Talk:Historical Vedic religion/Archive 1

Timeline
I'd like to see a timeline/chronology of the various schools and branches of Vedic religion and Hindu philosophy. Many of these articles are devoid of any kind of historical dating.


 * Indian history is horribly difficult to date. The Indians never invented "history", and with the Puranic period at the latest, everything that was venerable was automatically dated tens or hundreds of thousand years, to the point that Indian records of dates became meaningless. Before we have external accounts (Indo-Greeks, Chinese Buddhist etc.), the safest bet is to date by linguistic criteria, c.f. Vedic Sanskrit. Even medieval India is difficult to date within one or two centuries or so. Of course there are scholarly accounts we should report, but there is very little certainty. For the purposes of this article, Vedic religion proper flourished between roughlt 1200 and 500 BC. After that, "Vedanta"; classical "Hinduism" and Puranas from the early Middle Ages. Arguments from Astronomy, or, worse, geology (Sarasvati), are usually worthless Hindutva red herrings, and at best circumstantial evidence (see the Pleiades reference in the Rigveda article ). dab (&#5839;) 09:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Dbachmann - Although I appreciate the majority of your edits to this page, I feel the details you added regarding animal sacrifices and vegetarianism were a bit one-sided and incomplete. I don't mind both theories being mentioned if you like, but please don't remove the additional details which are how animal sacrifices are actually described in the Vedas & Puranas. Best Wishes --GourangaUK 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "incomplete"? How does that excuse your *removals*? If you only added things, we could discuss the merits of your additions, and possibly salvage some points. The Puranas don't enter into it, this is the Vedic religion article. If you want to insinuate that "animals may not have been really killed" in Vedic sacrifices (not Vaishna, not Puranic, but Vedic), you'll have to bring on some rock-solid academic references. dab (&#5839;) 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann - I hardly removed anything. You don't know the exact details of the sacrifices from 2500 years ago. Any knowledge on them is somewhat speculative - the traditional view still held by followers of the Vedas is that they did not include actual animal killing. Where are your rock-solid academic references from 2500 years ago? At least give room for both opinions. I will not delete any valid additions you may wish to add --GourangaUK 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am most open to giving room to the full spectrum of academic opinions on the historical religion. This is, academia speculating about the time 2500 years ago, not "academic references from 2500 years ago", of course. You are most welcome to hunt for your own opinion in Indological literature and quote that. It won't do, however, to gesture at "traditional views" without proper citation; obviously there are such traditional views. They have a very long article, over at Hinduism, no dispute about that. I have no doubt that there are academic attempts at proving "Rigvedic vegetarianism", however fringy; find that literature, and you'll be welcome to quote it as minority opinions. I will not, however, search for your references for you. dab (&#5839;) 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why has someone removed my additions to this article?

'For the purposes of this article, Vedic religion proper flourished between roughly 1200 and 500 BC.' Dab, this statement is totally false and it should not be paraded as the holy truth. What about sun rising in the constellation of Orion on the day of Vernal equinox as mentioned in RigVeda (4,000 BCE)? From the article by Witzel that you consider sufficient for rebuttal of RigVedic astronomical references, 'These views of the sky correspond to the latitude of Delhi and represent the sky as the Vedic people themselves might have seen'. This is unscholarly. How has the writer presumed that Aryans lived in the lattitude of Delhi in 2,500 BCE. At that time they were probably in trans-Oxiana. Hindus did know about history but they considered it insignificant as compared to social responsibility (Dharma) and philosophy. Emperors and empires come and go, Rameses, Xerxes, Alexander, Augustus, Kublai Khan, Timur, Spanish, British and French, all. On a later date, nobody knows or cares about them. Aupmanyav 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann
Why are you removing all my writings with referances? You seem to be some sort of fundamentalist bent on showing that Vedic religion is "dead" religion with only historical value. What is your problem?


 * you might be asked the same thing: Your additions are welcome, but by adding your views, you have removed perfectly valid parts of the article, leaving me with the choice either to revert you, or to invest a quarter of an hour to separate the valid parts of your edit. Please begin with either removing things, with justification, or adding things; if you do both at the same time, you risk being reverted wholesale. Also, you seem to misunderstand the scope of this article. This is not the article on Hinduism in general, it is the article about the religion in times of Vedic Sanskrit. Your statement of "Vedas consist of Samhitas, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas and Upanishads" is wrong; this is a list of shruti, which is not the same. The Vedas proper are just the four Vedas (RV, YV, AV, SV), both samhitapatha and padapatha. Vedic Sanskrit texts include the Brahmanas and a few (five or so) Upanishads, plus if you like some shrautasutras and grhyasutras (you are very welcome to add details about those, they are awfully underrepresented). That's it. Anything else goes on Hinduism and/or Shruti. If you are not interested in the historical stratification of Vedic texts, you may be more interested in editing these articles. I am no fundamentalist, I am just trying to keep this article on topic: its scope is historical, this doesn't have anything to do with 'value' at all (I shouldn't even have to point this out) dab (&#5839;) 08:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You say: "Also, you seem to misunderstand the scope of this article. This is not the article on Hinduism in general, it is the article about the religion in times of Vedic Sanskrit". Well, then it should be more properly titled "History of vedic religion". As long as the tile remains, my edits are perfectly valid. Also, I will give my justifications for removing in the future. Thanks for telling me.


 * You say:"The Vedas proper are just the four Vedas (RV, YV, AV, SV), both samhitapatha and padapatha. Vedic Sanskrit texts include the Brahmanas and a few (five or so) Upanishads. That's it". This is ridiculous. I request you to pick up any standard book on Vedic dharma and stop writing such nonsense. Vedas proper do not consist of "samhitapatha" and "padapatha" only. There are also Ghanapatha, Kramapatha and several pathas. But these, my friend, are ways of recitation. Vedic religion does not consider "vedas" as some books but more as an ancient oral tradition. "Five or so upanishads". This is the funniest thing i've heard in a while :)


