Brahmanas and ''a few'' (five or so) Upanishads. That's it". This is ridiculous. I request you to pick up any standard book on Vedic dharma and stop writing such nonsense. Vedas proper do not consist of "samhitapatha" and "padapatha" only. There are also Ghanapatha, Kramapatha and several pathas. But these, my friend, are ways of recitation. Vedic religion does not consider "vedas" as some books but more as an ancient oral tradition. "Five or so upanishads". This is the funniest thing i've heard in a while :)

			::Using "incorrectly" is again not a neutral point of view, as it again starts to take a side. Additionally, 3RR is broken when any editor makes more than 3 reverts (full or partial) within 24 hours (or close to) on the same page. Restoring previous versions does indeed constitute edit warring. Read ]. ] (]) 10:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
	::glad I could brighten you day; I am however not talking about "paths", but about actual ''texts''. RV samhitapatha and RV padapatha are actual, different, texts; I have yet to hear about a ''text'' called "Ghanapatha". These are, as you say, ways of reciting identical texts. There are 10-13 ] Upanishads. Not all of them qualify as ], I won't argue about whethere there are four or five or six of them that do. Again, you mean something completely different, goto ]. ] <small>]</small> 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			:::We are on the side of facts. "Incorrectly" is correct, just as it's incorrect, say, to call water hydrogen, regardless of its origins. The Vedic religion wasn't Hinduism, "ancient" or otherwise. ] (]) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
	:Who said anything about "paths"? I am sorry, but you keep showing your complete ignorance on this topic. If you have any proper ideas about vedic traditions, history, beliefs and philosophy, do enlighten us here. Else, kindly allow those who are knowledgeable in these matters to do the editing of this page. I first of all came to this page seeing that much info contained herewith was and is questionable. As far as ] is concerned, it is a synonym of the ]. Moreover, wikipedia is supposed to NPOV. So start brushing up your knowledge or admit you have a POV. ] 09:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			::::There are some sources that say it is "incorrect", while other authors use the term "correctly". If there are sources that say the term is incorrect, there also sources that call the term correct and use them, there's no reason give preference to one over the other. ] (]) 12:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Undiscussed move ==
	Dear Babub - please sign your comments with '4 x ~' to show the time-stamp. I am also of the opinion that Mr Bachman sometimes goes too far with the hard-line approach, maybe in this case also, but the article shouldn't go too far the other way either. Please can we all work towards a compromise, or have a number of views mentioned in the article? ] 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

			{{yo\|Doug Weller\|Vanamonde93\|RegentsPark\|Bishonen}} can one of you move back this page, and take appropriate action? Thanks. ] - ] 16:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
	:GourangUK, Look at the below topic and give your opinion. I am going to wait for dbachmann's reply. If he is not responding I'll go ahead creating a seperate page for history of Vedic religion and a section for "controversy" on this particular page.] 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			:I have reverted the page move. ] (]) 16:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. ] ] 17:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Influence of BMAC ==
	:this ''is'' the historical article. Babub himself says that he considers "Vedic religion" a synonym of ]. Well, then click on the ], and improve that article rather than pestering this one. I am, of course, completely open to enlarge the "contemporary" section, with reference to ] traditions etc., no problem. ] <small>]</small> 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Dbachmann, You say "this ''is'' the historical article". If so, is the title proper? You seem to be playing with words here.You say "Well, then click on the ], and improve that article rather than pestering this one." There IS a certain reason for me to believe these two terms may be used in different contexts historically as the present religion practised by the hindus is markedly different from that described in the vedas.] 09:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

			{{yo\|Khassanu\|DangalOh\|Asteramellus}} I think I prefer "was also influenced by the BMAC" over "has also roots in the BMAC":
	Dear Mr Bachmann, it was your sentence ''"Vegetarianism, the practice now thought by many to be so characteristic of Hinduism, arose only in late or post-Vedic times"'' which you have now removed that I had a particular problem with. That Animal sacrifice is described in the Vedas is a fact which I therefore do not object to. That Vegetarianism is also promoted in the Vedas (and I'm sure there are verses in the Rig Veda somewhere if you wanted to look) is another fact which should not be minimised. As this page is entitled 'Vedic Religion' not 'The History of Vedic Religion' at least a pointer to ] or some short description of it should be included in the page in my opinion.] 09:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			* The Vedic religion shares Indo-European components with other Indo-European religions, which can't be traced back to the BMAC, which means that the ''roots'' lie in the Shintashta-culture;
	:that's as easy as a disambiguation notice, along the lines of "this article is about the religion contemporary to the ] corpus; for religions historically based on these, see ]". I am very open to 'vegetarianism' verses in the Rigveda (as long as they are straightforward and not the result of some contorted hermeneutics). ] <small>]</small> 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			* The Indo-Aryans were 'passers-by' in Bactria-Margia: they lived there, but hardly mixed with the BMAC-people.
			Regards, ] - ] 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

