Talk:Vedas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Title

Surely the correct term is "Veda", the plural being a mistake often made in English? Wikipedia naming conventions might countenance the plural (though I think that we should use the correct form), but we should at least explain this in the summary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

'Veda' is a Sanskrit term for divinely revealed truth. 'The Vedas' are a collection of early Sanskrit chants of praise that were addressed to the gods, constituting a form of 'veda' but not the only (nor a complete) expression of it. It's true that you don't form plurals in Sanskrit the way you do in English, but using a fairly easily understandable collective form makes it clear that we're talking about the collection of 4 texts, not the concept of divine truth. Since the Vedas are almost always discussed collectively, it makes pretty good sense- not to mention the fact that pretty much any English language text that you pick up on this topic is going to refer to "The Vedas" (including scholarly ones). It might not be exactly orthodox Sanskrit, but it's well established, mostly harmless, and much simpler than expecting the casual reader to be able to judge on sight the difference between veda, vedā, and vedaṃ --Clay Collier 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quickly checking through the books I have to hand, I find Hinnell's The Penguin Dictionary of Religions saying that the Rig-veda, Sama-veda, Yajur-veda(, & Atharva-veda) "are sometimes inaccurately referred to as 'the Vedas', but Veda is one, and the reference should be to the three (or four) samhita [...] of the Veda." The Columbia Encyclopedia follows this usage ([1]). This isn't odd; the Rig-veda, for example, is also a collection, but referred to in the singular.

Still, I suppose that it's not crucial here (though could something be said in the article?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel is absolutely correct. 'Veda' is a much better title. Wikipedia is the perfect place to make a clean break from erroneous language conventions. Veej 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Veda is for 'knowledge'. That many people take it as revealed truth is only a belief, or respect for the wisdom contained in them. Vedas clearly mention the name and antecedents of the person who 'heard' them in their heart, as poets are wont to do (intuition, inspiration). They are not revealed truth in the manner of Qur'an. The verse writers are taken to be wise people but not as prophets or messengers. Aupmanyav 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

henotheism

The section "religious views" has been lifted from an earlier version of the Henotheism article. As it stands it's self-contradictory and inaccurate, so I've replaced it with a more recent version, but it may be worth asking whether it's appropriate here. The problems with the earlier version were the claim that Muller's account of paradoxes of Rig-Vedic religious culture were a "one man view". They were widely shared, and essentially the same difficulties of interpretation exist today. Anyway, the second paragraph only points out that monist elements exist, which is already expressed within the view that's supposed to be being criticised. So the "criticism" doesn't do anything other than ignore aspects of the text that it doesn't want to acknowledge. Paul B 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

POV-Check details

1. It is better to provide traditional POV. For eg.,when discussing the time of creation of vedas, it should be mentioned that 'time immemorial' quality of the vedas.

2. It is not correct to add POV of historians - early/later vedic period etc. It may not be correct to say that vedic mantras could be freely interpreted.

3. POV on monotheism - polytheism, conclusions about additions and distortions (like vedic education to women etc) are to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shridharan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 18 March 2006

I've removed the {{POV-check}}, as it's unclear what you think that the problem is. You seem, in your first two points above, to be asking for a certain point of view to be added, and for cited scholarly views to be removed — which is the opposite of what should happen. Your third point is again too vague for me to be sure what you think is wrong with the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of Vedas

I've added section to the Article called "Interpretation of content in the Vedas". There is a five part series called the "Divine Message of the Veds" that has interpretations of selected passages within the four vedas. I think these works add much value to the Vedas section. Let me know if you agree or disagree. User:Mtrack81 14:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your spelling to Vedas. IMHO, Veda is better than Ved. Aupmanyav 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosmogony

Mel Etitis: I am surprised that when we talk of cosmogony in Vedas, how could we miss out on the 'Nasadeeya Sukta', which the whole world knows as the 'Hindu Creation Hymn'. And how can we miss out on the terrific iconoclastic thoughts contained in the hymn; and the questions on space, time, and existence which can easily be mouthed by even a 21st Century scientist, and the take on the idea of God. Are you not brave enough to face what a Vedic poet wrote some 5000 year ago? Aupmanyav 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're addressing me, nor why you do so in that confrontational tone. It's not my article (that's not how Wikipedia works). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis: I am sorry if I sounded confrontationalist. This is far from what I intended, I was trying to have some fun. Though I feel what is mentioned in the 'Nasadeeya Sukta' should find mention on the Vedas page especially in cosmogony. Aupmanyav 13:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a reference to the hymn, do so. You don't need to be brave! Perhaps the words might be "mouthed by a 21st century scientist", but perhaps he would not. Paul B 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the vedas: have they any moral or spiritual value?

Content is taken from Dr. Babasahebs Ambedkars illuminating Book " Riddles in Hinduism" visit link below for the complete Book

http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm#r06 --Yeditor 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put this very long new section into order, but in the end had to give up and just remove it. It's a personal essay, with some very dubious reasoning, and I found it impossible to rewrite it in neutral, encyclopædic English.

As an example of the faulty reasoning, just take the first paragraph:

"If the Vedas are to be accepted as binding and Infallible then what they teach must have ethical and spiritual value. Nobody can regard a rag to be binding and infallible because a Philosopher like Jaimini came forward to lend his authority to such a proposal. Have the Vedas any ethical or spiritual value? Every Hindu who regards the Vedas are infallible is bound to consider this question."

Why must something have moral and spiritual value (whatever "spiritual value" means) just because it's binding and infallible? There could, for example, be a binding and infallible train time-table, or a binding and infallible set of rules for winning at chess.

Perhaps the idea is that for one and the same thing to be both binding and infallible it must be both prescriptive and descriptive (presriptive for the binding part and descriptive for the infallible part), but even if this goes through, it's not clear that only morality is both these things. Most philosophies of science, for example, have been both descriptive and prescriptive. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just cut-n-paste from a chapter of one of Ambedkar's books, which is preumably still in copyright. Paul B 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism has many kind of people in its fold, many do not consider Vedas to be infalliable or apaurusheya, and do not consider them binding. It is not necessary that they may have equal ethical or spiritual value in every word of every verse. Jaimini may have said many things. There may be some value in all what he has said, some value in something that he has said, and also no value in all things that he has said, that would depend on the disposition of the person who is reading it. Also the person reading it may be a wise person, he may be of limited intelligence, or he may be an outright fool. 'Munde Munde Matirbhinna'. Aupmanyav 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dating Vedas

Reference to ancient Egyptian texts the "Story of Sinhue" and the "Ipuwer Papyrus" is superflous, there is no need to mention it with reference to Vedas. To date Vedas at 1,500 BC is completely baseless (if I could say, shit). How do you, then, explain the beginning of the year and sacrificial ceremonies with sun at Vernal equinox in Beta Geminorium (Punarvasu) according to B. G. Tilak (Aditi period). That is 6,000 BC. You must understand that Vedas are the songs of an aboriginal people. Aupmanyav 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dating ancient (and mediæval) Indian texts is notoriously difficult; it's best not to present one theory as simple fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. But the article says 'The newest parts of the Vedas are estimated to date to around 500 BCE; the oldest text (RigVeda) found is now dated to around 1500 BCE'. This is based on guess, while Tilak was talking about evidence contained in the text which has been overlooked. Aupmanyav 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, in every case I've seen, evidence is textual evidence is brought forward only to be refuted. The Judæo-Christian Bible is probably the most investigated and researched book in the world, and scholars still disagree about the proper dating of it various parts (not to mention the earlier versions for which we only have textual evidence). The dates mentioned in the article aren't at all certain, and may well be wrong — but it's odd to say that they're merely guesses, as though scholars have simply tossed a coin.