 * glad I could brighten you day; I am however not talking about "paths", but about actual texts. RV samhitapatha and RV padapatha are actual, different, texts; I have yet to hear about a text called "Ghanapatha". These are, as you say, ways of reciting identical texts. There are 10-13 mukhya Upanishads. Not all of them qualify as Vedic, I won't argue about whethere there are four or five or six of them that do. Again, you mean something completely different, goto shruti. dab (&#5839;) 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about "paths"? I am sorry, but you keep showing your complete ignorance on this topic. If you have any proper ideas about vedic traditions, history, beliefs and philosophy, do enlighten us here. Else, kindly allow those who are knowledgeable in these matters to do the editing of this page. I first of all came to this page seeing that much info contained herewith was and is questionable. As far as shruti is concerned, it is a synonym of the Vedas. Moreover, wikipedia is supposed to NPOV. So start brushing up your knowledge or admit you have a POV. Babub 09:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Babub - please sign your comments with '4 x ~' to show the time-stamp. I am also of the opinion that Mr Bachman sometimes goes too far with the hard-line approach, maybe in this case also, but the article shouldn't go too far the other way either. Please can we all work towards a compromise, or have a number of views mentioned in the article? GourangaUK 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * GourangUK, Look at the below topic and give your opinion. I am going to wait for dbachmann's reply. If he is not responding I'll go ahead creating a seperate page for history of Vedic religion and a section for "controversy" on this particular page.Babub 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * this is the historical article. Babub himself says that he considers "Vedic religion" a synonym of Sanatana Dharma. Well, then click on the link, and improve that article rather than pestering this one. I am, of course, completely open to enlarge the "contemporary" section, with reference to Nambudiri traditions etc., no problem. dab (&#5839;) 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann, You say "this is the historical article". If so, is the title proper? You seem to be playing with words here.You say "Well, then click on the link, and improve that article rather than pestering this one." There IS a certain reason for me to believe these two terms may be used in different contexts historically as the present religion practised by the hindus is markedly different from that described in the vedas.Babub 09:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bachmann, it was your sentence "Vegetarianism, the practice now thought by many to be so characteristic of Hinduism, arose only in late or post-Vedic times" which you have now removed that I had a particular problem with. That Animal sacrifice is described in the Vedas is a fact which I therefore do not object to. That Vegetarianism is also promoted in the Vedas (and I'm sure there are verses in the Rig Veda somewhere if you wanted to look) is another fact which should not be minimised. As this page is entitled 'Vedic Religion' not 'The History of Vedic Religion' at least a pointer to sanatana dharma or some short description of it should be included in the page in my opinion.GourangaUK 09:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * that's as easy as a disambiguation notice, along the lines of "this article is about the religion contemporary to the Vedic Sanskrit corpus; for religions historically based on these, see Dharmic religion". I am very open to 'vegetarianism' verses in the Rigveda (as long as they are straightforward and not the result of some contorted hermeneutics). dab (&#5839;) 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope
Scope of this article: historical or present day traditions? I feel a new page on History of Vedic Religion should be started so that the present day traditions as well as beliefs and philosophy can be fit here.
 * See above: you are looking for the Sanatana Dharma (Vaidika Dharma, aka Hinduism) article. "Vedic" as used here refers to a historical (literary) period, beginning with the Rigveda and ending just before Panini. dab (&#5839;) 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move
I have moved the Vedic Religion page to History of Vedic religion page. In the latter page I have removed the "Pantheon" section coz I don't think it belongs in a history page. Babub 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this. Don't waste your time and mine like this. Anything you are writing about already has perfectly established main articles, you are most welcome to add to these; edit warring over article titles is bad karma, and an unproductive waste of time. Don't start your career as a wikipedian with something so fruitless. I would be very grateful, otoh, if you could use your apparent expertise to improve on grhyasutra, shrautasutra, aranyaka, brahmana etc., all of these are articles that badly need extension: you can work on them and really add value to Wikipedia, or you can spend a couple of weeks edit warring here, with no net result whatsoever. Again, I am open to discussing conservative movements that survive today; you are also invited to clean up Nambudiri and do a summary of the Nambudiri article here, that would certainly be on topic. There is an awful lot of good faith encyclopedic work to be done here, I don't understand why people are so much into edit-warring over perfectly good articles rather than doing the badly needed extension jobs. dab (&#5839;) 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Again, I am open to discussing conservative movements that survive today" I'm getting the feeling these "discussions" with people like you won't take us anywhere as you'll just revert everything back. Anyway you should try doing this to the Judaism or Christianity articles saying these refer to "History of these religions" and not the religions! You people are exploiting the tolerant Hindus by behaving like this. Also you know of the Nambudiri tradition because they are the only ones who are academically documented. Apparently you want to be blind towards other surviving traditions until western scholars document them.Babub 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * now what do you want? either you claim that "Vedic religion" is equivalent to "Hinduism", then you should request that this is made a redirect or a disambiguation page: because there already is a Hinduism page, there is no reason to begin a second article on the same topic here. It is Wikipedia policy to have articles at their most common English title. Hinduism in English is referred to as "Hinduism", not as "Vedic religion". In academic usage, "Vedic" means "pre-500 BC Indo-Aryan", and this is the intended meaning here. You complained that this may be misleading, and got a disambiguation notice: case closed. And precisely, we only want information on Wikipedia that is academically documented, that's not my idea, that's policy. We don't care if 'western' scholars, Indian scholars, Japanese scholars, or Martian scholars document something, as long as the documentation is done in reputable Indological journals. Live with it or quit. dab (&#5839;) 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Naked truth : I smell a pro Aryan(hindu/nazi) bias
I Anirudh777 got carried away thinking wikipedia accepts user edits (which is wrong) and I added :

" The mode of vedic worship was performance of sacrifices and chanting of hymns (see Vedic chant). The priests helped the common man in performing rituals. People prayed for abundance of children, cattle and wealth. Vedas have detailed mention of various rituals and chants for pleasing gods for different occasions by lighting a ritual fire (yajna) and sacrifice(bali). It seems more or less like african tribal ritual & witchcraft.( Modern science has concluded that Indian subcontinent was attached to africa in ancient times. Later on it drifted away and got attached to asian plate which created himalaya mountains due to a huge thrust and it is still moving north.) In yajna the priests consumed intoxicants in large quantities, called soma and sacrifice of animals(cow, horse etc.) and also sometimes human sacrifice (Purushamedha) was performed. It is possible that various gods and godesses mentioned in vedas were products of hallucinations due to consumption of intoxicants. Soma drink was made from crushed stalks of either cannabis plant or ephedra plant or both (cannabis,marijuana,hash,pot or bhang is as common as grass in Himalayas). The Himalayan hindu sadhus (monks) are known to consume intoxicants even in present times. "

I got a message from Mr.Dbachmann to stop adding nonsense and ranting. And all my contribution was removed, rather I expected a notice - Neutrality of this article is doubtful. It appears that wikipedia is simply autocratic & self righteous.

