Talk:Historical Vedic religion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:33, 3 September 2024 editAsteramellus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,938 edits →Influence of BMAC: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:07, 15 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,901 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Historical Vedic religion/Archive 3) (bot
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{WikiProject Nepal \|importance=Low}}		{{WikiProject Nepal \|importance=Low}}
	}}		}}

	==Incorrectly...==

	I propose removal of "Ancient Hinduism" from the first sentence because the alternative titles are supposed to be accurate. ] (]) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

	:{{ping\|Joshua Jonathan}} Are you there? ] (]) 05:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

	::I'd say, not remove it entirely, but move it to the Etymology-section. ] - ] 05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	::At second thought: the term is explained in the text. ] - ] 06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::There is nothing called "ancient Hinduism" and most certainly Vedic religion is not commonly described as such. ] (]) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Joshua Jonathan}} Can you remove it this time? ] (]) 14:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

	== "Ancient Hinduism" ==

	Mentioning this alternate term as first alternate term is giving ] to it, as it is less used, and a misnomer, as explained in the article. Also, the references used are not impressive:
	* David Smith, ''Hinduism and Modernity'': "follow Louis Renou in seeing the religion of the Vedas as 'ancient Hinduism' (Renou 1968: 19); ample iconographic proof of the unity of Vedism and early classical Hinduism is provided by Srinivasan 1997."
	* Doris Srinivasan, ''Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art'': "Evidence to support that contention constitutes the main part of this chapter. From the evidence it follows that Vedic Rudra-Śiva could relate to Hindu Śiva as Vedism, or ancient Hinduism, relates to Hinduism proper."
	''Why'' do they use this term? No explanation... That's not a summary of the article.

	Further, the edit also added " and forms the predecessor of ].", and changed
	{{talkquote\|The Vedic religion is one of the major traditions which ], though present-day ] is significantly different from the historical Vedic religion.}}
	into
	{{talkquote\|The Vedic religion is the precursor of modern-day Hinduism, though present-day ] is significantly different from the historical Vedic religion.}}
	That's incorrect; it's not ''the'' predecessor, but ''one'' of the predecessors. ] - ] 04:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	== "Equal weight" ==

	{{yo\|TipTap21}} regarding your edit , edit-summary
	{{talkquote\|expanding so its more clear in the lede itself which is required. Also not appropriate to give equal weightage to vedas, unknown mesolithic practices and renouncer tradtions( which is a topic of fierce debate itslef.like mahayana vs advaita) in the formation of modern hinduism. Hope this is acceptable. No other tradition is as major or important in the development or evolution of modern hinduism. Others may not be minor but giving equal weightage is madness.}}
	on the role of the historical Vedic religion in the development of Hinduism, you changed
	{{talkquote\|The Vedic religion is one of the major traditions which ], though present-day ] is significantly different from the historical Vedic religion.<nowiki>{{sfn\|Sullivan \|2001\|p=9}}{{sfn\|Michaels\|2004\|p=38}}{{efn\|name="Michaels-legacy"}}</nowiki>}}
	into
	{{talkquote\|The Vedic religion is the major tradition that ], though present-day ] is significantly different from the historical Vedic religion, having additionally been influenced by the Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures of India and may very well have also been influenced by ] traditions.}}
	neither source says that the Vedic religion (Michaels), or Brahmanism (Sullivan), was the major tradition that shaped Hinduism. On the contrary, they both downplay it's legacy in what we call Hinduism. Furthermore, this synthesis is already mentioned in the third alinea. The influence of mesolithic cultures is not mentioned in the article; and the "may" in {{tq\|may very well have also been influenced by ] traditions}} is incorrect; the sramana-traditions were a major component in the formation of Hinduism. ] - ] 07:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	:Umm, isn’t it common sense? Even the Upanishads, which are the main basis of contemporary Hinduism, developed from the Vedas—not from Mesolithic practices or later Śramaṇa traditions. I mean, there are many other sources that obviously support the Vedas being central. But anyways, as you said, "Brahmanical ideology synthesized with thousands of local traditions," wouldn’t that still make "Brahmanical ideology" central? What doctrines or religious texts from these other thousands of local traditions do Hindus use or revere? And who decided we would call these Indo-Aryan practices "Hinduism" only after synthesis? I mean, even the Ramayana and Mahabharata were most probably written before this so-called Hindu synthesis, let alone the Upanishads. I have no idea what the issue is. At least give some more (even a little more) importance to the Vedas and Upanishads for Hindus compared to the other thousands of practices involved in the synthesis.And about downplaying the influence, I don't know. Someone might need to thoroughly study the sources. This doesn’t bother me that much because even Hindus don’t agree with each other about what Hinduism is. It's that complex. No point fighting for beliefs of the people who don’t even give a shit about their own religion. But I hope you will make some changes, using common sense, not downplaying the role of the Vedas and Upanishads in the formation of modern Hinduism, which far predates Hindu synthesis. Thanks. ] (]) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	::Maybe you should read the Michaels-note. I wouldn't say that the Upanishads developed from the Vedas; they were incorporated into the Vedas, to pacify this wild bunch. Regarding non-Vedic texts, the gamas and tantras are non-Vedic; renunciation is a non-Vedic idea. Regarding {{tq\|who decided we would call these Indo-Aryan practices "Hinduism" only after synthesis}}, Alf Hiltebeitel does so, among other scholars - you know, the kind of people who's work we summarize here. Regarding the importance of the Vedas, this is what Michaels writes: "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text" (Michaels 2004, p.18). It's part of the ideology: local cults asjusting themselves to this Brahmanical tradition, nominally accepting the authority of the Vedas, and meanwhile continuing their own traditions, with soem adaptations and name-changes. And those Brahmins, performing rituals for local deities (so they have an income), meanwhile still professing the authority and superiority of their own traditions. It's very down to earth, I'm afraid. See, for a comparison, the BAPS, which argues they aren't even Hindus, 'causr that's more convenient for them. Same for some Lingayats, who also argue they're not Hindus. ] - ] 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::Buddhists also argue they are not vedic derived. Cannot do much about delusions. And all your points again and again are making sure brahmanism is central.pointless ] (]) 08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Note''': {{u\|TipTap21}} has been blocked as a block-evading sock of {{u\|Jaybjayb}} ] (]) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	==Norman C. McClelland==		==Norman C. McClelland==

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: