Talk:Vedas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Useless to argue with Christian and Islamic fears, about what Vedas are

Christianity and ISlam both fear hinduism so much that they will keep troubling you till eternity if you say something good about hinduism. So much so that on one hand they will try to say that Vedas are not for hindus only and on the other they will try to deteriorate hindu philosophy. As both Christianity and Islam have hardly anything significant to offer, they hate hindu philosophy so much that they want to tell hindus they are not hindus or that they are aryans who came from some other place. Who cares? It is in India that they created the whole stuff and become hindus or Sanatatan dharmi or whatever. It is in India that they created their sanskrit language. Is it so difficult to understand for these religion-biased people? Most of the hindu related topics on wiki-pedia are infested with such trolls and idiots.

The above unsigned comment was added by 24.6.237.22 via this edit: [1] Buddhipriya 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vedic dating

There is a serious problem with the entire sections on Wikipedia on Hinduism or Indian History. Let me just focus on Hinduism for now.

The Vedas are arguably the oldest surviving scriptures that are still used. Most Indologists agree that an oral tradition existed long before some of them were written down only during the second century BCE. There has been religious scholarship on the Vedas for several thousand years, including commentaries contained in the Upanishads and later Sruti texts like the Brahmanas. Religious scholars like Shankaracharya (8th century AD) and Ramanujacharya (11th century AD) have even written commentaries (Bhashya) on these commentaries. All of these religious scholars rejected the need to date the Vedas as they were considered timeless.

However,for more than a hundred years, European colonial and Christian religious interests and related scholarship have attempted to ascribe a date for the Vedas, looking at them purely as Sanskrit literature viewed from a linguistic or Indo-European sense, and have created controversies based on speculative dates. These dates ignore millenia of religious scholarship on the Vedas and deprecate more recent archaeological, astronomical and population genetics evidence. Even the linguistic evidence is suspect because Sanskrit as a language was codified by the Grammarian Panini long after the advent of the Vedas. Further, the Vedas have been oral texts for a specific purpose; their precise meters and specified octave complexity are intended to deliver sound vibrations that convey meaning and context to persons in a meditative state, for assistance in realizing eternal truths. Considering that these are only religious texts, any attempt to date them outside of religious scholarship or the Indian cultural and historical context and related scholarship has no value, and therefore no date for the Vedas can be ascribed.

The above unsigned comment was added by User:Hulagu in this edit: [2] Buddhipriya 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your point of view on these matters. You are quite right that there are many debates on the subject of dating. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which explains that content on Wikipedia must be based on citation to what would be considered WP:RS for purposes of the article. So a first step to resolving content disputes is often to agree upon what sources would be considered WP:RS. If there are any specific books that you would like to suggest be added to the mix, please give citation information for them here so other editors can comment on whether or not those sources seem like WP:RS or not. Removal of material that is already in the article and cited by WP:RS that have previously been considered acceptable can be construed as vandalism, so please don't remove such material in the future as you did in this deletion: [3] Also note that edit wars are discouraged. Please take controversial material to the talk page. Buddhipriya 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the removal of sourced material in the following edit which cut WP:RS and replaced them with a reference that appears to be WP:FRINGE material : [4]. A sample of the scholarship by S. Kalyanaraman on "Indo-European Linguistics (IEL), a belief system; reclaiming history of bharatiya languages" is available here: [5]. Examination of the references used there shows a heavy use of self-published web sites and even Wikipedia articles as sources, which does not inspire confidence. Even Wikipedia does not allow the use of Wikipedia articles as WP:RS. I ask other editors for their opinion on this material, and I call for the restoration of the sourced material that was cut. Buddhipriya 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I don't believe you examined the source properly, or you wouldn't make this statement. There are several dozen references from peer reviewed material and books, some of which are now noted on Hinduism notice board. The reference I put in was not as an original reference, since the Kalyanaraman piece was just a collection of these texts and references. I can send you the complete document by mail or if you will show me how to, attach it on Wiki for review. Also, sourced material from authors with proven bias on this subject like Michael Witzel and his like cannot be on Wikipedia.

I am sensing that I am wasting my time your like, since you seem pretty entrenched in your biased views and representation on these pages. I suspect these topics are going to require arbitration and appointment of neutral, unbiased administrators. Hulagu 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

S. Kalyanaraman promotes "Proto-vedic Continuity Theory", a theory the content of which has never been very clear. It has no acceptance at all by professional linguists as far as I am aware, but if you can find evidence that unbiassed linguists take this theory seriously, we should like to see it. Te fact that he footnotes some legitimate sources, does not make his theory legitimate. Anyone can add footnotes to whatever they want to say. Paul B 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of standard References section

I have changed the layout of the References to comply with Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, which specifies that the Reference section is a list of works actually cited in Notes. I think it is important that we raise the bar in terms of reference quality and citation methods for this article, and getting the critical apparatus set up per layout guidelines is a housekeeping step. Once the References section exists, works that are repeated cited ("op. cit") can be mentioned in short form with authorname and page number, relying on the References detail. For further information on this see: WP:CITE. Buddhipriya 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is good to see support for improving the reference system, but I do not like the Harvard referencing templates and would like to remove them. The templates are hard to use unless you are experienced with them, which makes maintenance of the article more difficult. In particular, the use of named reference to create separate reference tags for every page reference is very difficult to maintain. Buddhipriya 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Do as you please. JFD 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave the Harvard tags that you have added in place, as they are fine, but that the named tags be removed. Generally it is good to use one system or another for citations, and once the article has standardized, it is good to discuss them on the talk page. But in this case we are trying to introduce more order where there was little before, and so any move toward a system is good to discuss with multiple editors. I feel strongly about the name tags, but it would be interesting to see if we can get more support for the Harvard method. Buddhipriya 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be rushing so fast to restore each other's edits that we have a novel sort of edit conflict (one that I wish we should see more of) :) I think you should restore the Harvard templates that you added, as removal of the naming is the issue that I feel most strongly about. I suggest that you fall back to the last version you made, and then we can examine the naming tags as a separate pass. To prevent edit conflicts I will leave the article alone for a while so you can stabilize it as you think best. Buddhipriya 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the current version of the article, all sources listed under "References" use Template:Citation and the article itself is Harvard-referenced until the "Etymology" section. Have at it! JFD 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be interesting to just leave things as you have set them up for now pending input from other editors. I am trying to warm up to the templates, but I admit I am concerned about maintenance of them. Technically, I think that the actual Harvard referencing system would display the citations in the article text directly, as opposed to using footnotes. That practice seems unpopular, and I do not support it. My practice has been to put the same information as a Harvard reference into an unnamed footnote, which gets the result, but avoids the problem that if you have multiple citations to the same named footnote, if you later change one of them, others may have collateral damage. That becomes a nightmare if you have an article with multiple editors, most of whom will not have a clue what citation system is going on. I have posted a comment on the talk page for the Harvard referencing to see if there is some workaround for the named references issue (on other articles where they have been used, it becomes rather complicated to make changes accurately, a problem which is mentioned from time to time on the talk page. There is no rush, so I would suggest that we not expand their use pending more input. If I can't see how to get around the named references, then I would urge that aspect be eliminated. Buddhipriya 04:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I created two versions of the article: one with all Harvard referencing and one with no Harvard referencing. See which one you like better. JFD 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this effort, which gives a very clear example of the difference. One minor comment about terminology is that "Harvard references" are defined as: "Under the Harvard referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005)." In other words, they are actually inline references rather than references which are implemented via raised superscripts. The ambiguity of the term seems to be that the templates to carry the information normally carries in a Harvard reference can also be used within a raised superscript (implemented in Wikipedia as a "ref" tag) which is what the demonstration does. The Harvard reference example you have done is very clear, and my concern is that since almost no editors on Wikipedia use this system, mainenance of them will be close to impossible. The other related issue is the use of named references, that is, a ref tag which has a name. The problem with maintenance of these is that since multiple citations in the article wind up being linked to one item, if any of them change, the potential exists to create errors in the others. Wikipedia there are few editors who take a holistic approach to articles, and therefore I have seen various problems with synchronization of named citations over time as multiple editors with limited insight into the overall articles and the referencing systems change things here and there with no concern for the linkages. For these reasons, I continue to prefer the use of non-named references. It appears that the example you have put together using the Harvard templates has no named references in it. Is that correct? If so, that part of the issue is off the table. It will be interesting to see if we can get other editors to express an opinion on this matter. Again, thank you so much for the effort you are putting in to improve the reference structure for the article. Buddhipriya 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct; the all-Harvard-referenced version contains no named ref tags. The all-Harvard version has the primary advantage of using the Harvard citation template (one click takes you to a full citation) and doesn't really require any more maintenance than unnamed ref tags without. It's not the end of the world if some references use Harvard citation templates and some don't; they won't interfere with each other. JFD 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to switch over to the all-Harvard version. If maintenance becomes difficult, I will switch back. JFD 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas not 4 Vedas

There are various discussions about the veda being 5 and not 4.... The vedas are not talking about these.. Should we consider added details about those... these are mentioned by Verses of Vemana. There are many discussions about this.. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vov/vov11.htm

There is a mention about Pranav Veda.. any details ???

I found the narration about the 5 (five) Vedas in the following book

• Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
• By Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
• Published 1928
• The Institute Original from the University of California

"Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute" This is the place in Pune where all the ancient copies of the Vedas are kept. The topic needs to be importantly mentioned. BalanceRestored 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Click to check the vedic verses and the clear citation of the 5 vedas http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1 BalanceRestored 10:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, please consult the many highly regarded books published on the Vedas (see for example this list of references), and don't base your edits to this well-developed article based on two line snippets on google books.
For your information, "Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute" is a journal publication of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, and any reference to it will require citation of the exact article title along with the authors. Also it is highly recommended incumbent that one read (and understand) any academic article completely and in its correct context before adding content from it. 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation is insufficient and vague, kindly quote with page numbers of the reference books you have read actually and with the exact narration. Also quote from where the narrations are taken. There are different versions about the numbers 5 or 4, and we will need to take the appropriate one only. Wikipedia is not a place for common belief I suppose. It is an encyclopedia. Also do you have any explanation about the material mentioned by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Again it is very apparent from your explanation that you have not read your self the reference books. Also you have not signed the above explanation. BalanceRestored 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Now can you provide the title and authors for the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute reference you cited ? Abecedare 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is that to do with the reference. Kindly explain. Is the book published or not? Also you just referred to me Merriam Webster Dictionary, what is that to do with what you just wrote above list of references.. BalanceRestored 05:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please click on the above Merriam Webster link!

Here is another quote from Michael Witzel, "Vedas and Upaniṣads" in Gavin Flood, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-3251-5. Pages 68-101.

"The Four Vedas are the oldest extant texts of India and contain religious and ritual poetry ..."

Abecedare 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

what is mentioned by the author and from where is this author quoting the reference form . I have refered about the Arthashastra mentioning about the 5 vedas.? Where is this author quoting the text from? and when what I referred is cited why are you removing the same?BalanceRestored 06:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I has also asked to mention where the narrations, the author of the book you are mentioning are been taken from. There are difference of opinions with regards to 4 or 5 which was already stated by me. I already mentioned we will need to go with the correct citation. You did not bother to explain the same.BalanceRestored 06:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of the publisher is R.N. Dhandekar at Bhandarkar Institute press BalanceRestored 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Newer Citations

Finally an entire book that cites and talks about the 5th Veda. I am sure the presence of the 5th Veda cannot be just ignored.

"Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat"

• By Bruce M. Sullivan
• Page 8, Page 88, Page 7
• ISBN 8120816765

The text says "The Mahabharata, in any case, does not say that each pupil learned one Veda from Vyasa, but that each pupil learned all five vedas"

The text says "The Arthashastra says that there are 5 vedas and the 5th Veda is ithihasa veda"

The text says "Vyasas repeated references to Vedic texts in his description of his own composition emphasize the epic's claim to be another Veda, the fifth Veda"

BalanceRestored 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bhagvat Purana Pranav Veda

"Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah" In bhagwat purana it is clearly telling about the Pranava Veda. When Bhagwan (GOD) Talk to Uddhava. The text literally means One Pranva Veda is complete and all the other veda derived from the same.

a community Vishwabrahmins in India follow the Pranava Veda. BalanceRestored 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Various Books Refering the Pranav Veda

The Astrology Of Personality: A Reformulation Of Astrological Concepts And Ideals In Terms of Contemporary Psychology and Philosophy.

• By Dane Rudhyar
• Published 2004
• Kessinger Publishing
• Page 128
• ISBN 1417978465

Social Bibliography; Or, Physical Bibliography for Librarians

• By Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan
• Published 1952 University of Delhi
• Original from the University of Michigan

All of this material related to the "fifth veda" is so far off the beaten track in terms of all other WP:RS on the topic that I feel the claims need to rise to meet the standard of WP:FRINGE claims. There may be some grain of truth here, but the way this material is being presented is not consistent with other sources. I would like to get the discussion here to focus on which sources of the ones presented may be considered WP:RS. Certainly none of the astrology material by Dane Rudhyar would be included. If the other texts are hard to locate, verification of any of this will take effort.

It would be helpful if we can identify one or two key Sanskrit terms by which this supposed "fifth Veda" is called, as that will assist in index lookups in standard reference sources. Is there a name of a specific text which is claimed as a Sanskrit scripture? If we can identify the name of the scripture, we can look it up in the usual reference works on such scriptures. Is "Pranava Veda" the only term to look up? I am just beginning to search for references to this, and so far that term does not appear in the index either to Winternitz' History of Indian Literature or in The Vedic Age (Volume One of The History and Culture of the Indian People). I am unable to find hard citation data for any of the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute citations which you have given, so the material is at this point not verifiable. Please refer to WP:Verifiability regarding the need to provide citations that can actually be reviewed and confirmed. Of the three tiny fragments of text that you have cited on Google books ([6]) I can identify a specific source scripture passage in one of them, a reference to an "otherwise obscure verse of the Saṃyutta Nikāya (I.29). According to Winternitz the Saṃyutta Nikāya ("Collection of Grouped Discourses") is a Buddhist scripture (volume 2, which covers Buddhist scriptures, pp. 54-60 and passim). Aside from the fact that it would be dubious to quote a Buddhist scripture as a source for Hindu canonical organization, perhaps the discussion is being influenced by a misunderstanding of the division of the Buddhist teachings in that work into five "vaggas" or "divisions" (Winternitz, volume 2, p. 56). I do not know if this is a factor in the issue.

This link to Google books may be worth looking over from the point of view of what claims are being made ([7]). That book refers to the idea of the Mahabharata as the fifth Veda, which is perhaps more of an honorific title than anything else. The Mahabharata is explicitly not included in the Vedic corpus, of course. Buddhipriya 06:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the references right? Was the google book mentioned above included in the references? BalanceRestored 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete research on the presence of 5 Vedas

"Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat"

• By Bruce M. Sullivan
• Page 8, Page 88, Page 7
• ISBN 8120816765

The text says "The Mahabharata, in any case, does not say that each pupil learned one Veda from Vyasa, but that each pupil learned all five vedas"

The text says "The Arthashastra says that there are 5 vedas and the 5th Veda is ithihasa veda"

The text says "Vyasas repeated references to Vedic texts in his description of his own composition emphasize the epic's claim to be another Veda, the fifth Veda"

Looks like you missed it. I re-edited the article using this book. Not the Google thing you mentioned. Kindly get the article back. Looks like you made an error unknowingly. BalanceRestored 06:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The material from that book that is available online makes it clear that he is talking about the Mahabharata as the "fifth Veda". That is an honorific idea. It is quite possible that he makes claims for some other scriptures as being a fifth Veda as well, or perhaps there is some metaphorical point involved. The entire body of academic study in this field organizes the Vedic corpus into the four main divisions. Please read WP:FRINGE. I ask for the second time, please give the Sanskrit name of a specific scripture that is being identified as the "fifth Veda". What is it, so I can look the work up? Either it is one of the works that is classified formally in some other way, such as the dance shastras (which I have heard called "the fifth veda" by dancers, or perhaps it is some mythical work. But what is the title of it? Buddhipriya 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read all the pages, I have provided the narrations. BalanceRestored 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also did you read this reference from Government of India. By Mysore (India : State), "Mysore State Gazetteer:", 1965, Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press, Page 220 . You seemed to have ignored even this..

A few other points to note:

• The "Seer of the Fifth Veda" is a 1984, PhD thesis of Bruce Sullivan, and while it is interesting to read, it is hardly accepted in the mainstream given the lack of citations to it in scholarly journals or academic reviews.
• The 1990 edition of the book is titled, "Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa and the Mahabharata: A New Interpretation.", which demonstrates that even the author thinks of the idea of the "fifth veda" as a novel interpretation.
• You are quoting selectively from the book; for example page 8 the book not only says, "The Mahabharata, in any case, does not say that each pupil learned one Veda from Vyasa, but that each pupil learned all five vedas" but also talks about how the Puranas have a conflicting version.
• Another example of the author himself stating the weidely accepted version is found right at the beginning on page 2, where he writes, "He is traditionally credited with arrangement of the vedas into four texts, as well as the composition of the epic Mahabharata, many Puranas and other works", as well as, "He is credited not only with arranging the collection of the sruti ("Revelations") into the four text of the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Veda, but also the composition of much of the smritis ("Tradition")" (emphasis added; IAST not transcribed).

Also as mentioned by Buddhipriya, the the "fifth Veda" and "Pranava vedas" raise WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG issues and we will need solid authoritative citations in support of such claims. Abecedare 07:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The text I wrote was as follows

There are number of citations in the Vedic texts that cite the possibility of there being a fifth Veda.

This time I did not write there are Five Vedas ... I did mention possibility..

The Vishwabrahmin community in India follow the Pranava Veda, according to them is the 5th Veda. I cited the text from Government of India (is that not solid???). Any reasons for ignoring that too?BalanceRestored 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again there are big seers in India who say the Vedas are 5, they say thing because they did study them all their lives. There are surely non-conclusive assumptions about the same. I do agree. But what's the harm mentioning what is written? Hey not everything you hear is alway true. Truth is sometimes beyond it. These books I mentioned and there are lots of citations about it.. It is important for the details to be mentioned. Any reasons why we should ignore these citations?BalanceRestored 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Mysore State Gazetteer", 1965 being a gazetteer, would be an excellent (though outdated) reference for the geography of Mysore, and perhaps an acceptable reference for its demographics circa. 1965. However it is far from a reliable, authoritative source on the Vedas. And again you miscited the refernce which does not mention Vishwabrahmins on page 220, but only Panchals. Abecedare 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I must ask that BalanceRestored comply with WP:CIVIL and stop referring to the fact that we are disagreeing with the points being raised as "ignoring" the issues. We are disagreeing that the material says what you think it does, and we do not agree that the sources are WP:RS. You still have not answered my question regarding the actual Sanskrit titles of any works that may be involved, making it very difficult to do any sort of independent search for citations on the matter. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Buddhipriya 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vishwabrahmins, Vishwakarmas, Panchals are the same. Their gotras are the same. You can check and research about the same. Now the topic of discussion is not about Vishwabrahmins or Panchals, the thing you both persistantly ignored the "Government of Indias" quotations.

You mention it Panchals

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

Or Vishwabrahmins

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

Or Vishwakarmas

1. Manu (blacksmith),
2. Maya (carpenter),
3. Thwastha (metalcraftsman),
4. Silpi (stone-carver)
5. Vishvajnan (goldsmith)

What ever you feel you are comfortable with you can mention it.. Panchals, Vishwabrahmins, or Vishwakarmas. BalanceRestored 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a good reason not to quote about the 5 veda that is mentioned by Government of India?BalanceRestored 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: The "Mysore State Gazetteer", 1965 being a gazetteer, would be an excellent (though outdated) reference for the geography of Mysore, and perhaps an acceptable reference for its demographics circa. 1965. However it is far from a reliable, authoritative source on the Vedas."

Spamming this page with unrelated content (as above), is not helping your cause and is disruptive. Abecedare 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind.. it is better to get experts resolve this problem. Do you mind helping me with that. Or you have a problem even with that.BalanceRestored 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. Abecedare 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

guys, try to be constructive. The Mahabharata is obviously irrelevant to the Vedas themselves. You are free to claim even today that there are six or seven or any number of Vedas without any impact on the actual Vedic literature. The Vedas themselves talk of triplicity, and in late Vedic times a "fourth Veda" appears. The Vedic period ended, but of course people in the Maurya or Gupta period could well get the idea that, hey, if a "fourth Veda" can be introduced, why not a fifth? This is certainly a respectable topic, to be treated under "reception of Vedic literature", or "importance of Vedic texts in Hinduism". Not relevant to the study of the Vedas themselves, but of great importance to the study of Hinduism and history of Indian thought. Try to just move such discussions to the relevant place instead of calling each other names. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(Pranav Veda) Pranav OR "OM" is itself a veda there are various texts about the begining of the creation etc, this Veda has been there among the Panchals / Vishwabrahmins what ever you call it who have 5 rishis those are clearly mentioned in the Yajur Veda itself. It is said that the 1st Veda Pranav Veda has been written around 10,000 years ago other are written much latter. If it is not mentioned here on the main page the other people who could be knowing more in details will not easily reach the page and write about the facts. But, strictly not mentioning about "OM" at it at all, is a big question. I know all these things because it is often discussed among the community members and when I try to find facts around the same, I do find them. Now it is up to you all to mention the same or not. See I myself am a lot Blind about the Vedic Scripts and am enjoying all these competitive claims about the facts from AB and BPriya because the more I am challenged the more I learn. It gives me more boost to get things and prove what I claimed is right. It makes me happier, finding the facts to be true. I've ordered for this book, hope it reaches me soon and I am able to make better claims. Again I understand this is something we've too never heard before. I too just heard about the same. My reaction was the same as all you are having.. 5 Vedas.. at first I said.. what the....... why are all these people talking all these.. !!!!... but after finding facts, they seem to be true, I needed to bring that here as I felt it was important and something we all could learn if it is really true.. Well I did mention about "5th Veda" and all it's citations, now it is up to you all to research about it. I will surely give up after making some more attempts. I don't want to suddenly bring out things which you people never heard... at least it is visible to me.. i see there's something in these books I did scan, you all don't see no problem ..... BalanceRestored 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again the questions... was such a book there...is such a book there.. http://www.aumoneworld.com/books.html .. I do see one.. BalanceRestored 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pranavan Vedam"

• by Dr. S. P. Sabharathnam
• A fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe and the ancient science of Pranava Veda or the cosmic life force. Written by a master in the Agamas.BalanceRestored 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've myself never read this myself. I did try google, amazon books ... it is not found there.BalanceRestored 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created the page Pranav Veda, I hope there will be more inputs about this treatise.BalanceRestored 10:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Texts are criticizing 2 important religions in India

I've removed the following below text.

Philosophies and sects that developed in the Indian subcontinent have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). Two other Indian philosophies, Buddhism and Jainism, did not accept the authority of the Vedas and evolved into separate religions. In Indian philosophy these groups are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-Vedic" (nāstika) schools.

There are 66 more religions in the world who do not accept Vedas, but the text is specifically just mentioning the two. The text is crossing NPOV. Check list of religions, it is stating all List of religions other then Hinduism as Nastiks. BalanceRestored 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crossing NPOV There are not just 2 but 66 more religions. This is a strict no-no at wikipedia.BalanceRestored 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI.. "nāstika" this is a very cheaply looked up term in India. It is very similar to calling niggers etc. They should be removed from Wiki I suppose.BalanceRestored 11:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to get involved in one of these Mera Bharat Mahan disputes, but nāstika just means that Buddhists and Jains don't think that there is a God (... नास्ति, one might venture to say), which certainly no Buddhist or Jain would think is anything to be ashamed of. The reason to remove this stuff is probably that it's POV, but more that it's a sort of tired, Sarvepalli Radhakrishna (no offense to the great man), "there are six schools of Indian philosophy," POV than that it's pejorative. Rājagṛha 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, a person who just starts editing on 7th of July understands things like POV, replying at talk pages that took me more than 3 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/R%C4%81jag%E1%B9%9Bha You are surely someone in disguise.BalanceRestored 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please do not become hostile. It is a violation of the terms that you agreed to as a condition of lifting your ban which are listed here. Buddhipriya 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Veda written by the Sons of Vishwakarma

||Shree Ganesha||

As cited at http://www.amcreativityassoc.org/ACA%20Press/Global%20Correspondents/Global_1999.pdf

Considered to be the son of the Vasuprabhasa and his wife, Yogasiddha, according to one tradition, Visvakarma had five faces, ten hands and from each of the face he begot a son. Like their father, each of the sons was extraordinarily talented and versatile in all fields and because of their stature, they were also awarded the title of Maharishi (great sage or saint) (Sharma, 1989). Each of the five sons gave rise to a major artistic lineage, and theoretically any artist can trace his mythical descent to one of them. The five sons of Visvakarma are claimed to have been the first blacksmith, the first carpenter, the first founder, the first mason, the first goldsmith, variously and the succeeding generation of the craftsmen are supposed to be their progeny. Roberts (1909, p.11) quotes a passage from the Vedas:

Manu was a blacksmith and author of the Rig Veda. Maya was a carpenter and author of Yajur Veda. Twashtak was a brass caster and author of Sama Veda. Shilpi was a mason-architect and author of the Atharvana Veda. And Vishvagna was a goldsmith and author of the Pranava Veda. IT is written by Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. BalanceRestored 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article you have found, (i.e.,The Divine Creativity: The Mythical Paradigm and Lord Visvakarma by M.K. Raina; as well as the references it cites) is an excellent reference for adding material to both the Vishwakarma and the Vishwabrahmin articles, and I would highly encourage you to work in that direction. However the tradition you quote above about the origins of the Vedas, is just one of many such legends associated with their origins, and is not notable enough for inclusion in this article. Abecedare 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Abecedare I too am of the same opinion of yours, but any particular reason for that? But I personally think that no author should be credited with writing the Veda until and unless it is 100% proven. I too understand that Vedas are a big thing for the Indian Subcontinent. I have read the passage that says Roberts has quoted the citation from Veda. I have pasted the same so that a relevant research is done in that direction. If the names of the sages are truly mentioned in the citations, there should be no harm in mentioning the same.BalanceRestored 08:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

tirumala.org

Can we use this website as a benchmark while quoting important controvercial issue

IT is written by Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. Page Number 10. Well I could not reach this book. If someone ever reaches this book and the page number and the verses that quoted the same, It will be an interesting discovery. The author quotes the following Manu was a blacksmith and author of the Rig Veda. Maya was a carpenter and author of Yajur Veda. Twashtak was a brass caster and author of Sama Veda. Shilpi was a mason-architect and author of the Atharvana Veda. And Vishvagna was a goldsmith and author of the Pranava Veda. is taken from VEDA itself. So, after reading which Veda is the author talking about and which verses are telling the same we can quote that to the main page. BalanceRestored 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the information given in that book conflicts with many standard reference works on this subject, it constitutes a type of WP:FRINGE claim that certainly need not be mentioned in the article. Unless this myth can be shown to be notable, as could be done by finding references to it in a range of WP:RS, citing this sort of story would give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe idea. Buddhipriya 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the names are found in the Verses of Vedas should that be still a WP:FRINGE claim?? does the above narration referred narration "Roberts, A.E. (Roberts Alfred Edwards) (1909). Visvakarma and his descendants. Calcutta : All-India Vish-vakarma Brahman Mahasabha. Page Number 10." look like he is quoting something from the Vedas? Could be false, Could be he lied that all together, but who knows, the names of the sages followed by the Vishwakarmas are definitely seen in Yajur Veda 4.3.3, that is something we should not forget. But I've hardly seen western authors who researched in India quoting things for no reasons. I did never find one. BalanceRestored 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more website quoting the 5 vedas and they are said to be written by Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi, and Vishwajna 5 vedas written by Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi, and Vishwajna the website quotes content is taken from 'origin of the Vedas provided by Spiritual Origin Of Vedas.'

BR, I hope you realize that this is a satarical, humour piece about religion. Please read the source you cite completely to make sure that the quotes are not taken out of context. Abecedare 08:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew that was a one, but I just pointed out so that it be understood that it is not something that people have not already talked about. Any way I found some light about the same from Skanda Purana. I am focusing on the same. Once I am clear with the evidences, I will put that in the main article. :)BalanceRestored 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Skanda Purana Verses

Hi Everyone finally found the verses from Skanda Purana that clearly tells that the 5 Vedas are written by 5 main Rishis of the Vishwakarma Sect.

The verses are as follows
RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid, Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata ||
Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha |

This also clearly confirms the presence of Pranava Veda......BalanceRestored 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

tirumala.org

Can we use details from the website tirumala.org as a benchmark for issues those seem to be controversial?BalanceRestored 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that does not qualify as a reliable source especially on this topic for which numerous academic books and articles are available. Abecedare 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say a website that is run by the temple organization could be wrong? BalanceRestored 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reached WP:RS it quotes the following "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views", So you indirectly mean to say, the website owned by TTD Management cannot be considered "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" BalanceRestored 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is not authoritative on the subject of Vedas. It could be an appropriate source for information regarding the temple location, timings etc. Abecedare 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vasishtha credited chief author of Mandala 7 of the Rigveda

Vasishtha is credited as the chief author of Mandala 7 of the Rigveda. any details?BalanceRestored 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clear Confirmations of the 5 Vedas

Vyasa, known to be the arranger of the 4 vedas, himself has taught the 5th Veda to his own son. This is confirmed from Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 335-40

It says Vyasa taught the first four Veda to his disciples and the fifth in secret to his "SON". BalanceRestored 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of Veda

There was no invasion at all. India's native peoples founded the Indus/Sarasvati River civilization, developed Sanskrit and wrote all her ancient texts. European dates are all wrong. Rig Veda verses belie the old chronology (VI.51.14-15 mentions the winter solstice occurs when the sun rises in Revati nakshatra, only possible at 6,000bce, long before the alleged invasion.) Carbon dating confirms horses in Gujarat at 2,400bce, contradicting old model claim Aryans must have brought them. NASA satellite photos prove Sarasvati River basin is real, not a myth. Fire altars excavated at Kali Bangan in Rajasthan support existence of Rig Veda culture at 2,700 bce. Kunal, a new site in Haryana, shows use of writing and silver craft in pre-Harappan India, 6-7,000bce.

India's history goes back much farther than anyone knew, perhaps 10,000 years. India need not be indebted to others for her rich and ancient traditions. The Vedic texts, thought to be part mythology, are being vindicated by scientific evidence to be the world's oldest factual account of human experience.

Check research work by B.G. Tilak, P.C. Sengupta, S.B. Roy, Pargiter, Jagat Pati Joshi, Dikshit, K.N. Shastri, Sri Aurobindo, Hermann Jacobi, S.R. Rao, Dayananda Saraswati, Subash Kak, David Frawley, B.G. Sidharth

Source: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/12/1994-12-08.shtml BalanceRestored 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A German scholar and an Indian scholar simultaneously discovered in 1889 that the Vedic Brahmana texts describe the Pleiades coinciding with the spring equinox. Older texts describe the spring equinox as falling in the constellation Orion. From a calculation of the precision of the equinoxes, it has been shown that the spring equinox lay in Orion in about 4,500 BC.

The German scholar, H. Jacobi, came to the conclusion that the Brahmanas are from a 

period around or older than 4,500 BC. Jacobi concludes that “the Rig Vedic period of culture lies anterior to the third pre-Christian millennium.”22 B. Tilak, using similar astronomical calculations, estimates the time of the Rig Veda at 6,000 BC.23

More recently, Frawley has cited references in the Rig Veda to the winter solstice beginning in Aries. On this basis, he estimates that the antiquity of these verses of the Veda must go back at least to at least 6,500 BC.24 The dates Frawley gives for Vedic civilization are:

Period 1. 6500-3100 BC, Pre-Harappan, early Rig Vedic 

Period 2. 3100-1900 BC, Mature Harappan 3100-1900, period of the Four Vedas Period 3. 1900-1000 BC, Late Harappan, late Vedic and Brahmana period

Professor Dinesh Agrawal of Penn State University reviewed the evidence from a variety of sources and estimated the dates as follows:

1. Rig Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BC
2. End of Rig Vedic Age - 3750 BC
3. End of Ramayana-Mahabharat Period - 3000 BC
4. Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-2200 BC
5. Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-1900 BC
6. Period of chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BC
7. Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400-250 BC

The Taittiriya Samhita (6.5.3) places the constellation Pleiades at the winter solstice, which correlates with astronomical events that took place in 8,500 BC at the earliest.

The Taittiriya Brahmana (3.1.2) refers to the Purvabhadrapada nakshatra as rising due east—an event that occurred no later than 10,000 BC, according to Dr. B.G.Siddharth of India’s Birla Science Institute. Since the Rig Veda is more ancient than the Brahmanas, this would put the Rig Veda before 10,000 BC.

Maurice Winternitz, A History of Vedic Literature, Vol. 1, p. 277.

B.G. Tilak, The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas (Bombay: 1893)

For example, Rig Veda, verses 1.117.22, 1.116.12, 1.84.13.5.

Source:http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDFBalanceRestored 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas

There are 5 Vedas against the standard 4. There are evidences for the same

There are various texts that talk about the Vedas being 5 in number. Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas. Mahabharata said to be written by Vyasa, says that Vyasa taught one more Veda to his own son Shuka. Written at Mahabharata Shanti Parva 335-40

• The Religious Authority of the Mahabharata: Vyasa and Brahma in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-401, Bruce M. Sullivan it quotes "Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas."
• "Mysore State Gazetteer", Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press (1965), Page 220 says The Panchals are said to follow five Vedas (instead of the standard four), the fifth being the "Pranava Veda"
• Pages indexed in google for the term "5 Veda" [8] 700+
• Pages indexed in google for the term "fifth veda" 11,700. There are various assumptions for the same.
• Skanda Purana the biggest among the Puranas clearly mentions the original people to whom the 5 Vedas belonged (Still to confirm this) The verses are as follows "RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid, Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata || Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha"
• kamakoti.org "Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham" says "There are five Vedas if you reckon the Yajur Veda to be two with its Sukla and Krsna divisions." so they agree that there are 5 vedas, the sentence is very much "confused" looks like the sage knows there are 5 vedas. [9]
• "Psychic Science April 1931 to January 1932", Stanley De Brath, Published 2004 Kessinger Publishing, New Age / Parapsychology, ISBN 1417978155. Says "The Newest Physics", "A remarkable little book a new astronomy and cosmic Physicology "merely to introduce the larger work" page 122. The author G. E. Sutcliffe claims that in is based on a method entirely new in Europe. This method is said to be contained in the Pranava Veda, A Sanskrit text from the East.
• "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One eva={{Used to put emphasis}} soPura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. Now people who read this line from Srimad-Bhagavata and still say , NO NO NO or write something else, which is 100% crystal clear, I think they need a doctor. My friends we all agree that Vyasa divided the 4 vedas from some big text (Veda) to simplify it. It was the pranava veda he did that from. Now, this is what people say and talk about. Truth needs to be found, this is what something that's commonly talked. Again.. there's something else also about Pranava Veda that sounds silly.. but I will keep that a secret. Ok, you all scholars, great editors, which TEXT VYASA DIVIDED to make that simple? IT WAS THE VEDA so which VEDA? does anyone know that?BalanceRestored 10:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• A list of sacred texts where there are further notations of the 5th Veda.
  • MBH 1.57.74;
  • MBH 12.327.18;
  • RAM 1.1.77;
  • BP 1.4.20;
  • BP 3.12.39;
  • Skanda 5.3.1.18;

Source: Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, by Steven T. Katz, ISBN: 9780195097030, Page 204

Don't know which translation is the author talking about. I find some other lines at RAM 1.1.77;BalanceRestored 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vyasa has said to have divided the Vedas in 1180 Saakaas and each shaka is associated with a Upanishads. So there should be 1180 Saakaas in all. Now why are there only 108 Upanishads today?? BalanceRestored 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote which idea is true, or decide which view is right.

Just do what you did, cite your sources.... and please be citing them accurately!