Of course, the problems are exacerbated here by the insistence by some nationalists (on little evidence, to be honest) that dating the Vedas, as well as the status of other historical theories such as the Aryan Invasion, etc., are merely the result of Western prejudice, so that solid evidence for them is deemed overturnable with the whisper of evidence the other way.

That Indian thought and civilisation goes back far more than 8,000 years is undeniable, and that it predates most other civilisations, but that the Vedas do is rather less clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact that River Saraswati dried up (as believed by modern geologists) around 1,900 BCE makes the date given (1,500 BCE) laughable, because by that time Aryans had made Saraswati valley their home (Arya Varta), so that when they moved to other regions (Kashmir, Maharashtra, and others), they were still known as Saraswats. So the migration and settlement must have been at least around 2,500 BCE.

The geography presented in RigVeda is very different from that of India with the nine or ten-month sacrificial year (Navagwah, Dashagwah), Ati-Ratra (long night) ceremony of not more than 100 days, the thirty sisters (dawns) who tarried for long, and the sun which got stuck up in the middle of the sky. The textual evidence can be refuted only by irrational scholars bent on not accepting it (many western scholars or 'Aryans are indigenous' Indians). Dating of Judeo-Christian Bible nothing to do with the subject. Toss a coin, that is exactly what Max-Mueller did. 250 years for RigVeda, and the same for Aranyaks, Brahmans, and Upanishads; and arrived at a grand date (very gratifying to missionaries). Is that history? It takes millenia to come up with the sort of facts and philosophy as mentioned in these books. The recession of equinox from Punarvasu to Orion, Orion to Pleidas, Pleidas to Arietis is clearly mentioned in the RigVeda and Sanhitas. That is a clear 8000 years. BTW, research says that RigVeda was initially in prose, it was turned into verse by the Sanhita writers, i.e., RigVeda is older than the first song in the world (barring mama's lullaby). So what Avesta says is correct, Aryans were displaced from their homeland by cold and snow ('And Angre Mainyu sent a great serpent' - glacier). Avesta even has a deluge story with a difference, snow in place of water. (http://www.vaidilute.com/books/tilak/tilak-contents.html) Aupmanyav 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in other discussions, the identification of the Saraswati in the Vedas is (to put it mildly) uncertain. The main problem, though, is that you're merely gesturing vaguely at complex issues, making accusations with no evidence, calling things clear when in fact they're obscure and wrapped in poetic imagery and metaphor, etc., etc. Claims like "It takes millenia to come up with the sort of facts and philosophy as mentioned in these books" is at best suppositional.

The views for which you're arguing are minority views, held almost wholly by people with independent and unconnected reasons for wanting to dispute current scholarship. The scholarly consensus is against you. perhpas its wrong and you're right; perhaps, but that's not the point here. We are committed to such policies as Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and so on. I'm working on an article that will deal with these sorts of disputes; when it's ready to be added to Wikipedia, I'll place a link in this and other relevant articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, there is no accusation, only discussion. Saraswati (Milky way) was the original Aryan celestial river, whose divine waters (apah) were blocked by dasyus and then released by Indra every year, it was a renewal of the year. When the homeland was lost and the tradition forgotten, Aryans named many rivers as Saraswati during their travels. One of the candidates is Hari-rud in Herat (mentioned in Avesta as Haroyuvaiti, their sixth home), another was in India (Hapta-Hendu, their fifteenth home). I would leave Max Mueller's estimation of 250 years for RigVeda to your understanding. In what way you consider Tilak's research as not original and not valuable (he was preceeded and followed by many other scholars holding similar views, both Indian and Western)? One name which comes to my mind is Wintzel as it was mentioned by Tilak many times, I can find more from his book. Please do not dismiss contrary views as vague and belonging to a minority, reason. The story is very simple and crystal clear unless somebody would not wish to see it. Problems arise only when one tries to avoid the obvious. Aupmanyav 10:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You've accused scholars who hold different views "irrational", and of merely tossing coins.
2. Your insistence that the interpretation you favour is "crystal clear", so that anyone who disagrees must be wilfully blind or just stupid, is also unacceptable.
3. It's a simple fact that the majority of scholars, Indian and non-Indian, reject the view that you're pushing. The only reason for this that you seem able to offer is that they're either intellectually corrupt or monumentally inept in their field. That's not an intellectually respectable approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be doing the same with Tilak's theory. Aupmanyav 09:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No; I've pointed out that this is a minority theory, which is at least in part motivated by extra-scholarly political factors, and that the majority scholarly opinion rejects it. Besides, how would my actions somehow mean that your accusations weren't really accusations? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, Howdy? Sometimes the minority may be correct. Please do not accuse Tilak of extra-scholarly factors. Had it been that, he would have tried to prove (as many Hindus do) that Aryans were indigenous Indians. Aupmanyav 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambedkar

I have added a whole section on the criticism of the vedas. This is essential to maintain the balance in the article. The Text has been taken from the scholarly book of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar , "Riddles in Hinduism" All material is properly referenced to the Vedas. Do not delete. This is the second time i am doing this --Yeditor 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it will continue to be deleted. Anyone can read Ambedkar's views on the website devoted to his work. Inserting a very long unattributed lump of his work is not appropriate, and is contrary to WP policy. By all means add a summary of his arguments, attributed to him, with a link to the webpage giving the full text. Paul B 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rivers in Vedas

This refers to the flow of Ganga in the Vedas. What RigVeda says is that Ganga emerges from the mountains and flows directly into sea with great noise. That is problematic. The sea is far away from the place where Ganga comes out of the mountains. Of course, thre was a sea in the Indo-Gangetic plain before the sedimentation, but according to geologists that was 200 million years ago when Indian plate rammed into the Eurasian plate. My reference to flow of Ganga is based on Tilak's book. Please do not think that by this I am trying to prove Vedas to be 200 million years old. There was no disappeared tributaries of Ganga. On the other hand, geologists opine that due to techtonic upheavals, Ganga captured waters of Yamuna, which was ealier a tributary of Saraswati, around 1,900 BCE, thereby aiding the its disappearance. The other factor that may be involved is climatic changes resulting in lesser rainfall. (http://www.aryashaadi.com/SocialOrganisation/Brahmin/Images/saraswati_river.gif, http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps/saraswati.gif, http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/maps/ssys.jpg, http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/kach/isro1.jpg) Aupmanyav 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created two images about River Saraswati using GoogleEarth, the first shows the not-so-dry bed of the river (after all River Ghagghar flows in its place, green line in the upper half of the image) and second shows the point of capture where River Yamuna which pirated its waters is closest to its course. (http://groups.msn.com/reviversoftheancientindianglory/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=961) Aupmanyav 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

God?

Okay, let's get one thing clear: Brahma is not God nor is anyother entity in this polythesistic religion. This reference to sing "God" is only recent, and is the Indian's way of either selling out or assimilating to the West. In some english re-write interpretation of the Quran, authors will print "God" in place of "Allah", so as to make it more pallatable to the westerners. In this instance it is okay, since Allah is Arabic for "The God", and Christian Arabs also call God, Allah. It is printed that way in the Arabic Bibles. MPA