			:Thank you. Precisely. It seems ] may be unaware that the myth of serpent-slaying by the king of gods is pervasive across numerous Indo-European cultures, including Norse and Greek traditions. This widespread motif suggests that its origins predate the Indo-Aryan migration through the BMAC region and trace back to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) cultural period. The adoption of a few contentious loanwords and presumably "hoarding water" from a culture scarcely constitutes 'roots.' Even if we were to concede that one or two deities may indeed be innovations of the BMAC, this is insufficient grounds to equate a non-Indo-European culture with Vedic religion in the same manner as other Indo-European cultures, such as Sintashta. Furthermore, we lack definitive knowledge of the languages, beliefs, customs, and even religions of both the BMAC and the Indus Valley civilizations. At this juncture, the term 'influenced by' is not only a more accurate and neutral point of view (NPOV) but also spares us from engaging in speculative original research based on tenuous assumptions. This is my perspective. Whatever you guys decide. ] (]) 17:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Scope ==
			:@] Yes, I agree - saying something is rooted in something else is a strong claim. I think more appropriate to talk about similarity or influence. ] (]) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

	Scope of this article: historical or present day traditions? I feel a new page on History of Vedic Religion should be started so that the present day traditions as well as beliefs and philosophy can be fit here.
	:See above: you are looking for the ] (], aka ]) article. "Vedic" as used here refers to a historical (literary) period, beginning with the Rigveda and ending just before Panini. ] <small>]</small> 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

	==Page move==

	I have moved the ] page to ] page. In the latter page I have removed the "Pantheon" section coz I don't think it belongs in a history page. ] 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I have reverted this. Don't waste your time and mine like this. Anything you are writing about already has perfectly established main articles, you are most welcome to add to these; edit warring over article titles is bad karma, and an unproductive waste of time. Don't start your career as a wikipedian with something so fruitless. I would be very grateful, otoh, if you could use your apparent expertise to improve on ], ], ], ] etc., all of these are articles that badly need extension: you can work on them and really add value to Misplaced Pages, or you can spend a couple of weeks edit warring here, with no net result whatsoever. Again, I am open to discussing conservative movements that survive today; you are ''also'' invited to clean up ] and do a summary of the Nambudiri article here, that would certainly be on topic. There is an awful lot of good faith encyclopedic work to be done here, I don't understand why people are so much into edit-warring over perfectly good articles rather than doing the badly needed extension jobs. ] <small>]</small> 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::"Again, I am open to discussing conservative movements that survive today" I'm getting the feeling these "discussions" with people like you won't take us anywhere as you'll just revert everything back. Anyway you should try doing this to the Judaism or Christianity articles saying these refer to "History of these religions" and not the religions! You people are exploiting the tolerant Hindus by behaving like this. Also you know of the ] tradition because they are the only ones who are academically documented. Apparently you want to be blind towards other surviving traditions until western scholars document them.] 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
	::: now what do you want? either you claim that "Vedic religion" is equivalent to "Hinduism", then you should request that this is made a redirect or a disambiguation page: because there already ''is'' a ] page, there is no reason to begin a second article on the same topic here. It is Misplaced Pages policy to have articles at their most common English title. Hinduism in English is referred to as "Hinduism", not as "Vedic religion". In academic usage, "Vedic" means "pre-500 BC Indo-Aryan", and this is the intended meaning here. You complained that this may be misleading, and got a disambiguation notice: case closed. And precisely, we only want information on Misplaced Pages that is academically documented, that's not my idea, that's ]. We don't care if 'western' scholars, Indian scholars, Japanese scholars, or Martian scholars document something, as long as the documentation is done in reputable Indological journals. Live with it or quit. ] <small>]</small> 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Vedic Naked truth : I smell a pro Aryan(hindu/nazi) bias ==