Paul it is really bad form to remove citations just because they don't agree with your view. Personally, I have never heard of the five veda idea myself, but until you or me gets out the refferences he has provided, we have no place to remove them....Maybe the section could be touched up a bit.... However, please do not remove his citations unless you have them in front of you and they don't say what he claims they do. Sethie 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC

Sethie, you don't understand what you are talking about. Anyone can add a 'citation' by finding online a suitable sounding text and putting it in refs. It's a form of footnote faking. The article is about the mythical role of Vyasa in Indian tradition. It does not justify any claim that there is an extant '5th Veda'. Balance Restored is absolutely obsessed with this point and has trawled web pages in repeatedly in support of his claim. He could easily have written something on the concept of the fifth Veda as a lost text or as a way of speaking about somje aspect of relgious practice or tradtion. But he does not. He just repeatedly adds the meanngless assertion that there is a fifth Veda without saying what is meant by that. Paul B 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold my friend, I am a Vishwakarma my self. First find out facts and then tell things. People have tried to destroy books, records. There are lot of things in the past that I will be ashamed to mention. There are over 40 lakh Vishwakarma in India who follow this Veda are currently a minority community which lack in Numbers and hence things are not known much. Just because one section of the society believes in otherwise and things have been not researched does not mean it is not there. BalanceRestored 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If they follow this Veda then you will have no problem producing an edition of the text of it then will you, or at least a discussion of its content? Paul B 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I have clearly mentioned citations for the Arthashastra and referring the same I have written things. Why should cited narrations be removed. BalanceRestored 09:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The formula for atom bombs are not given in public. They are secrets. Don't you have heard about the Puspak Viman, Things flying, etc etc in the Vedas? The veda is hidden.BalanceRestored 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You say you follow it but can't say what it is. Isn't that rather odd? Instead you quote from sources such as gazetters that say "so and so says there is a 5th Veda". The point is that various authors mean different things when they use this term. For example if you type "fifth gospel" into google you will get many hits referring to a "fifth gospel", [10] which is a term used by different authors to mean a variety of different things. Adding a section to the article on The Gospels saying "many authors have said there is a fifth gospel" would be pointless and uninformative. The Pranava Veda page is itself a disambiguation page because the term is used to refer to several different things (just like "fifth gospel" - or fifth Beatle!). There is nothing stopping you adding an informative section on this concept, but you cannot do so because you show no sign of understanding what the actual issues are. Paul B 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look an encyclopedia is a referece book for my knowledge. A researcher can reach here. He needs to find every little details about a topic. False, True everything. Let the future decide what's false and what's true. First even I thought it could be false, after talking to many people and discussing with many and finding real time evidences there should be a reason not to quote the same?BalanceRestored 11:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This reply indicates that you are impervious to debate. Just answer this: what is the fifth Veda that you follow? Paul B 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow the 5th Veda "Pranava Veda" (like you all follow the Rig, Yajur, Sama, Artha without reading the text just talk about the same) about that you can clearly see here. [11]

• Pranavan Vedam
• by Dr. S. P. Sabharathnam
• "A fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe and the ancient science of Pranava Veda or *the cosmic life force. Written by a master in the Agamas."

This is indeed a very rare text, but I can see the same. Do you see it.? I do see this is a book that has pages and is not just OM. BalanceRestored 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a book about the concept of the Pranava Veda. It not an ancient text itself is it? Even the title refers to the PV as a "cosmic life force" not as a text. Paul B 13:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, please see the first sentence of Vedas#The Four Vedas section, which I added [12] after reading the cited article and IMO presents the 5th veda concept in context (although even this may be giving the idea endue weight). Abecedare 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me understand how one sentence is undue weight? Sethie 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that I added that "compromise" sentence, I can certainly live with it; but to answer your particular question: the reason that even one sentence can be undue weight is because scholarly review articles and books written on the Vedas (such as the ones by Michael Witzel and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentioned in the references) do not find this trivia important enough to mention in works which exceed the length of the wikipedia article by a factor of around a 100. Also see the discussion in this above section. Regards. Abecedare 17:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cool, I like it. I say we add in one more of balanced restores refference to that section and be done with this. Having sat with it, I concur though that it doesn't need it's own section for sake of WP:UNDUE. Sethie 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, please review the "BR references" at the top of this section, or in earlier sections (such as [13]) and see if there is a single source you consider to be a reliable secondary and authoritative on this subject on which 100s of academic books and 1000s of scholarly articles have been written. The Sullivan thesis (published in various versions) is the only credible source among these, although I have already explained my view of using even that source in greater detail several times above. Abecedare 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How can 5 be 4?? and why you removed the citation about Arthasastra? On what context is the reference from Arthasastra removed?

BR you are again edit-waaring on the Vedas page and have already violated the condition under which your indef. block was revoked. Also see WP:PSTS. Abecedare 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look you can take that unreferenced not topic about my ban at my talk page. It is not answering to my question. I am not edit warring, I questioned you the reason for removing the reference from Arthasastra is this text wrong? You have not bothered to answer the same. It is not me but you who is edit warring BalanceRestored 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Would a reference to Wikipedia:Fringe theories be helpful here? -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say Arthasastra is a Fringe? BalanceRestored 10:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that there were five Vedas that existed sounds like a very minority view, much more like a fringe theory not worthy of inclusion on any encyclopedia. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 11:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided with many references not one. There are many many more. Try reading Mahabharata Shanti Parva. I've also mentioned the topic number, that varies from books to books. Things are crystal clear.BalanceRestored 11:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Vishnu Puran says that there are 4 vedas I suppose, we have 18-20 important Puranas also. Skanda Purana too says there are 5 vedas, Mahabharata says it, so what is fringe? 5 Vedas or 4 Vedas?BalanceRestored 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But can we be sure that the 5th veda referred to is the book in question? The Sullivan book included in the references says that Mahabharata and Natyasastra both described themselves as the "5th veda". That makes at least 7 vedas, counting the Pranava Veda. Also, until and unless we actually have documented evidence for the factual existence of the Pranava Veda, we can't refer to it specifically, as we can't refer to something we can't verify. The article Vishwakarmas indicates that the Pranava Veda is "not a text but the notion that 'Aum is the Veda". On that basis, maybe change the first sentence to "several other texts including the Mahabharata and Natyasastra refer to themselves as the "fifth Veda", and the Vishwakarmas hold that the Aum itself is a '5th veda'"? John Carter 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I think your idea of expanding that sentence to briefly mention that some (not only Vishwakarmas) consider Aum to be the fifth (or even the primal) Veda is a good one. Does anyone have a specific reliable source to attest this fact ? Abecedare 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the claim that the Epics are "the fifth Veda" is an honorific statement. I am not aware of any WP:RS that would agree that there are more than four Vedas if by that term we are referring to the canon of Hindu scripture that is generally recognized as authoritative across multiple schools. In line with sourcing for WP:FRINGE theories of this type, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Buddhipriya 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> I completely agree that the claim that the Epics (or Aum) are "the fifth Veda" is an honorific statement, and that is exactly what the article would say, once we have a solid reliable source attesting to that. To be clear, I am thinking of changing the first sentence in the Vedas#The Four Vedas to something along the lines of:

Four texts are traditionally accorded the designation of Veda, though several other texts including the Mahabharata and Natyasastra refer to themselves as the "fifth Veda". and the syllable Aum is in some contexts referred to as the primal or the Pranava Veda.

Of course the exact wording will have to be adjusted depending on what the cited source says exactly. Does that make sense? By the way it would also be preferable if the second sentence of the section used a secondary source as a citation, in addition to/in pace of direct reference to a primary source (Vishnu Purana) Abecedare 22:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that putting that material into the lead would give WP:UNDUE weight to these fringe statements, particularly to the statement that om is the Fifth Veda. If it goes in anywhere, it should not be in the lead. I am sure that I can find a source for the honorific references to the Epics, but it may take a few days to find it. I am aware of a religious view in which all shruti are considered to be "emanations" or "vibrations" which have propagated from om, but finding a citation for that may also take a bit of work. It is a religious notion which needs to be clearly kept separate from any type of systematic ordering or canonical enumeration of the various categories of Hindu scripture.

Regarding the use of scripture as a citation, while any particular scripture may be a WP:RS primary source for what that scripture itself says, what that scriptural statement means in most cases will require citation of a reliable secondary source. If, for example, I am writing an article about the resurrection of Jesus, I can cite the Gospel accounts of that event as primary sources related to that belief, but I cannot use those sources to establish the historicity of the event. Buddhipriya 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation for the use of the term "fifth Veda" as an honorific for the Mahabharata, and as a bonus we have a "Tamil Veda" as well. This occurs as a comment in a section discussing tensions between orthodox Brahmanism and popular religion. It says that: "The one solid good that was achieved, however, was that popular methods of religious instruction were evolved, the contents of the learned books brought to the knowledge of the masses at large, and certain high ideals of virtue which constitute the priceless heritage of India, like the dutifulness of Rāma, the chastity of Sītā and Sāvitrī, the brotherly love of the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata heroes, the religious devotion of Dhruva and Prahlāda, the truthfulness of Yudhiṣṭhira, the charity of Śibi, Karṇa, and Hariścandra, and the achievement of Viśvamitra in re-establishing the principle of social eminence according to personal qualification, were held up before the public for admiration and emulation. No wonder that the Mahābhārata should come to be regarded as the fifth Veda, open to all alike, the Purāṇas to be religiously recited, and in the South the popular devotional literature should come to be known as the Tamil Veda." (Quotation from Bhārataratna Bhagavan Das, "Introduction", in: CHI, volume 4, p. 11.)

The reason why I quoted this passage at some length is because in context it clearly shows that the use of the term "Fifth Veda" to describe the Mahabharata is intended as an honorific, not a literal classification of the epic work within the formal system for Hindu scripture. Further, it establishes that the time period for this view was post-Vedic. It also brings out the tension between orthodoxy, which limited access to formal scriptural study in ways that gave rise to alternative popular religious models, including popular epic and puranic materials. Buddhipriya 05:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a second citation for the term "Fifth Veda" as an honorific for the Mahabharata, plus a bonus regardng the fact that four Vedas are recognized by the Mahabharata itself. This is from one of the standard early Western authorities on the Mahabharata, E. Washburn Hopkins. In the section on "Divisions of Vedas" he says of the word "veda" that "The word is used also of the epic, Vyāsa's Saṁhitā, the fifth Veda." (Quotation from Hopkins, E. Washburn. The Great Epic of India. 1901, page 7. Reprint edition: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1993, ISBN 81-208-0995-5.

On pages 2-4 Hopkins discusses the standard four Vedas, which are mentioned in the Mahabharata. He refers to them as the vedic "caturmūrtiḥ, or fourfold Veda..." (p. 2). He notes that "The epic even has caturveda as an epithet of a man, - 'one who knows the four Vedas'" (= cāturvaidya, p. 3). He also mentions the threefold Veda is a distinct grouping and refers to "The tradition of 'lost' Vedas" (p. 3) but the note given for that comment does not seem relevant to the present discussion, and I have been unable to find further discussion of that idea in that book. Buddhipriya 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another spin on the "Fifth Veda" is given by Maurice Winternitz, who gives a different approach. This citation documents the generalized use of the term "veda" to cover non-Vedic materials. This discussion comes in the beginning of his section on the popular epics and the puranas. In this quote he makes reference to the Purāṇas and the Itihāsas (used here either as a synonym for the Purāṇas or to refer to another class of narrative literature, see footnote 1, p. 311.) Winernitz says: In the later Vedic texts Itihāsa and Purāṇas are very frequently enumerated beside the Vedas and other branches of learning; the study of them counts as a work pleasing to the gods: in fact the Itihāsapurāṇa is actually called 'the fifth Veda.' Winternitz has a footnote on this "fifth Veda" comment saying (note 4) "The theory that there was a book called 'Ithihāsaveda' or 'Itihāsapurāṇa' is advanced by (various scholars). But the very passage... which is quoted by these scholars, proves that 'Itihāsa' should be interpreted, not as a single work, but as a class of literary productions: for 'Veda' only means a certain kind of learning, not a book: Āyurveda is 'medical science,' Gandharvaveda is 'music,' Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, etc., are classes of texts, and not single books. Thus 'Itihāsaveda' is not any particular book, but that branch of learning which consists of legends, stories, etc."