Depends on the belief of the person. Please note the difference between the two words, Brahma, the creative principle, one of the trinity, the other two being Vishnu (Preservation) and Shiva (Destruction). This is basically a Vaishnav belief. Worshippers of Shiva would resent his being associated only with destruction. Brahman, on the other hand is the substance/power of the universe, some Hindus will associate it with consciousness (Saguna, with attributes in certain circumstances), others would take it to be Nirguna (without attributes). Please do not try to understand Hinduism if you are not serious about it, because you would find it beyond a limited intellect. Hinduism is not only polytheist, it is also dualist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, henotheist, atheist, and whatever else. Hinduism never placed any bars on personal beliefs of its adherents and accepted all conclusions arrived in good faith as valid with the Vedic verse 'Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' (One exists, people of good intentions see it variously). What always stood apart and was unalienable, was Dharma (Duty/Right Action, to family and society, and not personal belief). Of course, Hindus will like westerners (as also muslims) to understand their belief better, but we do not have a salvation army or tablighi jamaat. Aupmanyav 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, while much of what you say is correct, MPA also has a point, and in any case you should not make personal attacks on other editors (read WP:NPA and WP:AGF). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken, but did I make a personal attack? I said MPA needs to be serious about study of Hinduism. Without interest, study, intellect, it is no use trying to understand eastern philosophies, which do not have one or two-line solutions. I do not know what point you found in his message, the only thing he said was that Hindus have taken up one God only to impress the westerners (.. Indian's (misplaced comma) way of either selling out or assimilating to the West). One God theory in Vedas might be 5,000 years old and as you know that is not the only theory. Aupmanyav 12:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Vedas originate in India?

This statement is not proved in any way. As B. G. Tilak opined, Aryans lived in sub-arctic regions and migrated to India (as well as other countries in Europe). Otherwise, would any one please explain the phenomenon of 30 Ushas, or the Ati Ratra (Darker nights) of upto 100 days and no more, and a Satra (year) of nine or ten months (Navagwah, Dashagwah), the 304 days old Roman calender and the name of the last month of the Julian calender (December - 10th). Aupmanyav 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sir, you are wrong. Read Aurobindos Secret of the Vedas. In the Vedas everything is symbolic. Night symbolises Ignorance. The 10 months Ritual by the Rishis to bring light(Knowledge) has its own deep meaning, but I dont have time to explain it here. Shiva bakta 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This probably is the greatest problem in the study of Vedas. Vedas themselves are really not telling anything. People find meanings by interpreting them symbolically and allegorically where they are not really intended. Taken as a literature how can we do that? You can take any Children's story and give it imaginative meanings and sense. This is exactly what I see is being done to elevate the texts of Vedas to the status of scriptures. They are what they say. Human expression of wonder on natural forces. To see beyond that and insists that they are supposed to be more than that is simply imposing one's own imagination into it.

This is simply one opinion, far from being undisputed. We represent the range of legitimate scholarly opinion. Paul B 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you have not answered even one of the questions I raised. At least give me a link where I would find the answers from legitimate scholars. Which is the organization which provides legitimacy to these scholars? Do you have to be a christian or white skinned to become a legitimate scholar? Regards. Aupmanyav 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great foolishness to try to look for secrets of Vedas from Aurobindo or Swami Dayanand. Aupmanyav 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to Shiva bakta. What arguments do you mean? Are you referring to Tilak's claims re the Arctic? Paul B 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shiva bakta, Everything is Vedas is not symbolic. Do you mean that Vedas do not contain any statement of observed phenomena? That way you can distort the simple sentence to mean anything you wish to. Aurobindo and Dayanand have done just that, Arth ka Anarth (changed meaning into garbage). Aupmanyav 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a student of these issues, but I honestly feel that Vedas are actually encrypted. What I mean here is that decoding what they want to say makes a lot of sense. I do not support Aurobindo or Dayanand but there are examples which show how things can change drastically if the meaning of just one word is misinterpretted. For example: the word GAVA can be interpretted for "Cow" as well as "Earth". With this confusion and half th knowledge, a sloka which was written as an astronomical theorem was misinterpreted by a researcher. It is but obvious that decoding without understanding and insight would do nothing good. In fact it could make the vedas a laughing stock!! Regards

Sure, the correct meaning is given only by Brahma Baba. Aupmanyav

How can you be sure about the "correct meaning" - if at all there is one. As long as we insist that they are not a direct statement but is an encoded message, unless we get the decoder how on earth can we be sure?

Why should we not accept the clear apparent meaning and assume that it is an encoded message and arrive at a wrong meaning? Do you read the sentence I have just written and understand the meaning? Now if I say it is an encoded message and it means arrival of a train in Bombay at 10:30 from Delhi, would you agree to it? Do you require a decoder for such statments? Aupmanyav 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Texts ??