	I Anirudh777 got carried away thinking wikipedia accepts user edits (which is wrong) and I added :

	" The mode of vedic worship was performance of sacrifices and chanting of hymns (see ]). The priests helped the common man in performing rituals. People prayed for abundance of children, cattle and wealth. Vedas have detailed mention of various rituals and chants for pleasing gods for different occasions by lighting a ritual fire (]) and sacrifice(bali). It seems more or less like african tribal ritual & witchcraft.( Modern science has concluded that Indian subcontinent was attached to africa in ancient times. Later on it drifted away and got attached to asian plate which created himalaya mountains due to a huge thrust and it is still moving north.) In yajna the priests consumed intoxicants in large quantities, called ] and sacrifice of animals(cow, horse etc.) and also sometimes human sacrifice (]) was performed. It is possible that various gods and godesses mentioned in vedas were products of hallucinations due to consumption of intoxicants. ] drink was made from crushed stalks of either ] plant or ] plant or both (cannabis,marijuana,hash,pot or bhang is as common as grass in Himalayas). The Himalayan hindu sadhus (monks) are known to consume intoxicants even in present times. "

	I got a message from Mr.Dbachmann to stop adding nonsense and ranting. And all my contribution was removed, rather I expected a notice - Neutrality of this article is doubtful.
	It appears that wikipedia is simply autocratic & self righteous.

	Now let me elaborate. Four things were very common in vedic practices:

	1. Lighting a sacrificial fire.
	2. Chanting , invoking spiritual entities
	3. Consuming intoxicants such as Soma (prepared from cannabis and/or ephedra stalks)
	4. Sacrifice of animals, human etc.

	As you may be knowing that all these were part of ancient religions such as African tribals(zulu etc) who danced around fire while their witchdoctors were invoking spirits, going into trance followed by sacrifice and even cannibalism. In Judaism , it was called burnt offering, OT mentions that for redemption of various sins various sacrifices were required such as of pigeons, sheep, goat, cow, bull etc. which Jewish temple priests performed in a sacrificial fire & blood of sacrificed animals was sprinkled on altar. In christianity the altar in churches is merely symbolic but it does exist as a remenant. Ancient Inca (south america) & yucatan civilization were having gruesome practices of human sacrifice to please spiritual entities such as severing of head & then extraction of beating heart as offering.
	In many parts of india , human sacrifice & canniballism continued as late as 1930s or 40s in remote areas such as south india(Kerala) and Northeast(Naga tribes). Any person can go and see in Nagaland & Tripura states many tribal houses decorate their entrance of house with a platform having human skulls on top as trophies even today.
	Nowadays the sacrificial practices in hinduism are symbolic only such as breaking a coconut as an alternative to human head(this is performed almost on every religious activity of some significance), human sacrifice of children in tantra(witchcraft) is still going on clandestinely although its unlawful.AtharvaVeda specifically mentions chants for destruction of enemy etc.various charms for various diseases , ailments and occasions. Vedic practices are considered undated by hindus, being timeless & going sice time immemorial.

	Now regarding african connection. It is well known that india was a part of africa long time back & later on it moved away & joined asian plate creating himalaya mountains. Every Geology book mentions that. Many islands south of india have original ethnic tribes such as Jeravas inhabiting Andaman, Nicobar & Lakshdeep. These tribals look very much african with curly hair & dark skin & features peculiar to african tribes. If we dont accept this then , it is also known that human migration originally started from africa & moved to Iran, India, indonesia , australia etc. because all humans are homosepians with origin from africa. So it possible that early africans were barbaric, meat eating ( probably cannibals since they eliminated neanderthals). I think their spiritual practices , were what i mentioned earlier about jews, inca, etc.

	I had added links from pages of wikipedia only such as :
	] , ] , ] , ] and ].

	If it is thought that what i wrote is nonsense then in that case these pages also need to be removed by wikipedia. Can it be done?? The truth when covered up loses its sanctity. The Truth is a matter of fact and very much naked thats what i wrote.

	Mr. Dbachman replied that what i wrote was very common & is already available. And human migration happened 100000 years back much later to separation of continents.
	But i say that the page appears to be heavily biased towards pro Vedic or pro Aryan attitude which can happen if it is written/edited by upper caste hindus or German Nazis influenced by Max Mueller. Upper caste hindus(called aryans) consider vedas to be the ultimate in spiritual knowledge & accept no criticism AT ALL.