Now let me elaborate. Four things were very common in vedic practices:

1. Lighting a sacrificial fire. 2. Chanting, invoking spiritual entities 3. Consuming intoxicants such as Soma (prepared from cannabis and/or ephedra stalks) 4. Sacrifice of animals, human etc.

As you may be knowing that all these were part of ancient religions such as African tribals(zulu etc) who danced around fire while their witchdoctors were invoking spirits, going into trance followed by sacrifice and even cannibalism. In Judaism, it was called burnt offering, OT mentions that for redemption of various sins various sacrifices were required such as of pigeons, sheep, goat, cow, bull etc. which Jewish temple priests performed in a sacrificial fire & blood of sacrificed animals was sprinkled on altar. In christianity the altar in churches is merely symbolic but it does exist as a remenant. Ancient Inca (south america) & yucatan civilization were having gruesome practices of human sacrifice to please spiritual entities such as severing of head & then extraction of beating heart as offering. In many parts of india, human sacrifice & canniballism continued as late as 1930s or 40s in remote areas such as south india(Kerala) and Northeast(Naga tribes). Any person can go and see in Nagaland & Tripura states many tribal houses decorate their entrance of house with a platform having human skulls on top as trophies even today. Nowadays the sacrificial practices in hinduism are symbolic only such as breaking a coconut as an alternative to human head(this is performed almost on every religious activity of some significance), human sacrifice of children in tantra(witchcraft) is still going on clandestinely although its unlawful.AtharvaVeda specifically mentions chants for destruction of enemy etc.various charms for various diseases, ailments and occasions. Vedic practices are considered undated by hindus, being timeless & going sice time immemorial.

Now regarding african connection. It is well known that india was a part of africa long time back & later on it moved away & joined asian plate creating himalaya mountains. Every Geology book mentions that. Many islands south of india have original ethnic tribes such as Jeravas inhabiting Andaman, Nicobar & Lakshdeep. These tribals look very much african with curly hair & dark skin & features peculiar to african tribes. If we dont accept this then, it is also known that human migration originally started from africa & moved to Iran, India, indonesia , australia etc. because all humans are homosepians with origin from africa. So it possible that early africans were barbaric, meat eating ( probably cannibals since they eliminated neanderthals). I think their spiritual practices, were what i mentioned earlier about jews, inca, etc.

I had added links from pages of wikipedia only such as : soma, Purushamedha , cannabis , ephedra and Yajna.

If it is thought that what i wrote is nonsense then in that case these pages also need to be removed by wikipedia. Can it be done?? The truth when covered up loses its sanctity. The Truth is a matter of fact and very much naked thats what i wrote.

Mr. Dbachman replied that what i wrote was very common & is already available. And human migration happened 100000 years back much later to separation of continents. But i say that the page appears to be heavily biased towards pro Vedic or pro Aryan attitude which can happen if it is written/edited by upper caste hindus or German Nazis influenced by Max Mueller. Upper caste hindus(called aryans) consider vedas to be the ultimate in spiritual knowledge & accept no criticism AT ALL.

No doubt - Aryan theory (vedic practices are in fact aryan practices) has caused much deterioration of human rights in India as well as in Germany. (I suspect it was borrowed from hinduism in Germany). In india Aryan theory is linked with caste system which created a slavery system causing misery, poverty, illiteracy & subjugation to more than a billion people (dalits) since a long time back which still exists in some form or the other even now (people still marry within their own caste & total no. of castes are approx. 8000 now ). In Germany, Aryan theory has done a similar thing called nazism, its consequences are well known. Therefore the naked truth is this that all vedic practices (of aryans) were barbaric & nothing but witchcraft similar to canniballistic tribal africans & need no praise rather deserve condemnation. Thank you. Anirudh


