Talk:Historical Vedic religion

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)