	No doubt - Aryan theory (vedic practices are in fact aryan practices) has caused much deterioration of human rights in India as well as in Germany. (I suspect it was borrowed from hinduism in Germany). In india Aryan theory is linked with caste system which created a slavery system causing misery, poverty, illiteracy & subjugation to more than a billion people (dalits) since a long time back which still exists in some form or the other even now (people still marry within their own caste & total no. of castes are approx. 8000 now ). In Germany, Aryan theory has done a similar thing called nazism, its consequences are well known. Therefore the naked truth is this that all vedic practices (of aryans) were barbaric & nothing but witchcraft similar to canniballistic tribal africans & need no praise rather deserve condemnation.
	Thank you.
	Anirudh

	:Dear Anirudh - I have often debated with Mr Dbachman over pages concerning Vedic religion etc... and can say with all honesty that he is definitely not pro-Aryan in his edits. I feel he always represents the strict western-historical and scholarly approach which although I do not always agree with, I do respect him for. Maybe some parts of your edits could be added without it sounding like a blatant attack on Vedic civilsation? Vedic civilisation also invented numbers (0-9) now known as 'arabic' text and had an advanced knowledge of astronomy and philosophy among many other achievements. Why give such emphasis to intoxicants and ritualistic sacrifice etc?] 10:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Dear GourangaUK - Those who suffer caste system ( as i did ) , their heart burns all the time. Regarding achievements, it is same as trying to convince a jew about nazis scientific achievements.I consider that -- '''HINDUISM IS NAZISM''' --] 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	::See ]. You seem hardly capable of ] with such a burning heart, but we have plenty of ardent Hindu chauvinists on Misplaced Pages, so maybe you could attempt to provide a counter-balance to those. Thanks for standing up for me, GUK, I know our first encounter was a bit harsh, that was also because of my being used to WP teeming with Hindutva editors, but I recognize debate with you can be fruitful. For reference's sake, the Hindus invented the numerals 1-9. The introduction of 0 and of decimal notation is very late (9th century), and it is unclear whether it is an Indian or a Persian invention. ] is a difficult term, often mixed with wild claims distilled from the Vedas without any real basis. Historical (Puranic) Hindu astronomy was very much indebted to the Greeks (the Hindus even adopted the Greek system of the Zodiac) ] <small>]</small> 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: Well , I wish to add more. I stress about intoxicants , sacrifices and rituals. The vedic system & other ancient systems have it because religion is simply a matter of mind control (or mass hypnosis). The Practices i mentioned are specifically meant for that.

	::-- The fire is important because u cant make every body in an assembly smoke pot/ marijuana ,so u add it to fire for mass consumption. The scented intoxicating smoke made brains of people relaxed & receptive to commands by the priests.
	::-- Intoxicants by priests - to create an abnormal state of body & mind so that common people are influenced into believing that they (priests) are in a state of trance & communicating with spirits. BTW the same intoxicants(cannabis) are mixed with diluted milk/yogurt (called thandai)& distributed freely in every hindu temple every year on certain festivals (Mahashivratri etc.)
	::-- Long Chanting rituals also made people believe about communication with spirits as well for mass hypnotism acting as commands.
	::-- Sacrifices & sight of blood - to create an awe & a state of mass euphoria.

	::The net result of such practices was forming a social bond in order to benefit by '''mass deception''' <--- this is true hinduism.--] 05:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Somebody ban this nutjob. All his edits are ridiculous and full of b.s. See all the pages he has edited . What is the procedure to ban users? ] 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: I received a message from Mr Dbachmann stating that i will be blocked forever if i say that 'Hinduism is Nazism'. Well, First i bow down (to Mr. Dbachmann) & plead that i regret to hurt someone. But, I have not changed anything in the main article and everyone is free to express his views. Let everyone else know the differring point of views along with their arguements so that the general notion is critically scrutinized before being accepted as truth. Also i expect criticism from upper caste hindus ( as Mr. Babub did). Their job is muffle the voice of low caste down trodden , since thousands of years. Its nothing new. Mr. Dbachmann, i would like you & all others to read the articles on - ] & ] alongwith their links. Thamk you. --] 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:07, 15 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical Vedic religion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in March 2012.