 * Dear Anirudh - I have often debated with Mr Dbachman over pages concerning Vedic religion etc... and can say with all honesty that he is definitely not pro-Aryan in his edits. I feel he always represents the strict western-historical and scholarly approach which although I do not always agree with, I do respect him for. Maybe some parts of your edits could be added without it sounding like a blatant attack on Vedic civilsation? Vedic civilisation also invented numbers (0-9) now known as 'arabic' text and had an advanced knowledge of astronomy and philosophy among many other achievements. Why give such emphasis to intoxicants and ritualistic sacrifice etc?GourangaUK 10:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear GourangaUK - Those who suffer caste system ( as i did ), their heart burns all the time. Regarding achievements, it is same as trying to convince a jew about nazis scientific achievements.I consider that -- HINDUISM IS NAZISM --Anirudh777 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See Godwin's law. You seem hardly capable of WP:NPOV with such a burning heart, but we have plenty of ardent Hindu chauvinists on Wikipedia, so maybe you could attempt to provide a counter-balance to those. Thanks for standing up for me, GUK, I know our first encounter was a bit harsh, that was also because of my being used to WP teeming with Hindutva editors, but I recognize debate with you can be fruitful. For reference's sake, the Hindus invented the numerals 1-9. The introduction of 0 and of decimal notation is very late (9th century), and it is unclear whether it is an Indian or a Persian invention. Hindu astronomy is a difficult term, often mixed with wild claims distilled from the Vedas without any real basis. Historical (Puranic) Hindu astronomy was very much indebted to the Greeks (the Hindus even adopted the Greek system of the Zodiac) dab (&#5839;) 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wish to add more. I stress about intoxicants , sacrifices and rituals. The vedic system & other ancient systems have it because religion is simply a matter of mind control (or mass hypnosis). The Practices i mentioned are specifically meant for that.


 * -- The fire is important because u cant make every body in an assembly smoke pot/ marijuana ,so u add it to fire for mass consumption. The scented intoxicating smoke made brains of people relaxed & receptive to commands by the priests.
 * -- Intoxicants by priests - to create an abnormal state of body & mind so that common people are influenced into believing that they (priests) are in a state of trance & communicating with spirits. BTW the same intoxicants(cannabis) are mixed with diluted milk/yogurt (called thandai)& distributed freely in every hindu temple every year on certain festivals (Mahashivratri etc.)
 * -- Long Chanting rituals also made people believe about communication with spirits as well for mass hypnotism acting as commands.
 * -- Sacrifices & sight of blood - to create an awe & a state of mass euphoria.


 * The net result of such practices was forming a social bond in order to benefit by mass deception <--- this is true hinduism.--Anirudh777 05:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody ban this nutjob. All his edits are ridiculous and full of b.s. See all the pages he has edited here. What is the procedure to ban users? Babub 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I received a message from Mr Dbachmann stating that i will be blocked forever if i say that 'Hinduism is Nazism'. Well, First i bow down (to Mr. Dbachmann) & plead that i regret to hurt someone. But, I have not changed anything in the main article and everyone is free to express his views. Let everyone else know the differring point of views along with their arguements so that the general notion is critically scrutinized before being accepted as truth. Also i expect criticism from upper caste hindus ( as Mr. Babub did). Their job is muffle the voice of low caste down trodden, since thousands of years. Its nothing new. Mr. Dbachmann, i would like you & all others to read the articles on - Aryan & Helena Blavatsky alongwith their links. Thank you. --Anirudh777 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anirudh, first of all, you complain that this article had a "pro-nazi" bias, then you say "Hinduism is nazism". So what's your problem? If you think you can "expose" Hinduism" as "nazism" by writing all this nonsense, you wil probably be blocked by the adminstrators. I don't know what use there is talking to people like you, but why do you "smell" a "nazi" bias in a Hindu article, when you are already saying that "hinduism is nazism"??? This proves you have an agenda. Once again, I don't think its any use talking with people like you. Babub 05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anirudh, you don't need to "bow down" to me, you need to go and have a look at WP:ENC: You are free to have your opinion, and express it online and off, but not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum. If you want to cite authors who hold views such as yours, the case might be different (you could go to Criticism of Hinduism), but simply rambling on talkpages won't do, that's not what they are for. dab (&#5839;) 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr.Dbachmann, The article is now much improved. thanks. --Anirudh777 10:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sacrifice of Man (purusha) in Rigveda
From http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm Rigveda Chapter –10  Hymn XC 6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusa as their offering. Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn,summer was the wood. 7 They balmed as victim on the grass Purusa born in earliest time. With him the Deities and all Sadhyas and Rsis sacrificed. 8 From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up. 11 When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? 15 Seven fencing-sticks had he,thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared, When the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Purusa. 16 Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim these were the earliest holy ordinances. The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven, there where the Sidhyas, Gods of old, are dwelling.

