Talk:Hindu mythology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mythology

Every religion has myths. Christians and Jews have Genesis (a creation myth and a flood myth), Christians in particular have myths surrounding the resurrection, Muslims have Mohammed on a flying horse to heaven, Tibetan Buddhists have one, Roman and Greek mythology is quite well known, Aztecs, Inca, Olmecs and various other nations in South America had elaborate mythologies, to which their monuments pay tribute, et caetera ad nauseam. They are all stories. Stories are important. They are the foundation of what a religions is. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Every religion has a mythology, this is not a derogatory term. See Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology, Buddhist mythology, etc. Please STOP vandalizing this article. Azerty82 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Azerty82: Do not go overboard, and be careful with the word “vandal”. Kleuske (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: See the history of edits; see the posts in this discussion page. My comment is not directed at Ramprasadlg but at all the IPs and newly created accounts that have been vandalizing this article over the years. Azerty82 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I know. This page is on my watchlist. All the more reason to discuss matters. Kleuske (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on Epics and Dashavatara

I have removed most of the 'info" on the Epics, and all of the Dashavatara diff; The "info" on the Epics was more essay-like than informative, while the Dashavatara is just one among many mythologies, aand does not need such excessive treatment here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hindu synthesis

@Chronikhiles: the Hindu synthesis emerged only after ca. 500-300 BCE. To state that Hinduism has existed in some form or another for millennia, as is also backed by the cited sources diff needs more than an unspecified, unaccessible review ("Handbook of Hindu mythology". Choice Reviews Online. 41 (09): 10. 2004-05-01. doi:10.5860/choice.41-5003a. ISSN 0009-4978.). Please refer to the original source (George M. Williams (2008), Handbook of Hindu Mythology), with pagenumbers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Williams p.8 states that "non-Hindu elements (Buddhist, Ajivika, Jain, and later elements from invaders such as the Yanavas, Shakas, and Pahlavas) made their "heteroprax" contributions ("other" or "alien practice") to Hindu mythology." That's a highly problematic statement:

• The Hindu-synthesis emerged between ca. 500-300 BCE and 500 CE, in response to the influence of Jainism and Buddhism; there was no "Hinduism" at 600 BCE;
• The Buddha lived in the 5th century; any contribution at 600 BCE to a non-existing Hinduism at that time would also for that reason be impossible;
• The Shakas came to India at ca. the 2nd century BCE; any Shaka-influence at 600 BCE is also nonsense;
• Brahman "orthodoxy" was defined in contrast to Buddhism and other non-Brahminical religions, after Buddhism had emerged and the Hindu-synthesis developed.

If you want to give a timeline, please be accurate.

Regarding

By approximately 1200 BCE, the Rigvedic mythology would reach its greatest expanse, and its influence over later Indian mythology would be enormous

Williams states

By approximately 1200 BCE, the Rigvedic mythology had reached its greatest expanse, and its influence over later Indian history was enormous.

That's both a copyvio and a misrepresentation of the source... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Copy-vio

NB: your copying of text from Williams is a WP:COPYVIO. @Diannaa: could you take a look here? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright text removed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)