Winternitz' discussion of the use of the word veda in its general sense of learning is useful, and ties back to the vague definitional problems we have had with the upavedas. And lest there be any doubt, Winternitz lists the standard four Vedas on pp. 53-54 of volume 1. He notes that this group of four that have come down to us may not reflect the entire corpus which may existed in some distant past: "There must once have existed a fairly large number of Saṁhitās, which originated in different schools of priests and singers, and which continued to be handed down. However, many of these 'collections' were nothing but slightly diverging recensions - Śakhās, 'branches,' as the Indians say - of one and the same Saṁhitās. Four Saṁhitās, however, are in existence, which differ clearly from each other, and which have been preserved in one or more recensions. These are: ..." (etc. with list of the standard four). Buddhipriya 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The practice of referring to the Puranic corpus as the "fifth Veda" is specifically refuted in this passage from a standard textbook on Puranic literature: "In spite of their early title of 'fifth Veda', the Purāṇas do not in fact carry the authority of scripture."

Reverts

Please avoid revert wars. Take a step back, be cool and talk out the issue. Cheers! Vassyana 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's easy to say, but frankly unhelpful. Read the discussions. Paul B 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussions. Revert wars and edit warring are not acceptable. They will not solve the disagreement. Please seek assistance if you cannot come to an agreement. Vassyana 16:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but empty moralising adds nothing helpful. If logic, evidence and consensus is persistently rejected by an editor their edits must be reverted. Your links are to WP policy that differs from what you claim. Asking someone to read the discussions has nothing to do wiyh assuming "bad faith". 3RR has not been broken and none of the reverters of Balance Restored have been guilty of "tendentious editing" since there is no attempt to supress anything. The relevant facts about the notion of a fifth veda were already there.Paul B 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Vassyana's position in this matter is not helpful, and at this point amounts to encouraging soapboxing by BalanceRestored. For those who may not have the background on this situation, BalanceRestored was put on indefinite block for previous disruptive behavior, but that block was unilaterally lifted by Vassyana, supposedly on a zero-tolerance basis. Since then the pattern of soapboxing and failure to comply with WP:RS by BalanceRestored has not been perceived by Vassyana as violations of the zero-tolerance arrangement. Regarding the facts of the matter, no WP:RS that I know of supports the idea that there is a "fifth Veda". It falls under WP:FRINGE. Buddhipriya 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed my views on the issue at User_talk:Vassyana#What_to_do?. Abecedare 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An ANI is in progress about this [14] that is similar to this previous one along the same lines. I hope that editors who are not familiar with the block history on BalanceRestored will read the conditions under which the block was lifted: [15]. BalanceRestored violated one of the terms of being unblocked by reverting the article twice in a period of less than 24 hours [16] and [17], which should earn an automatic block under the so called "zero-tolerance" policy. Buddhipriya 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I will again repeat regardless of behaviour edit warring and revert warring is not acceptable. It is not empty moralizing since 3RR makes clear any revert warring is unacceptable and subject to blocking. One does not have to make more than 3 reverts. That is simply an upper limit. If I block BR, I will block several other editors involved in related conflicts as well. This is not a matter of one user being in the wrong. I am being lenient because I feel mass blocking will do little to resolve the problems. I encourage everyone to take their content disputes to dispute resolution. I will also be very blunt and say that in at least some cases there seems to be a bit of baiting going on to try to force other editors to violate the rules (general or specific restrictions). Vassyana 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to help me understand the allegations that you are making against the editors who are trying to manage the WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material that BP is adding, can you please provide specific diffs of edits that you consider inappropriate? Without seeing specific diffs I am unable to understand what you think is out of line. Regarding your suggestion about mediation procedures, I am beginning to feel that it may be helpful to ask a mediator to assist you and I to reach better agreement on this matter, which involves possibly over-broad use of administrative rights by you. Do you feel that mediation would be helpful to discuss that, or would you prefer to continue to engage in dialog informally? Buddhipriya 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm being overbroad in exercising my discretion, but it's certainly possible I'm wrong. Please feel free to engage me on my talk page or drop me an email. I am also sometime available on IRC as Vassyana, if you would prefer. If that dialog is unsatisfactory and my behaviour honestly concerns you, I would strongly recommend asking another admin to review things in relation to my judgment on WP:ANI or ask for community feedback regarding my actions on WP:RFC/U. If I cannot allay your concerns, it is important that you seek those additional routes to have my actions reviewed to ensure that I retain the community's trust and receive critical feedback if necessary. Cheers! Vassyana 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

guys, what is this even about? The notable thing is the extension from three to four Vedas in the post-Vedic (Mauryan) period, viz., the recognition of the AV as a Veda. Still later (early Middle Ages), it became fashionable to call things "fifth Veda". We can mention this and be done, but it's not relevant to the topic. Pranava Vedam is the title of a book by S. P. Sabharathnam [18]. If BalanceRestored wants to write an article about that, let him, but not here. However, it does not appear obvious that he even has access to this book, since all he keeps quoting is the "fascinating treatise on the creation of the universe" blurb from from aumoneworld.com; no further information on this book seems to be available online. These appear to be publications by Ganapati Sthapati's "College of Architecture & Sculpture" but that's just a guess. Either way, this stuff has no place here. I second the assertion that Vassyana's "intervention" has been unhelpful. It is BR who keeps inserting blatant nonsense. Reverting this stuff is straightforward protection of WP content, and if BP persists in his present behaviour, he is headed towards a block for disruption and revert-warring. WP can indeed be "edited by anyone", but this doesn't mean that we are expected to prance around ad infinitum with people who cannot or will not accept the rules. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Veda

The idea of a "fifth Veda" is hardly novel or unusual and has been extensively discussed since at least the mid 19th century in English language literature. Whether this "fifth veda" is one or both of the epics, the Puranas, the epics and Puranas, the Pranava Veda, or the Natya Veda is certainly debatable (though the Mahabharata is the thing most commonly called the "fifth Veda"). Regardless, it is not at all disputable that the Panchama Veda exists in theological and pragmatic practice at least as far as English reliable sources spanning over the past century and a half are concerned. I don't think BR's presentation of this issue is fully balanced or correct. However, neither is the avoidance of actual discussion by claiming it to be FRINGE, which for the concept of a fifth Veda is patently false. Vassyana 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!! It was clear to me that BR pushing nor the removals were balanced. Well said! Sethie 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

wait a minute. BR was going on about this "Pranama Veda" of his. The "fifth Veda" thing can be mentioned in passing, and it is still mentioned in the current revision. Nothing wrong with that at all. We can even create a disambiguation page at Panchama Veda, linking to (a) Natyashastra, (b) Itihasa, (c) Puranas. That's really all there is to say about it. dab (𒁳) 20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact, I have just created a "Fifth Veda" stub, which people should have done long ago instead of wasting time bickering. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant Dab. Sethie 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

realizing that even the Chandogya Upanishad has itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ, I have to admit that the concept is older than I thought. It is still clearly a topic of Vedanta, and should not be discussed here. But I apologize for dismissing it out of hand. It does seem to have roots in the first texts of Vedanta, and thus does reach into the Vedic period itself. Far from being canonical, of course. The term should be mentioned here, but discussion belongs in a separate article. dab (𒁳) 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dab's analysis that the rhetorical concept of "Fifth Veda" is best handled in a separate article for what it is, a sort of promotional slogan for works that aspire to some level of prominence, but which are extra-canonical from the point of view of the actual Vedic scriptures. What BR has been discussing is not that, but a different WP:FRINGE religious assertion that a specific text (apparently of recent composition) is actually part of the Vedic canon, which is completely without foundation. To put this in Christian terms, the term "Bible" is often applied to works to express the idea that they are a standard of information on some topic. We have for example "The Diet Bible" (ISBN=0913087033), "The Freelance Writer's Bible" (ISBN=1879505851), etc. If I were to try to get one of these books listed on Wikipedia in the article for the Bible by claiming that the book should be listed as a work of canonical scripture I might encounter resistance from other editors there. That is essentially what BR has been trying to do here, despite many strong academic proofs that the notion is incorrect. Buddhipriya 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your examples are a bit flippant and dismissive of the topic. Depending on the "version" of the Panchama Veda, it would most be like mentioning the Deuterocanon or some of the wider apocryphal works, following the analogy. It would hardly be inappropriate to have a section discussing the concept, provided NPOV is followed. (A good example of such NPOV would be having the main focus of the section be primarily on Mahabharata as "fifth Veda" and secondarily on Pranava Veda and Natya Veda as each being commonly discussed as the Panchama Veda, since those are most commonly discussed as such.) Just some thoughts. Whether or not it is literal or metaphorical, it is widely discussed and, as close above (and in other places in the talk page and archives), mention of a fifth Veda itself dates to Vedic times. Vassyana 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you do not agree with the point I was trying to make. Let me try to make it a different way. Asserting that a specific work is part of a canon (that is, a defined group of texts which are accepted as part of a formal grouping) is a different matter from asserting that a text is of the same type as texts which are canonical. BR has been persistently arguing the first case, which is not supported by any WP:RS. Dab has correctly addressed the issue of the second case by creating a separate article for that category of extracanonical works which at some time, by someone, have been asserted as having "Vedic" status. The problem behaviors shown by BR in this debate are not related to this content issue. They are related to persistent inability to provide WP:RS for the specific claims being made. If you review the list of references which I added to this page with various examples of "fifth Veda" claims ([19]), I hope you will reconsider your charge that I have been "flippant and dismissive" of this subject. In fact it took quite a bit of work to dig out the references to WP:RS which I supplied. Buddhipriya 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity. Not all of your actions and statements have been flippant. However, comparing the concept of Panchama Veda to trying to include "The Diet Bible" (ISBN=0913087033) in canon is most certainly flippant and dismissive. While Dab's action of creating a separate article to discuss this widely addressed issue is most certainly appropriate, excluding it from any discussion in this article is certainly not and contrary to NPOV. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are saying a summary section of the topic does not belong in this article.) Vassyana 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your characterization of my remarks, which were trying to give an informal view of the use of language in this case, as either dismissive or flippant. You may not find the analogy personally useful, but please do not question my motivations in making it, as I think the analogy is an apt one. Your accusation suggests that I have not acted in good faith with regard to this matter, which is not true. You also have made an incorrect conclusion regarding what my position might be regarding a summary section on the topic of the generic concept of Fifth Veda to refer to many non-canonical works to which that term has been applied. The term "vedic" is so overused that it is almost meaningless. I would not object to inclusion of a single summary sentence along the lines of "Various works that are not part of the Vedic canon have been called the 'Fifth Veda' in an honorific sense." If I recall correctly, a previous version of the article had language similar to that but it may have gone missing in recent edit rounds. Buddhipriya 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) One can be flippant and dismissive, while still acting in good faith. You obviously feel the comparison is apt. However, many Christians would be similarly inclined to accept such an analogy in regards to the Deuterocanon or Gospel of Thomas. In fact, some are inclined to much more severe language than that. ;o) However, an article about the Bible would be terribly incomplete and non-NPOV without a mention of those widely discussed subjects. Similarly, the Panchama Veda is widely discussed throughout a vast number of reliable sources, such mentions date to the Vedic age and English references are available in large number dating back through the mid-18th century. At least a brief discussion, not a single sentence mention that says nothing of the topic, is warranted to provide appropriate coverage. Your dismissal is no more apt than others' attempts to give a single view. Vassyana 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep referring to the general issues of the term "Fifth Veda" as a generic concept, which I agree has been around for a long time, and which I provided various citations for. That is not the issue that BR has been arguing for. The generic idea is a more general concept that other editors have brought forward in response to the specific WP:FRINGE assertion which BR has been making, which is that there is a specific text that actually is the Fifth Veda, which is known to members of a specific Indian caste, and that that work is a secret text that is not available to the general public. See this edit summary for a concise statement of that view: [20]. If you check the edit histories and talk pages for the various articles where this WP:FRINGE idea has been inserted you will see that BR is not making the same case that you are making. In this edit, the text is referred to as a "fascinating treatise", indicating that a specific text is being cited: [21]. Assertions about the author of the text are made here, with objections to the interpreation and sourcing included in this diff: [22]. This content dispute has been about those claims, not about the generic issue of use of the term "Fifth Veda" in other contexts. Buddhipriya 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right that the specific answers provided by other editors to "What is the fifth Veda?" were incorrect solutions. Similarly, I believe that excluding the discussion about the Panchama Veda is similarly flawed. I hardly think it is a "generic concept". It means very particular things to individual people and groups. For example, the Mahabharata is very commonly called the "fifth Veda" (or "Panchama Veda"), most often in an honorary sense, but also (for some) a very literal sense. In both instances, sometimes both epics are taken together with the Puranas to form the fifth Veda. That's all without discussing Pranava Veda or Natya Veda. Certainly at the least, a modest paragraph or small section are warranted for a widely discussed topic. Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* :o) Vassyana 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'You're quite right that the specific answers provided by other editors to "What is the fifth Veda?" were incorrect solutions'. No-one said and such thing, and no-one provided "incorrect solutions" (to what? A crossword puzzle?). They provided examples of the use of the term. Your comment about the Mahabarata suggets that you haven't followed what other editors have written and, indeed, what is already in the article. Paul B 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read over the discussion again. Providing a single answer to "What is the Panchama Veda?" is certainly incorrect and an edit you opposed. Your response to my comments involving the Mahabharata indicate that you have a gross misunderstanding of what I was saying. I am asking for the topic to be actually addressed instead of the article having a couple interesting, but throwaway, facts. Vassyana 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Fifth Veda" and other notions like "Dravida Veda" seem to be perfectly valid topics in the medieval Tamil Bhakti movement. Now why could BalanceRestored not just go to the Bhakti, Alvar, or Divya Prabandha articles and constructively contribute to these instead of racking people's nerves with his obscurantist non-sequiturs at this, perfectly unrelated, talkpage? This article doesn't have to include each and every unrelated notion just because it has been dubbed "Vedic". We don't treat Vedic metal, and we don't treat Maharishi Vedic Medicine, this is stuff to be linked from a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate out the religious and other views

When some one looks up Vedas, he may be looking at it from a religious perspective as much as a linguistic perspective. I find this article written from a linguistic perspective. Both views can be represented, if required. But, for a linguistive view to take such a complete control of a wikipedia page on religious texts is completely unjustifiable. This article needs to be updated completely and/or a separate page created to give information about the vast religious scripture that this is. I find this problem in most Hindu scriptures I have looked up. I do not know if this is a problem only with Hindu books or a general one concerning all religious scriptures

(The above unsigned comment was made by User:70.190.229.114 in this edit: [23]. Buddhipriya 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

the historical religious perspective is at historical Vedic religion. The later mysticist perspective is at Vedanta. The recent revivalist literature, which may be the "viewpoint" you are looking for, is treated at Hindu reform movements, and sub-articles like Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo. The problem is that every century employed these texts for its own puropses. But we could well introduce a short section giving an overview of that. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When a person is talking about "Vedas", what is the chance that he/she is looking for a linguistic perspective? Neither Vedanta nor the recent revivalist literature about vedas is "Vedas" . When you talk about Vedas, you should provide the religous information about the vedas, what they contain and how they are used as per Hindu tradition(s). A linguistic perspective of Vedas could be an addendum to the page. It should not be the page itself.

the post-Vedic Hindu traditions are at Vedanta, Astika and Hinduism. Are you suggesting we just redirect this article to one of those? You can find all the material you are looking for at these articles, but this is the article on the Vedas, not the post-Vedic traditions that grew out of them. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A page should be written to encompass all the perspectives of a topic rather than be dominated by one. What do you think a person wants to know when he is looking for info on Vedas? He is looking for info on what they are, a brief intro to them, how they are used and so on. He is not looking for a linguistic interpretation of vedas alone. This should obviously be part of the page. But, it should be a part and not "THE" part of the page. Look at the Vedas article. When I was searching for information on Vedas, this page provides very little. The information about the religious purpose, significance and use of Vedas is present in very little amount. Instead a linguistic perspective that treats them as interesting books to interpret and date seem to dominate. That is a serious problem. --Sriksk21

BalanceRestored

The reading notes of BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) have been moved to User:BalanceRestored/Notepad. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

orthodox Hindu interpretation

At Page 18 it is written "According to the orthodox views of Indian Theologians", and it is not "orthodox hindu", are "Indian Theologists" and "orthodox hindus" same?BalanceRestored 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the "orthodox" is intended to weaken the claim. If we just say "in Hindu interpretation", we will allege that each and every Hindu subscribes to this, which would be much more in need of a citation than the weakened statement. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not make it "According to orthodox Hindu interpretation the Vedas are apauruṣeya" to "The Vedas are apauruṣeya", the citations are already there. This one sounds more diplomatic. This does not include or exclude any particular section. So, there should be no problem.BalanceRestored 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vedas are for everyone. BalanceRestored 09:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sarveśāṃ cādhikāro vidyāyāṃ ca śreyah: kevalayā vidyāyā veti siddhaṃ" - Adi ShankaraBalanceRestored 09:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB at one instance you say, we cannot have things of our own. Again you are trying to write something that's not cited the way it is said. You all taught me about WP:SOAP. BalanceRestored 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not "trying to write", I am graciously explaining an English sentence to you. I don't insist on the "orthodox". Any suggestion for a better phrasing? Just removing the "orthodox" is not an improvement, since it will just result in an even stronger statement. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit.BalanceRestored 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas

There are 5 Vedas against the standard 4. There are evidences for the same. Some say, there where 4 divisions made and the 5th is the main Veda that is complete and the one which was divided into 4.

There are various texts that talk about the Vedas being 5 in number. Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas. Mahabharata said to be written by Vyasa, says that Vyasa taught one more Veda to his own son Shuka. Written at Mahabharata Shanti Parva 335-40

• The Religious Authority of the Mahabharata: Vyasa and Brahma in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-401, Bruce M. Sullivan it quotes "Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas."
• "Mysore State Gazetteer", Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press (1965), Page 220 says The Panchals are said to follow five Vedas (instead of the standard four), the fifth being the "Pranava Veda"
• Pages indexed in google for the term "5 Veda" [24] 700+
• Pages indexed in google for the term "fifth veda" 11,700. There are various assumptions for the same.
• Skanda Purana the biggest among the Puranas clearly mentions the original people to whom the 5 Vedas belonged (Still to confirm this) The verses are as follows "RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid, Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata || Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha"
• kamakoti.org "Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham" says "There are five Vedas if you reckon the Yajur Veda to be two with its Sukla and Krsna divisions." so they agree that there are 5 vedas, the sentence is very much "confused" looks like the sage knows there are 5 vedas. [25]
• "Psychic Science April 1931 to January 1932", Stanley De Brath, Published 2004 Kessinger Publishing, New Age / Parapsychology, ISBN 1417978155. Says "The Newest Physics", "A remarkable little book a new astronomy and cosmic Physicology "merely to introduce the larger work" page 122. The author G. E. Sutcliffe claims that in is based on a method entirely new in Europe. This method is said to be contained in the Pranava Veda, A Sanskrit text from the East.
• "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One eva={{Used to put emphasis}} soPura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. Now people who read this line from Srimad-Bhagavata and still say , NO NO NO or write something else, which is 100% crystal clear, I think they need a doctor. My friends we all agree that Vyasa divided the 4 vedas from some big text (Veda) to simplify it. It was the pranava veda he did that from. Now, this is what people say and talk about. Truth needs to be found, this is what something that's commonly talked. Again.. there's something else also about Pranava Veda that sounds silly.. but I will keep that a secret. Ok, you all scholars, great editors, which TEXT VYASA DIVIDED to make that simple? IT WAS THE VEDA so which VEDA? does anyone know that?BalanceRestored 10:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• A list of sacred texts where there are further notations of the 5th Veda.
  • MBH 1.57.74;
  • MBH 12.327.18;
  • RAM 1.1.77;
  • BP 1.4.20;
  • BP 3.12.39;
  • Skanda 5.3.1.18;

Source: Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, by Steven T. Katz, ISBN: 9780195097030, Page 204

Don't know which translation is the author talking about. I find some other lines at RAM 1.1.77;BalanceRestored 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article Fifth Veda ? Abecedare 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"that is, of a text which lies outside than the four canonical Vedas", sorry I am trying to say something else. The first complete veda, "Pranava Veda". It is very known in Indian mythology that the Veda was very big and it had to be divided into 4 divisions. But, again not everything was covered in the 4 divisions, certain things were left out of the 4 divisions. It becomes but obvious when you read the following verses and currently the article Veda does not mention the same. "The incompleteness of the 4 Vedas" "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", the followin verses according to the Srimad-Bhagavata is said by Bhagawan Sri Krishna BalanceRestored 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be in the Vedas according to my understanding. Currently it's not at all seen.BalanceRestored 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Vedas#Puranas for a summary of a few origin stories for the Vedas, including the origin from the primeval veda (pranavah veda) i.e. the syllable Aum. You can read more about this in the cited reference Muir (1861) or in Holdredge (1996) who has a whole chapter on "Veda and Creation" (pages 29-129). Abecedare 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are million errors here made by the authors when translating the Vedas, so it is clearly doubted. The authors have misinterpreted the vedas, See the following, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01001.htm So, how you want us hindus to go on their findings? It looks like they know to break the words but cannot understand the same when written down in a sentence.BalanceRestored 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take the first 2 lines and comment.

"I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice, The hotar, lavishest of wealth.", you mean this is the translation of

ॐ अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजम् । होतारं रत्नधातमम् ॥?????BalanceRestored 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, when they are not in a position to translate Sanskrit, then next are their findings about the same.BalanceRestored 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When the translators basics are wrong, what should be their findings based on????BalanceRestored 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, you are going off-topic now. If you want to argue against sacred-texts.com, which is a convenient but hardly an authoritative resource (and not used as a reference for this article), wikipedia is not the place to do it. Please focus your comments on critique of this wikipedia article and cite reputable secondary sources to back up your opinion.
And if you want to find what the findings are based upon, please read the cited works as I have advised earlier. Cheers. Abecedare 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the point to focus on. I will find out, I am sure it will be already published.BalanceRestored 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the findings here are based on Muir, I suppose as it looks like a standard to many. I am sure this one has lot of technical flaws. I will find the same. BalanceRestored 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

we are looking forward to your expert review. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious! BR, it was you who had insisted that we quote Muir (1861), not once, but twice; after which Dab had introduced the Puranas section and I had expanded it. Now you have gone from, "this is a good one which mentions the Sanskrit sources well" to being certain that, "this one has lot of technical flaws". I too look forward to your future reviews. :-) Abecedare 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Important point not mentioned

The authors are not conclusive about the dating those are mentioned at the main article, and what are mentioned are only probable dating. I've adjusted the text accordingly. Kindly read "The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism" Page 68 completely.BalanceRestored 10:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"only probable dating"? BR, it is universally known that the chronology of Ancient India is notoriously uncertain. We can be glad to have a date within a margin of error of one or two centuries. You seem to be interested in Indian studies. Why don't you go to some university and take some introductory lectures? Wikipedia is no replacement for education. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend you do fail to understand Internet. When writing at a place like wiki one need to be very hardworking and will need to explain in Details because it is uncertain who is probably reading the Veda. It could be read by a scholar like you, or a elementary person like me, or even by a young 15 year old student. So, when a young 15 year old reads it, he/she will take those as certain dates as it is not clearly mentioned. He or she will then propagate the same among all his friends and then it spreads to ...... (∞) then some critic will get a change to pull the legs of Hinduisms because the word is wrongly getting spread. I find these are necessary to mention. The authors too felt the same, so they took care and pains to mention about the same.BalanceRestored 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not blame any one here, I just felt it was necessary to have mentioned about the same. These were absent so just quoted those. BalanceRestored 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not "fail to understand Internet". You fail to understand Wikipedia. If you cannot be bothered to read a book, then please at least spend an hour or two reading WP:5P, and in particular WP:TALK: nobody here wants to listen to your general epistemological musings. You are just degrading the noise-to-signal ratio here. There is nothing wrong with 15 year olds coming to Wikipedia, reading referenced academic mainstream information, and "propagating" that among their friends. To the contrary, this is the entire point of the project. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I do wrong mentioning those?? Did I tell you anything for not quoting the things I quoted. I only quoted those and mentioned the changes at the talk pages. Did I violate any rules? :))BalanceRestored 11:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I never told you purposely left those unquoted. Please don't take it personally. Read WP:5PBalanceRestored 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this one are disruptive. You've been told how things work. You go ahead regardless. Your edit falsifies the reference quoted: where does Witzel (2003, p. 68) state that "How ever there is no perfect dating still arrived for any of the Vedas so far"? Read my lips: If you want to make a comment on the margin of error of these estimates, cite a source discussing this. There are sources for this. Find them. Cite them. Don't waste my time. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read line number 21. It clearly quotes "However, there still is no absolute dating for any Ved." Page 68. You can see this book along with page 68 right now online at [26]

I think you made an error reading all the lines properly. Cheers BalanceRestored 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not give false warnings, you just wrote, Edits like this one are disruptive.. BalanceRestored 12:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you know to apologize for your error. Though I don't see it is necessary as you did that unknowingly. BalanceRestored 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, I think this is just an issue you are having with the English language. Instead of debating this in circles here, I suggest that you post a question on WP:RD/L quoting Witzel from "However, it is known from internal ... who quotes most of them" and ask if "Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 BCE and c. 500-400 BCE." is a misrepresentation. Abecedare 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

fair is fair, Witzel does say "there is still no absolute dating of any Vedic text", the still referring to the hints provided by the 14th c. Mitanni material. If you could summarize the gist of the paragraph correctly, that would be fine, but preferably we want to avoid converting this to gibberish like "How ever there is no perfect dating still arrived for any of the Vedas so far". Witzel gives 150 BC (Patanjali) as a terminus ante quem for all Vedas, and the life of Buddha (5th c. BC) for "almost" all Vedic texts. The introduction of iron around 1200 BC is given as a terminus post quem for the AV. The Mitanni material merely suggests that the early Rigveda is roughly contemporary with the 1450-1350 period, which is in fact a very satisfactory independent support of Müllers 1500 estimate. All this is perfectly mainstream, and if your skills of cognition and English allow you to summarize this correctly, the material is perfectly welcome. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again are these numbers estimates or vice versa???BalanceRestored 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone fine with the addition of "there is still no absolute dating of any Vedic text", since all the dating has arrived with things those were available with the authors when they did their research. Kindly cite valid reason if it is not to be mentioned. The editors who say it should not be mentioned should explain why the author Witzel has quoted the following too.BalanceRestored 11:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

did you understand what I say above? You cannot isolate literal quotes from their context. Either give a correct summary of the whole paragraph or leave it be. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. The article about Vedas#Dating looks perfect now. BalanceRestored 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Teachings of Vedas

Well, I don't see anything that's talking about teachings of the Vedas. What exactly does it teach is not much covered. It will be great if someone starts a section here on the same. I've see that the currently article does not highlight anything about the Vedas teachings. BalanceRestored 05:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently there's hardly anything that's written at Etymology and usage.BalanceRestored 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe only the most important (meaning it is the major aspect of) teaching should be covered. My reason is that a article should only include facts, and the most important teaching will cover roughly what it is. Overly noting the teachings in the article may violate WP:OR or WP:NPOV, since it could use some point of views. Any thoughts or criticisms are welcome. --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

how to deal with spam, SOAP, UNENC and/or cluelessness

Further information: WP:TALK

I would support the suggestion to request either a topic ban or a more general sanction, since all efforts to explain WP:SOAP have failed to change the behavior patterns. Buddhipriya 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on User:Vassyana's talk page. Once we here back from him, we can proceed to WP:AN or WP:CSN. I think this has gone far enough. Abecedare 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to just remove offtopic posts per WP:TALK instead. It has become plain that BR has no inkling about this topic. At least it has now transpired where he is coming from: Swami Dayanand, Arya Samaj. These people have already performed dauntless feats of cluelessness over at Talk:Ashvamedha. I suppose BR is a perfect illustration for the sort of people who fall for this stuff. I am not opposed to having a section on Hindu reformist movements on this page, but it should preferably be written by an editor who has the remotest clue of the context, and the most sketchy grasp of WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab, the reason why I think that some official sanction is needed is that in the absence of any clear community ruling on this, simply ignoring an editor (which is my interpretation of what you have suggested above) could be considered to be a violation of WP:CON on my part. As I understand Wikipedia policy, I have a duty to engage in good-faith dialog with any editor who comes forward unless some community process has validated that the editor's views can be dismissed without prejudice to me. I also fear that some of your comments above may be perceived by BR as simply rude, rather than constructive, and thus may simply lead to escalation of conflict rather than removal of it. Can you comment on the issue of duty to participate in good-faith dialog until such time as an editor has been sactioned? I ask this question because I have not participated in many sanction cases until now, and thus may be incorrect in my understanding of processes. Buddhipriya 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no wikipedia policy forces us to prance around with editors who show no interest in being constructive, making coherent suggestions, or citing sources. We are urged to WP:AGF as far as possible. But at some point, it simply doesn't matter if a user is unwilling or unable to make sense. We are bound by policy to react to coherent suggestions backed up by reliable sources. Nothing in BR's protracted spamming campaign merits this description. I urge you to WP:UCS and feel free to remove pointless comments per {{notaforum}}. Arya Samaj and Vegetarianism are valid topics in their own right, but there is no reason to condone BR's automatic writing about these topics on this page. I am sorry if I come across as rude sometimes, but I believe in speaking plainly, but without intent to insult. I feel it is a much greater insult to assume the rules do not apply to you, or that you somehow know better than established academic experts. Hinduism articles get a lot of this, and I simply don't have any patience left with these "Hindu expatriate angry young tech students". There is nothing wrong with being interested in a topic without first getting a university degree. Most of Wikipedia is written by such people, and they are doing well. But there is no excuse for refusing to be educated, and assuming you know better than the boring bookish experts simply because you have read a few flashy blogs. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations from Puranas and other Hindu Scriptures to understand Vedas

Can comments about Veda from 20 accepted Puranas, and other important writings from spiritual leaders in Sanskrit, Tamil and other Indian language those comply ISO standards have any problem including in Vedas???? At multiple occasions, I have been asked not to use Scriptures. All the Vedas and Puranas do not hold any copyrights as they are very old. They are already openly available and have proper ISBN code and are currently in Sanskrit (ISO Standard Language) for each of those. The translations for all of the same are present. BalanceRestored 09:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, it is very simple: The Vedic texts date to ca. 1500-500 BC, and are discussed at Vedas. The Puranas date to ca. 300-900 AD, and are discussed at Puranas. Both are scripture, both are vernerable, both should be discussed in all detail on Wikipedia.

What you are trying to do is discuss the Puranas at the Vedas articles. That's as if somebody insisted hook and crook to discuss Troilus and Criseyde at the Vergil article. Alright? We have a "Puranas" section (presently 8.2), where we can briefly summarize the Puranic take on the Vedas. But the {{main}} article for that is Puranas. Do you finally understand that now? dab (𒁳) 09:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nastika

1st occasion noted by me where an unknown editor has removed text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&diff=151461740&oldid=151197414 related to nastika that's currently involving names of 2 important religions. I am sure that sentence is going to be not liked by everyone. BalanceRestored 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have an article not much related to Vedas to be present at the second paragraph??? are we trying to build encyclopedia, or pin communities and religions??? BalanceRestored 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the chronology of Vedic literature is "not much related" to the topic of Vedic literature, how? dab (𒁳) 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

what is chronology of Vedic literature to do with Nastika?BalanceRestored 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the 2nd paragraph, "Dating". The astika vs. nastika is directly related to the Vedas, of course, since the meaning of astika translates to "accepting the authority of the Vedas". dab (𒁳) 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But Gautam Buddha on various occasion has quoted references from Vedas himself. So, how are you saying Buddhism is against "accepting the authority of the Vedas".???BalanceRestored 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha was only against accepting the wrong principles, that is, Sacrificing animals, making differences on the basis of birth. He has openly said that differences are on the basis of ones deeds, and not on the basis of birth. Vedas and Gita does not teach anything different. So, if you can let me know how following the Correct principles followers of Gautam Buddha become nastika?BalanceRestored 06:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check the references cited in this article as well as in nastika. If you find another academic source which lists Buddhism or Jainism as an astika faith, we can list that too. If you are suggesting we cite/quote Buddha himself, read WP:OR. Abecedare 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations from "Srimad Bhagavatam" [27]

tatah kalau sampravritte
sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-sutah
kikateshu bhavishyati

SYNONYMS

tatah -- thereafter; kalau -- the age of Kali; sampravritte -- having ensued; sammohaya -- for the purpose of deluding; sura -- the theists; dvisham -- those who are envious; buddhah -- Lord Buddha; namna -- of the name; anjana-sutah -- whose mother was Anjana; kikateshu -- in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavishyati -- will take place.

Translation

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.BalanceRestored 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So, that makes Buddha a theists (astika) supporter, but the supporter of a true "theist"BalanceRestored 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also clearly written in the "Srimad Bhagavatam" that Gautam Buddha was incarnation of Lord Vishnu himself. BalanceRestored 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again see WP:OR, particularly WP:PSTS. Unless you have a reliable secondary academic source to back up your views, it is better to move this discussion to your user-space. Abecedare 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is a book that you can use to refer the above.

• Srimad-Bhagavatam, 18 Volume Set
• ISBN: 0-89213-275-2
• by Swami Prabhupada

BalanceRestored 07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is written by Swami Prabhupada "Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gaya (Bihar) as the son of Anjana, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him."

Please stop quoting scripture to argue your points. You may cite scripture to establish what it says, but not to establish facts. The Bhagavatam is completely irrelevant to this article. It is not a Vedic scripture. Swami Prabhupada is an authority on ISKCON. His comments on general Vedic matters are not reliable from a historical point of view because he presents traditional religious views. In any case, the point you are making seems completely irrelevant to this article. The references to atheists are irrelevant to the technical term nastika in the sense of not accepting the Vedas as scriptural authority. Buddhipriya 09:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1

Lord Vishnu is astika or nastika? Do you not mean to say GOD supports, teaches, and follows nastika??BalanceRestored 09:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Vishnu in his 9th birth taught Buddhism, (to follow nastika) right?BalanceRestored 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Vedas? The only way in which it is connected is that nastika refers to not accepting the authority of the Vedas. Your personal commentary on whether Vishnu preached nastika since particular traditions regard Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu has no pertinence here. Wikipedia merely reports what is mentionedd in reliable sources. We don't deduce anything from them ourselves and write our own evaluations. That is Original research and is not allowed here. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be there no attempts to ask editors to actually think logically? to build awareness about facts? Not everything that's researched could be right. I did try to show quotes from important personality too. Well if every editors thinks it is right to say Lord Vishnu preached nastika and asked his devotees to follow nastika, fine not a problem.BalanceRestored 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I believe that answers your question. Now may I ask you a question. What is your understanding of the phrase, verifiability, not truth? I think it is crucial that you get this right if you want edit prosperously at Wikipedia. Please answer this directly. Please don't ramble on something else. Thank you Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

it is true that BR is (very obliquely) trying to introduce the viewpoints of Swami Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda, along the lines "the Vedas were written by magic space Aryans, and are aware of radio-astronomy, nuclear fusion, UFOs and what have you". It doesn't matter that it is obvious 19th century romanticist/mysticist/fundamentalist nonsense (in a nutshell: "theosophy"), this stuff is certainly notable, and these Swamis certainly deserve their own articles. The question is, how notable is this stuff to this article? The question is about WP:UNDUE, not WP:V ("Vedas: see Theosophy"?). I did offer BR he could introduce a new "Hindu reform movements" subsection and write a concise summary of all this. He quite apparently isn't prepare to actually document what he is talking about, but prefers to keep littering this talkpage with sibyllic comments. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

Who is A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada???? BalanceRestored 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A person who has been practicing Hinduism, just not preaching all his life is no one to comment???BalanceRestored 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood what your question but to paraphrase it, you appear to be saying why Prabhupada can't have his opinions on Hinduism and "Nastika" mentioned as fact even though he has practised Hinduism all his life. If so, devotional views are welcomed here as long as enough context is provided and it is mentioned only to an extent. We have a Vedanta section on this page for this reason. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Prabhupada is a guru of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and as such clearly falls in the category "Pauranic Hinduism". dab (𒁳) 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all could be in the 4 Vedas

"Anantah vai Vedah", the Vedas are endless, "Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" says the following "We cannot claim that all the Vedas have been revealed to the seers. Only about a thousand sakhas or recensions belonging to the four Vedas have been revealed to them." from the book "Hindu Dharma" http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap12.htm

And this means what exactly? It might be intended to mean nothing more than that all knowledge is not contained in the texts we call Vedas. Paul B 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" is Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Feel free to discuss his views in detail on his own article. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the sixty eighth Shankaracharya's views at his article. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No Shankaracharya?

