Talk:Hindu texts

Untitled
The article confuses the Vedas as sruthi at the beginning of the article and then as smriti (mistyped as shruthi) later in the article. So, are the Vedas sruthis or smritis?
 * that's shruti. You are right, the "Vedas" section was broken, I've fixed it. Now you can check it

Mahabharata, Bhagavadgita and Puranas
... as "vedic" is sheer unmitigated nonsense. If someone is good enough to "cite" Radhakrishnan and Moore, the least they could do is to read that book first. It's all laid out in the "General Introduction", starting on p.xvii. rudra (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are Hindu religious scriptures being presented as if they are primarily literature rather than religious texts. Is this not a discriminatory attempt to trivialize and to change the identity and perception of Hindu religious texts. It seems that the assumtion of good faith is being taken advantage of in order to comparatively increase the importance of other religious texts and religions. First there was the attempt to brand all non Abrahamic religions as mythology and now this attempt to relegate non Abrahamic religious scriptures to the status of "literature". Surely we are getting more civilized.117.198.51.90 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence fragment?
The subsection entitled The Vedas appears to have a sentence fragment or incomplete thought. The sentence does not end with a period. It currently reads:


 * the Āraṇyakas (आरण्यक), which conclude the Brahmanas, are written along a blurry line between

Can someone please look into this? A "blurry line between" what and what? EricP (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious Expansion Needed
This article does not even match the series sidebar. It needs several more sections, and greater elaboration in general.

It is missing major sections, and has sections that are comparatively minor.

The sections are also incoherent and the writing is haphazard.

NittyG (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Agamas
Add the Agamas! CO2Northeast (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why all peoples not worship when a new baby born in the house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.116.241 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Better vigilance is needed by serious editors to prevent ABSURD changes from standing for 5 months
The sections of the article about Vedas and Upanishads were deleted on 12 July 2020 by an IP without any discussion, and these changes were allowed to stand until now, absurdly in my view. Even if those texts are shared by other traditions (they are certainly not "authoritative"/astika in other traditions) that could be mentioned, rather than deleting them. Anyone who believes otherwise could imagine trying to remove "Old Testament" (shared with Judaism) from Biblical canon and imagine what sort of welcome they would receive (except please do NOT actually try that experiment because of WP:POINT).

The absurd deletions could not be undone because of intermediate edits. Therefore I reverted those deletions but reinstated legitimate edits that had occurred more recently. I find it amazing that such absurd deletions were allowed to stand for almost 5 months. Were there no seasoned and knowledgeable editors who were watching this page? If not, a few of them should do so. BTW, a very similar problem has occurred with Template:Hindu scriptures and texts, which as I type, includes such things texts as Kamasutra in the "Sutras" section, but nowhere lists the Upanishads or Vedas. Try imagining what would have happened if someone had removed the Biblical books from Template:Bible sidebar (but don't actually do it because of WP:POINT). --Presearch (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've put it on my watchlist. The Vedas are definitely not Buddhist texts. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * - Thank you! I've now also fixed the sidebar Template:Hindu scriptures and texts, from which the Vedas and Upanishads and other scriptures had also been deleted back in July. The sidebar is embedded in what looks like a couple of hundred articles. Amazing that in five months no-one noticed that the sidebar had been vandalized in such a major way. Therefore I'd definitely encourage you (and other seasoned editors) to put the sidebar too on your watchlist. Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * done. It looks like we're missing User:Ms Sarah Welch. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Absurd were those changes indeed. The Vedas and the Upanishads contained within them are not Buddhist texts indeed, nor are they Jain texts or anything other than being the foundational Hindu religious texts. The Puranas and epics include, repeat and follow the complex myths as well spiritual themes found in the Vedas and Upanishads. This is easily verifiable in peer-reviewed scholarly articles and books such as by Goodall/Flood/etc I cited in this article long ago. JJ: I have been too busy in RL to log in or even visit any en-wikipedia pages for nearly a year. Poorly sourced or unsourced or I-don't-care-what-the-cited-sources-are-saying major changes, fly-by vandalism and disinformation with an intent or effect to mislead or demonize/marginalize people of certain religion, economic beliefs, political beliefs, race, ethnicity, nation or such is a serious problem in wikipedia and beyond. We should insist for peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship for quality. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article "Rajputra" - two sentences
Hi, Today I found article Rajputra and am wondering if that small content could be merged here? The article was created in 2006. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @JoeNMLC I actually agree with the proposed deletion of Rajputra page. Also, don't see it's content to be relevant here on this page. Asteramellus (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Puranas section
Hi @Joshua Jonathan

I noticed that you reverted some of my latest edits.

I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning.

My original rationale when making the edits was to add 3 new paragraphs that included necessary detail such as the names of the 18 puranas, the name of the composer of the Puranas, and add details on when the Puranas were composed.

When making my edits, I should have included an edit summary to explain this rationale.

I added some new details to the page that I think help improve the article.

Thank you!

Wetlikewater (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)