Buddhism High‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism: Philosophy High‑importance

	Hinduism portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as High-importance).

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norman C. McClelland

I have been reading about Brahmanas and Brahmanism and just thought to share this here - "The term Brahman is derived literally from the Sanskrit for "prayer." Brahman or Brahmin also refers to the Hindu priestly caste (one who prays). This is especially true when pluralized to Brahmans, or even Brahmins. This term as spelled Brahmana(s) also can mean a priest, but is more often used to refer to certain priestly literature composed shortly before the Upanishads. The term Brahmanism, therefore, refers to that stage in the development of Hinduism, in which both the Brahmanas and Upanishads were written." Asteramellus (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"that stage in the development of Hinduism" sounds like another example of writers using imprecise terminology; we're talking here about the development of Brahmanism, which preceded the development of the Hindu synthesis. "About the Author. Norman C. McClelland is a retired teacher, independent scholar, and a Zen dharma master, ordained by the Venerable Karuna Dharma"; "retired teacher, independent scholar" doesn't sound like WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the author, I think I came across the source from wiki itself (not trying to say that it means it can be considered reliable though), while I was reading some Buddhism concepts - see Anattā (seems the source was used by you here - I feel it's doesn't seem right to consider and use a Zen dharma master's source as reliable for a Buddhism concept and not reliable for a Hinduism concept. I think we can discuss the source part on Historical Vedic religion talk - sorry to post that quote here, I thought it might be helpful here.). Asteramellus (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: yes, I noticed the same, and also wondered if that isn't a double standard. Yet, it depends on the kind of info; when an author is not a specialized scholar of Hinduism, and states The term Brahmanism denotes the stage in Hinduism's development when the Brahmanas and Upanishads were composed., implying that Brahmanism is a form of Hinduism, whereas specialized scholars clearly state that Brahmanism is not Hinduism, as also stated in this Wiki-article - then it's clear that this is not a reliable source, and that this statement is incorrect, or at least imprecise. That the Brahmanas and (early) Upanishads were written in the late Vedic period, that's uncontroversial, of course. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks so much for moving this here. I was not quite sure best way to move the discussion and was going to ask you, and you read my mind. Seems McClelland is not the only one who uses such words - so doesn't seem like the words are writers' using imprecise terminology. I did a google books search and found others that mention similar things. e.g. "The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable" (maybe not quite academic) says "Brahmanism - the complex sacrificial religion that emerged in post-Vedic india (c. 900 BC) under the influence of the dominant priesthood (Brahmans), an early stage in the development of Hinduism. It was largely as a reaction to Brahman orthodoxy that religions such as Buddhism and Jainism were formed." Don't want a continued discussion, so I am ok with not including the "stage in Hinduism's development" here. Asteramellus (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: dictionaries are not the best sources for complicated topics like the history of religions. The statement It was largely as a reaction to Brahman orthodoxy that religions such as Buddhism and Jainism were formed is a controversial, outdated statement; Jainism and Buddhism are typical for the eastern Ganges Bassin, which was 'barbarian territory' for the Brahminical ideology of Aryavarta; while the oldest Buddhist texts incorporate Brahminical phrases, they typically use that vocubalary to present typical Buddhist ideas, which are quite different from Vedic culture. See Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began, and Johannes Bronkhorst, The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India.

Some more incongruencies: "post-Vedic" for most authors means after 500 BCE. And of course, Brahmanism is an element of the development of Hinduism - but one preceding the Hindu synthesis, in which Brahmanical culture, carried by migrating Brahmins, was synthesized with local traditions, a complex process of Sanskritization with elements like royal sponsorship for prestigious, expensive rituals like the horse sacrifice (Brahmins charged money!); Brahmins offering rituals and ceremonies for non-Vedic deities (Brahmin-family moves outside Aryavarta, kids are hungry, neighbor asks for a ritual for a local deity; what matters more then: ideological purity, or hungry kids and an angry wife? 'I told you, we shouldn't have gone here; the k8ds are starving!'); and local traditions attracted by the high status of Brahmanical culture, assimilating their god into the Vedic pantheon, as an avatar of Vishnu. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan thanks. I was just trying to highlight that what McClelland said might not be writers using imprecise terminology as seen by one such search in google books. I am sure there are more such sources and tertiary sources using different wordings, but outside my interest area and maybe don't have enough time! Asteramellus (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Historical Brahminism section