Dear Editors, the views from Shankaracharya's are highly regarded in India. A seer in India is only titled Shankaracharya after a very great discussion among all the Indian Vedic Schools. According to "At the Eleventh Hour: The Biography of Swami Rama By Rajmani Tigunait", Page 174, ISBN 0893892122, "In Hindu society the Shankaracharya is comparable to the Pope in Christianity". Currently the article Veda is importantly lacking views from the Shankaracharya's. Comments from the Shankaracharya's on the Vedas are considered very important. It is requested to present important discussions from the Shankaracharya's on Vedas be present at this very article. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• BR, how is it possible that you still don't understand that this isn't the general Hinduism article? Shankaracharya is extremely important to Hinduism. On this article, he would feel rather lost, somewhat like a detailed discussion of Silvester II would on the Pentateuch article. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You sound to ask me, how's Pope related to Bible? and what's Bible to do with Christianity?? :) BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Shankaracharya's noted commentaries on the "Vedas" pertain more to the Upanishads than the Samhita. That is why his name frequently appears on the Upanishads page compared to this article. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

are we talking about the "68th Shankaracharya" Saraswati Swamigal here, or about Adi Shankara himself? Either way, present the quote, and we can discuss whether it has any pertinence to this article. --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, we are still discussing the notion that "the Vedas are infinite", aren't we. That would belong under the "Vedanta" heading I suppose, where Saraswati Swamigal's statement would make for an excellent illustration that the notion of "Vedas" in current (and classical) Hinduism is completely severed from the texts themselves. "Veda" is a mystic catch-all term thrown about without the least reference to anything that is actually in the texts known as the Vedas. Indeed, since the "Vedas are infinite", these texts can only be an infinitesimal fraction of the actual "Veda", and can therefore be ignored as irrelevant. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sikh status

In the first bit, couldn't Sikhs be combined with Buddhists and Jains as nastika? Why are they mentioned separately, if they also do not accept the Vedas?71.191.42.74 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy of vedas

The Vedas and any Vedic literature that have been preserved by school of thoughts and by teaching traditions in India actually bears no connotation to Hinduism as such, as the word Hindu does not even come among the thousands of verse. The word Hindu is the etiquette that Mughals gave to people residing in the territory of India and Pakistan of yore whereas the Vedas does not make any discrimination, it is pure spirituality and it would be a gross exaggeration to even consider it as part of a so call religion as the message is strictly universal. Throughout the ages this has been confined to high caste men in India, violating the ancient tradition of transmitting the knowledge of the Vedas, hence it being considered as the property of a few.The first major revival came with Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, hundred and eighty years back, which brought a revolution in the spiritual, political and religious landscape of India. He prone spirituality, and reaffirmed the role of religion as that to lead to spirituality by eradicating many flaws where falsehood and false practices were among the major ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veesham (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vedas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

• Insufficient references. The following content is a sample of information that needs more references:
  • " Yajurveda" section
  • " Brahmanas" section
  • " Vedanta" section

There are also a number of "citation needed" tags, which should be addressed before this article is renominated. Gary King (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Sri Aurobindo's Secret of the Veda[6] at the introduction is not justified and will need elaboration. The Vedas , need to projected like a formation and thus will need heavy introductory citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.137.72 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating

I think it is important to state what method is/was being used by the researchers to arrive at the dating. Currently that's not mentioned.

• Age is being arrived with the help of Carbon Dating etc has to be mentioned,

so that it is clearer for the current generations to know if the findings where based on appropriate methods.BalanceRestored 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this. Recent work done by Dr Toomas Kivisild of University of Cambridge has tremendous effect on the 19th and 20th century works by linguists and philologists. Please try to expand this section, particularly so that it does not sound weasel-y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.12.240.93 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bible and dating

I know of no evidence that Biblical literalism has played any significant role in the dating of the Vedas. It certainly does not with modern scholars. Evidence need to be cited to reliable sources. Thomas Trautmann's Aryans and British India, and his later writings discuss the histories of these ideas in detail, as does Arvidsson's Aryan Idols. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

we should also discuss these ideas in detail, but not here of course. Hindu revivalism may be a good place to start. This article could then sport a brief summary in an "in Hindu revivalism" section. I think this is mostly connected to Arya Samaj, so maybe proper to discuss it there. Somebody would need to do it of course, and unfortunately it isn't very common to see editors of the ilk of Santhangopal (talk · contribs) sit down and compile an honest encyclopedic discussion of the history of their own ideologies even after they are pointed to the relevant literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas

I found the following description of the Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas in the introduction: "human expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge." That is not true. The Buddhist view is that the Vedas are not expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge. I do not know the Jain stance but it is no doubt the same. I have included a reference on the Buddha's stance. Mitsube (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, but describing them as "heterodox" is like describing islam as a "heterodox" christianity. It is not, its an independent religion. Buddhism and Jainism is not hinduism, they're independent religions. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Islam was in fact seen as a Christian heresy for centuries. It's an excellent example of how you can't just draw a line between "independent religions". It is a matter of definition, and often also of opinion. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rig Veda Dating looks wrong

I got this nice text [28] that states 3000 BC and 2000 BC could be the date when Sarasvati River disappeared. Saraswati is the most celebrated river in the Rig Veda and it's being mentioned in nine of the ten Mandalas!!!

So how's that the dating of Rig Veda is given much later around 1700 BC here? If the river was exiting when Vedas were written it should be lot earlier anywhere beyond 3000 BC. How's the dating derived by the authors? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

read Rigveda. The Bronze Age dates concern the oldest core of hymns exclusively, anyway, the actual redaction into the samhita dates to safely within the Iron Age. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolute garbage. This erroneous dating of the Vedas in general and specifically the Rg Veda to 1700/1500BCE reflects the gross bias and eurocentricity of the so-called scholars such as Max Muller, Jones etc. Although the article vaguely hints at the hymns being composed around 3000 BCE, its predominant emphasis that the Rg Veda was "composed" and written in and around 1500 BCE stands out like a sore thumb. As BR above has stated, a 'book', in this case the Rg Veda, that refers to a geographical territory somewhat specifically (Saraswati River) cannot be ignored. If the river had disappeared around 3000 BCE, the Rg Veda must have been 'composed', or discovered (revealed?), much earlier than that. Michael Witzel is a philologist first, not a historian or an archeologist. Therefore, his tall tale about the dating of the Vedas is purely erroneous and should definitely be removed from the article.:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

you cleary have no idea what you are talking about. The Rigveda date isn't Witzel's idea, but has been well established in scholarship for more than a century. The 3000 BCE date is pure myhology, deriving from astrological calculations made in the 6th century AD. If you insist on accepting 6th century results without scrutiny over the results of modern academia indebted to the critical method, you will have to take more serious consequences than rejecting the age of some text. First of all, you shouldn't be using a computer, and you should certainly not be on Wikipedia, which is a project to 100% dedicated to the critical method. I can respect the mythical worldview, but if you decide this is how you want to see the world, you should have the decency not to interfere with approaches that are dedicated to modernity unambiguously and above the board. If you fail to make that distinction, you are guilty of the intellectual dshonesty known as pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Our scriptures say that Vedas are sanatana and apourusheyas. i.e Vedas are above the time-dimension and there are no authors to Vedas. Vedas are above the ordinary logic and intellect of humans. Hence, please stop trying to date the Vedas with your small intellect and mention that the vedas are eternal. ----26 April 2012

anonymous "improvements"

The "Vedic" articles will always get editors without the first clue who still take it upon themselves to "correct" them. Well, many technical articles get this, even in physics topics etc., but for some reason this effect is a couple of orders of magnitude more severe in Indian topics than on average. This may be cultural, in some cultures it is more important to assert knowledge than to fiddle with technical details. I presume this is what Amartya Sen calls The Argumentative Indian.

The solution, in my opinion, is semiprotection, not appeasement by streamlining the article in an attempt to make ill-advised "improvements" as unlikely as possible. Experience shows that once a technical article is well-developed, chances of anonymous editors making an edit that actually improves the article rapidly falls to zero. "Edit this article right now" is Wikipedia's secret of success for starting out coverage on badly documented topics, but the same principle becomes an impediment from the moment an article reaches a certain level of sophistication. We have long-term semiprotection exactly to account for this, and there is no shame in using the tool wherever it benefits the project. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Vedic scripture the oldest known written scripture? ?

In the Hinduism page it say's that Hinduism is the oldest known religion I think. So if the Vedas are the oldest known then well then here scripture in Hinduism, does that make the Vedas the oldest known scripture's? Or maybe the oldest known religious scriptures? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

no they aren't, as they were not written, as explained in this article they were handed down by guru-shishya tradition for a millennium before first written down. There is far older religious scripture, if you want to call it that, from Ancient Near Eastern religions. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pranava Veda

• This article has been shying WRT Pranava Veda, but there are more citations now found. "All vedas are derived from basic one veda called Pranava" ref Title Vaasthu Shastra, Author Alahar vijay, Publisher, Sura Books, 2005 ISBN 8174784292, 9788174784292" Page Number 22 [29].
• "At the top of all, there is one more thing brought to be scholarly notice, that is, the existence of Veda called Pranava Veda" Ref: Page 73, Building architecture of Sthāpatya Veda" Author V. Ganapathi Publisher, Published by Dakshinaa Pub. House, 2001 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized May 20, 2009 Length 431 pages Subjects, Architecture, Domestic Architecture, Hindu Hindu architecture House construction Vāstu. Book Preview [30]
• More References can be found now. 796 Hits on Google Books. [31] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

• Neither of the two sources you cite are close to reliable on the subject of Vedas.
• On top of that, you excised the quote from Vaastu Shastra, which actually says, "All vedas are derived from basic one veda called Pranava Veda, according to Shilpa Shastra" (emphasis added) Please don't misquote sources here again.
• The whole issue of the so-called Pranava Veda and its status as the primary/fifth veda was discussed to death back in 2007, including in a section above, and the situation has been explained at Pranava Veda and the pages it links to.

As has been explained before, the idea of an "original" single Veda is common in post-Vedic literature and is already discussed in the section on the Puranas in the article. If you find a specific reliable reference for which Śilpa Śāstra has something to say on the topic, we can add that to the post-Vedic discussion, but I hope we won't need to go through a whole new round of "I didn't hear that" and tendentious editing. To avoid further disruption I'd highly recommend that you propose and gain consensus for any further changes to the article along these lines. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I did not revert your changes for the same reason, and will wait until more consensus towards the topic is reached. Some time before we saw there was hardly any information available, now there are more details along with healthy citations that cannot be easily ignored. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Abecedare that the material should have been removed. We have covered this sort of issue at great length before. Please be sure to build agreement on the talk page before adding similar material again. Thank you for your interest in the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, you people are better to judge that me, I have collected the necessary citations. There are enough creditable references now. I only wish someone adds them now.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If anything is to said about Pranava Veda it should be done on one of the articles about that subject, not here. This article covers specific texts dating from a different time period than the much-later theories you are discussing. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

indeed. the first line of the page points to Veda (disambiguation), which in turn duly lists Pranava Veda. If people cannot even take note of the very first line of an article before complaining on talk, thre is little we can do (use giant red letters? blink tags?) --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I did my duty of putting light on something that was not covered and providing additional references those which were not available before, if you think they are still not enough, you can wait until the milk is spilled over.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab, thank you for all you do to keep the quality of articles high. It is said that speech is the Brahmin’s weapon (Manu 11.34), but it is unwise to strike a friend for doing something you do not agree with. One who speaks with authority should use soft words unless hard ones become necessary. (Cf. Manu 2.161 and Wikipedia:Civility) Buddhipriya (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Error or not time will tell. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ganeshji, forgive the word "error", I have amended it. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I do not make a point of following advice in the Manusmriti, but perhaps this is to my detriment, who knows. Ganesh J. Acharya, we have an article entitled Fifth Veda. We also have articles on Vastu Shastra, on Mamuni Mayan and on V. Ganapati Sthapati. If you feel you have additional material that may usefully be added there, you are most welcome to do so. This article deals with the texts written in Vedic Sanskrit, predating Panini. Unfortunately, your references to not seem to establish where this "Pranava Veda" was first mentioned. Apparently in Vastu Shastra literature (but in which text?) -- this would be for you to establish. Please do help us pinpoint where this concept originates. But take the matter to Vastu Shastra, as these texts are medieval and do not fall within the scope of this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)