The term 'Hindu' was coined much later. It would not be fair on other philosophies like Buddhism or various other cults like Shivaites or Vaishnavites, if this philosophy of the whole civilisation was classified under one nomenclature.

And your point is? This is sort of Sectarianism leads to violence and hatred. True, Hinduism is a foreign word, but thats how the Westerners know us, and we should stop petty squabbling. Besides, the Vedas are the supreme book whether you worship Shiva or Vishnu. This is the point I was trying to make when I edited the original page which said Hindus worship dozens of Gods. But you havent read the article, you are just tring to confuse the issue. Shiva bakta 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Actually, the word is put to much speculation regarding (1) when the word was coined, and (2) what the word actually means

It is "commonly" believed it meant indians, but even that is put to speculation, so vedas are better left as hindu scriptures itself. Leafy 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup effort?

it is sad to have such a central article in such a state. See Vedic civilization/EB 1911 for how an encyclopedic writeup could look like (the 1911 account, of course later literature should be added to that). dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Dab. But first, this kind of scholarship may have dwindled, second, the scholars do not think of coming to Wikipedia (it is not that scholarly, with all the trolls around, and may be with Scholarpedia), and third, they would not have time to fight the Dasaragnya war necessary here. Aupmanyav 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

References and quotations

I think it is truly sad that the person or people who wrote the majority of this article used quotations from 18th and 19th century books which are biased in themselves. Furthermore, I believe that the dispute about religion on this page should not be an argument at all. We are not here to impose views on to other people, but rather to help show the facts which can themselves show real truths. Thus, about the religion, try to write in an unbiased way no matter how correct you think you are.

It would be a good idea to register as a contributor rather than leaving a post unsigned. Aupmanyav 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

POV notice

There is a pov notice in the article. Reading the talk page in a cursory way, I was unable to see why/how. Can we remove it?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between what the vedas are (i.e. statements of fact about them) and what they mean to (modern) Hinduism (i.e. statements of belief about them). Hindus claim no difference, but that is dogma, not fact. Major parts of the article have been written in an unconsciously tendentious, i.e. essentially religious, manner. rudra 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Vedas are more often cited than read. I am sure that if Wikipedia were being run by Hindus we would have claims that allowing IP users to edit is somewhere in the Vedas. This article is very long and has many unsourced statements. It would be helpful if people would at least place {{fact}} tags on statements which need more support. Buddhipriya 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses? That's strictly chump change. You have no idea. As Meghnad Saha once observed sardonically, "Everything is in the Vedas". rudra 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I

I am finished with my edits for now

I have done some work on the dating section, and added two strong references for dates. I feel that some brief statement of dating is to be expected in an encyclopedia article, and the citations should hold up against most challenges. I agree with the approach that details of dating should go to the article on Vedic period. I am sure others will improve things. Buddhipriya 11:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge material on traditions with Shakha

I support the proposal which someone has made to merge the section on "Tradions" in the Vedas article with Shakha. It will be much easier to clean up and do maintenance of that material if it is all in one place as its own article. The level of detail needed to do this well would be excessive for the general article on Vedas, where I am guessing most readers want a digestible overview, not a heavy meal. Much of the use of the Vedas article will be as fodder for schoolboys to plagarize homework assignments from, and we must consider the needs of the children. Buddhipriya 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At least the table rightly belongs in the Shakha article. rudra 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the table is the main thing that caught my eye in the main article. The main article can simply mention that there are a lot of recensions, and then link to the details. Buddhipriya 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this proposal is non-controversial, so I am going to move the table now. I will do it with one edit and then will leave the page alone for a day so if anyone wants to revert it it will be easy to do. Moving the table will help get the mainline for the article clear, and then I will work on cleaning up the summary text about the branches in the Vedas article. The cleanup of the actual table can begin in the Shakha article. I assume that this proposal has been up long enough to give people adquate chance to chime in. Buddhipriya 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)