@Joshua Jonathan I see you reverted my edit that I had done to remove the source that doesn't mention Brahmanism specifically. I thought we can discuss here, instead of me reverting your edit. You mentioned that "Witzel describes the development of the Vedic religion and in the Kuru kingdom in the late Vedic period, though he doesn't use thiz phrase." The source is used for: "Brahmanism, also called Brahminism, developed out of the Vedic religion, incorporating non-Vedic religious ideas, and expanding to a region stretching from the northwest Indian subcontinent to the Ganges valley". To use Witzel as source for this, wondering if it would be WP:SYNTH. This is not something that I have read much and not quite familiar, but got interested after reading the discussions at the History of Hinduism page. Asteramellus (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: "expanding to a region stretching from the northwest Indian subcontinent to the Ganges valley." Read Witzel's article; it's amazing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan read a bit, but still not sure why using Witzel here won't be considered WP:SYNTH - maybe I am missing something and not able to read meanings between the lines in the source because I don't have enough knowledge in this area. Asteramellus (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotations

@Dāsānudāsa, discuss your concerns here, instead of edit warring. While some scholars consider it "questionable", others do use the term. Using quotes would mean supporting and giving more weight to the former. Both Vedism (and it's cognates) and AH should be used without quotes. The prominent "sometimes" before the usage of AH and VH, as well as the note added by Joshua Jonathan is enough to show that the term is opposed by some scholars. PadFoot (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting (you also restored an earlier version before that; both are fine by me). PadFoot (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Restoring the stable version of a page is not edit warring. Please read WP:BRD. I don't know if you're new here, but repeatedly reverting to a new version is the definition of edit warring.

Regarding the speech marks, I disagree that the "sometimes" makes up for the fact that the term is disputed. It used to say "incorrectly", which is more appropriate. "Controversially", "contentiously", etc., would work too. "Sometimes" does not imply that the term is controversial and opposed by many writers on the subject, it just suggests it's not used all the time. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Using "incorrectly" is again not a neutral point of view, as it again starts to take a side. Additionally, 3RR is broken when any editor makes more than 3 reverts (full or partial) within 24 hours (or close to) on the same page. Restoring previous versions does indeed constitute edit warring. Read WP:3RR. PadFoot (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We are on the side of facts. "Incorrectly" is correct, just as it's incorrect, say, to call water hydrogen, regardless of its origins. The Vedic religion wasn't Hinduism, "ancient" or otherwise. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are some sources that say it is "incorrect", while other authors use the term "correctly". If there are sources that say the term is incorrect, there also sources that call the term correct and use them, there's no reason give preference to one over the other. PadFoot (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

@Doug Weller, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and Bishonen: can one of you move back this page, and take appropriate action? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the page move. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Influence of BMAC

@Khassanu, DangalOh, and Asteramellus: I think I prefer "was also influenced by the BMAC" over "has also roots in the BMAC":

The Vedic religion shares Indo-European components with other Indo-European religions, which can't be traced back to the BMAC, which means that the roots lie in the Shintashta-culture;
The Indo-Aryans were 'passers-by' in Bactria-Margia: they lived there, but hardly mixed with the BMAC-people.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Precisely. It seems Khassanu may be unaware that the myth of serpent-slaying by the king of gods is pervasive across numerous Indo-European cultures, including Norse and Greek traditions. This widespread motif suggests that its origins predate the Indo-Aryan migration through the BMAC region and trace back to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) cultural period. The adoption of a few contentious loanwords and presumably "hoarding water" from a culture scarcely constitutes 'roots.' Even if we were to concede that one or two deities may indeed be innovations of the BMAC, this is insufficient grounds to equate a non-Indo-European culture with Vedic religion in the same manner as other Indo-European cultures, such as Sintashta. Furthermore, we lack definitive knowledge of the languages, beliefs, customs, and even religions of both the BMAC and the Indus Valley civilizations. At this juncture, the term 'influenced by' is not only a more accurate and neutral point of view (NPOV) but also spares us from engaging in speculative original research based on tenuous assumptions. This is my perspective. Whatever you guys decide. DangalOh (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Yes, I agree - saying something is rooted in something else is a strong claim. I think more appropriate to talk about similarity or influence. Asteramellus (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: