Talk:Historical Vedic religion

Sticky note
Nathan McGovern, The Snake and the Mongoose: The Emergence of Identity in Early Indian Religion, p.218, on the emergence of the Brahmanical as determined by birth in response to the sramanas (and, hence, Buddhism not as a response to, or reformation of, Brahmanism). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Created and written by Brahmins
The Vedic religion was created by Brahmins and the Vedas were written down by Brahmins. Vedism was subsequently also called Brahmanism. Adding my sources:

What seems to be the problem here? why are @Joshua Jonathan and @Capitals00 rejecting my sources and reverting my edits for no good reasons?

Thuletide (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You first added diff
 * and
 * After pushback, you changed the second addition to
 * There are several problems:
 * Brahminism developed out of the Vedic religion; they are not the same.
 * "The Vedic religion was founded and written down by Brahmins in around after 1500 BCE":
 * Mahlal et al. (2021) state: "The ancient Vedic religion - also known as Vedism or Brahmanism - was founded by ancestors of Brahmins between 2500 and 1500 BCE." They do not say that it was founded by Brahmins, but by ancestors of Brahmins.
 * Cooke (2011)(p.53, not 52) writes: "...beliefs brought into India by Aryan-speaking Indo-Europeans. Their orally transmitted religious hymns, prayers, and rituals werew ritten down in the Vedas between 1400 and 900 BCE." That's quite different from "around after 1500 BCE," which is itself grammatically incorrect.
 * Figueira p.187 doesn't contain anything supporting this.
 * worldhisyory.org is notoriously unreliable.
 * As an aside: how come you know how to name references and use efn? Usually, that's not the kind of stuff newbies are familiair with. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  19:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agreed with the date consensus and didn't notice in my first 2 edits. I changed after the other user pointed it out.
 * I agree that Brahminism was a later progeny of the Vedic religion and not vedic religion itself. I'll make another edit after 24 hours taking all of your feedback into consideration.
 * Thuletide (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agreed with the date consensus and didn't notice in my first 2 edits. I changed after the other user pointed it out.
 * I agree that Brahminism was a later progeny of the Vedic religion and not vedic religion itself. I'll make another edit after 24 hours taking all of your feedback into consideration.
 * Thuletide (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you first read through the article, to see what's already in there. And notice that an article on genetics is not a good source for historical info. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh right, Mahal et al. (2021) refer to Cooke (2011). Mahal et al. also state "The Vedic religion gradually evolved into Hinduism and became a fusion of various Indian cultures and traditions with diverse roots (Bowker 1997)." Apart from logically incorrect ("became a fusion"), this sentence sounds very much like "scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion[note 6] or synthesis[28][note 7] of Brahmanical orthopraxy[note 8] with various Indian cultures,[29][note 9] having diverse roots[30][note 10] and no specific founder.[31]" (Hinduism). Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  21:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * you didn't bother to read the note, did you? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  11:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly...
I propose removal of "Ancient Hinduism" from the first sentence because the alternative titles are supposed to be accurate. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you there? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd say, not remove it entirely, but move it to the Etymology-section. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At second thought: the term is explained in the text. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing called "ancient Hinduism" and most certainly Vedic religion is not commonly described as such. Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you remove it this time? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ancient Hinduism"
Mentioning this alternate term as first alternate term diff is giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to it, as it is less used, and a misnomer, as explained in the article. Also, the references used are not impressive: Why do they use this term? No explanation... That's not a summary of the article.
 * David Smith, Hinduism and Modernity: "follow Louis Renou in seeing the religion of the Vedas as 'ancient Hinduism' (Renou 1968: 19); ample iconographic proof of the unity of Vedism and early classical Hinduism is provided by Srinivasan 1997."
 * Doris Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art: "Evidence to support that contention constitutes the main part of this chapter. From the evidence it follows that Vedic Rudra-Śiva could relate to Hindu Śiva as Vedism, or ancient Hinduism, relates to Hinduism proper."

Further, the edit also added " and forms the predecessor of modern Hinduism.", and changed

into

That's incorrect; it's not the predecessor, but one of the predecessors. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  04:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Equal weight"
regarding your edit diff, edit-summary

on the role of the historical Vedic religion in the development of Hinduism, you changed

into

neither source says that the Vedic religion (Michaels), or Brahmanism (Sullivan), was the major tradition that shaped Hinduism. On the contrary, they both downplay it's legacy in what we call Hinduism. Furthermore, this synthesis is already mentioned in the third alinea. The influence of mesolithic cultures is not mentioned in the article; and the "may" in may very well have also been influenced by Śramaṇa traditions is incorrect; the sramana-traditions were a major component in the formation of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Umm, isn’t it common sense? Even the Upanishads, which are the main basis of contemporary Hinduism, developed from the Vedas—not from Mesolithic practices or later Śramaṇa traditions. I mean, there are many other sources that obviously support the Vedas being central. But anyways, as you said, "Brahmanical ideology synthesized with thousands of local traditions," wouldn’t that still make "Brahmanical ideology" central? What doctrines or religious texts from these other thousands of local traditions do Hindus use or revere? And who decided we would call these Indo-Aryan practices "Hinduism" only after synthesis? I mean, even the Ramayana and Mahabharata were most probably written before this so-called Hindu synthesis, let alone the Upanishads. I have no idea what the issue is. At least give some more (even a little more) importance to the Vedas and Upanishads for Hindus compared to the other thousands of practices involved in the synthesis.And about downplaying the influence, I don't know. Someone might need to thoroughly study the sources. This doesn’t bother me that much because even Hindus don’t agree with each other about what Hinduism is. It's that complex. No point fighting for beliefs of the people who don’t even give a shit about their own religion. But I hope you will make some changes, using common sense, not downplaying the role of the Vedas and Upanishads in the formation of modern Hinduism, which far predates Hindu synthesis. Thanks. TipTap21 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read the Michaels-note. I wouldn't say that the Upanishads developed from the Vedas; they were incorporated into the Vedas, to pacify this wild bunch. Regarding non-Vedic texts, the gamas and tantras are non-Vedic; renunciation is a non-Vedic idea. Regarding who decided we would call these Indo-Aryan practices "Hinduism" only after synthesis, Alf Hiltebeitel does so, among other scholars - you know, the kind of people who's work we summarize here. Regarding the importance of the Vedas, this is what Michaels writes: "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text" (Michaels 2004, p.18). It's part of the ideology: local cults asjusting themselves to this Brahmanical tradition, nominally accepting the authority of the Vedas, and meanwhile continuing their own traditions, with soem adaptations and name-changes. And those Brahmins, performing rituals for local deities (so they have an income), meanwhile still professing the authority and superiority of their own traditions. It's very down to earth, I'm afraid. See, for a comparison, the BAPS, which argues they aren't even Hindus, 'causr that's more convenient for them. Same for some Lingayats, who also argue they're not Hindus. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Buddhists also argue they are not vedic derived. Cannot do much about delusions. And all your points again and again are making sure brahmanism is central.pointless TipTap21 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: has been blocked as a block-evading sock of  Abecedare (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)