The Homo Erectus came on earth 2 million years back. The DNA of modern man is 96% same as of chimpanzee (see Human). Probably Homoerectus evolved from chimpanzee some 5 million years back. The chimpanzees live in groups(tribes) in their territories & they are known to be cannibals even now eating up bodies of defeated enemy chimps. Homo-erectus evolved into neanderthals which lived in europe and middle east asia (Eurasia), they lived up to 30000 years ago. Homo-erectus also evolved into Homo-floresiensis which lived upto 18000 years ago in Indonesia.

If vedic religion is an undated ancient religion then it means it existed 30000 (or more) years ago. Probably it was a tribal ritualistic religion. The so called Aryans are nothing but Homo-Sapiens(Modern man), who came on earth 250,000 years ago in africa. The Homosapiens fought Neanderthals & Homo-floresiensis (7…Purusa born in earliest time), completely eradicated them. After the war they, probably,used to sacrifice them. I Hope this will clear the (holy) doubts. This is to be considered w/o any prejudice and in a scientific manner. --Anirudh777 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I Hope this will clear the (holy) doubts. This is to be considered w/o any prejudice and in a scientific manner.* Oh, yes, glad to know you consider the so-called Aryans as human! Hope you will come to consider modern Hindus the same way too.Babub 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * um, what is this about? We have a Purusha sukta article in case you want to make some point, but what has this got to do with Homo erectus? There can be some debate about whether the Purushamedha goes back to an actual human sacrifice, but it is afaik undisputed that it was not a human sacrifice (anymore) in Vedic times. dab (&#5839;) 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ' Probably...probably...probably ' is not my understanding of the scientific manner? And for the record my favourite 'Hindu' teacher is from a Jewish family - not sure what that does to the 'Hinduism = Nazism' theory propounded above? GourangaUK 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Vedic Relgion"
All this non-sense about the "Vedic religion" was prolly invented by British education ministers in the British Raj.

VEDIC religion IS Hinduism. All the 4 Vedas, and all its associated texts, the Upanishads,and the epics are sacred texts today of Hinduism TODAY also in their entirity, plus whatever manisfestations and evolutions over 2 millenia.

This word "Hindu" has its root in the river Sindhu. This label was given to us by the Persians. The British corrupted Sindhu to Indus and we became Indians.

BUT WE ARE VEDANTISTS. This is a deliberate attempt to severve the links between modern Hinduism and the "Vedic-religion"

I'm not a fundamentalist (I have interests in aviation), but kindly do not try to De-link Hinduism with the Hollowed, ancient and Mystic "Vedic religion" as though you talk about Egyptians or Mesopotamians.

ONE can say that modern Greeks are not the same followers of the religion of the ancient Greeks, but had they still been worshipping the Titans and the 12 Olympians, a wikipedia article on "Hellenistic religion" would be liable to be deleted IMMEDIATELY.

look, this is not the Vedanta article. People who want to learn about Vedanta can just go to Vedanta and read all about it. Vedanta, as the name implies, is post-Vedic, and hence falls outside the scope of this article. It is undisputed that Vedanta followed and grew out of Vedic religion. That's why it's mentioned under "post-Vedic religion". Hinduis is linked there. History of Hinduism is linked there. Vedanta is linked there. I really don't see what you want. Vedic religion can be included in the term Hinduism by definition, that's a futile debate. It's just what Hinduism looked like before 500 BC, which was very different from today, except for the Shrauta tradition. I agree that Shrauta essentialy preserves historical Vedic religion, no debate about that. What on Earth makes you believe that Hellenistic religion would be deleted? It would be a most valuable addition to Wikipedia. And why does it always have to be about the British Raj? Get over it already. Or at least complain about the Brits on talkpages that, unlike this one, are even remotely related to colonialism dab (&#5839;) 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not merit to treat "Vedic religion" as a lost culture like the ancient Mesopotamian culture or the Egyptian civilization.
 * "Vedic Religion" is a sub-set of modern Hindu religion, and its followers are technically Vedantists. If you are talking about the Indo-Aryans, then that is a different matter, because there were no temples in those days, no rigid caste system, no Holi or Diwali, and the prevalent Shrauta tradition......thats all. These are cultural differences between modern Indians and Indo-Aryans.

Right as you read this, Vedic and Upanishadic chants are being read across many functions and temples across India.

You said, "What on Earth makes you believe that Hellenistic religion would be deleted? It would be a most valuable addition to Wikipedia.", end quote. I said that in reference to the hypothetical case in which Greeks would have still been worshipping their multitude of gods/godesses/planets TODAY keeping the ancient form almost intact. Then, an article on ancient Hellenistic religion, whose purpose is to severe the link between their modern form of religion and their ancient roots is liable to be deleted. How would you like an article on Ancient Christianity or Ancient Buddhism??

In case you completely forgot (or maybe conveniently forgot) the 4 Vedas are NOT ancient study material for historians, but the religious texts of all Hinduism TODAY.

what are you talking about? Genesis is being read in churches all over the world, without those who read it being Biblical Hebrews. And obviously, the Bible is "study material" just as much as a religious text. And exactly the same holds for Indian texts. This is an encyclopedia, not a Hindu temple, so obviously the texts are discussed as the objects of study, not as the object of religious veneration. Vedic religion is the religion described in the Vedas, 1500-500 BC. Shrauta is the surviving tradition. Vedanta is the religion/philosophy post-dating the Vedas, say 500 BC-AD 500. Puranic Hinduism is the early medieval religion growing out of Vedanta, say AD 500-1500. Each of these has their own article; the development is discussed at History of Hinduism. I really don't know what you want. No, Vedantins do not practice Vedic religion, they practice Vedanta. There is a reason it is called Veda-anta, contrasting with Veda. Again, I do not see what point you are trying to make. Most of what you say is obviously correct, but does not concern the topic of this article. Please take whatever it is you want to express to the proper article. dab (&#5839;) 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

also, why are you insisting to insert Vivekananda into the intro here? He is perfectly notable to Vedanta. And even on Vedanta he is not mentioned in the intro, but somewhere in the article body. This is not the bleeding Vedanta article, alright? There is no reason to list Vedantic gurus here, let alone in the intro. dab (&#5839;) 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may be objecting to "Vedic" as a historical term. I think that's silly, since Hindu tradition does very well at distinguishing Vedic and post-Vedic scripture (virtually all universally-accepted shruti are Vedic; post-Vedic texts accepted by some as shruti (some Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita) are not universally accepted throughout Hinduism). But it appears that "Vedic" has become some sort of Hindu-pop-culture term in mainstream usage, so that people may think it offensive if any part of Hindu culture is not described as "Vedic". This sort of lumping doesn't do Hinduism justice at all, but to avoid further pointless discussions like this one, I suppose this article should be moved to Historical Vedic religion, and "Vedic religion should be made a disambiguation page, similar to Vedic. dab (&#5839;) 13:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since these articles have obviously been hijacked by you and since you treat them as your personal pages, I cannot dedicate much bandwidth in sparring with you much further. You said that the Genesis is read in Churches, and I said the exact analog of it, that the Vedas are also still read in India, and thus some references to Hinduism will NOT dilute the neutrality and the objectivity of these articles. Whatever the Rig_vedic people did are CULTURAL differences namely, a] No temples b] No festivals like Diwali c] No thousands of gods d] No rigid casteism e] Shrauta tradition and f] Predation of Vedanta philosophies. Out of these points, only the last two points concern the differences in the evolution of Hinduism, or in other words, the History of Hinduism.

No airline flies the Wright Brothers' Flyer anymore, but yet it is mentioned with pride as the first apostle of the History of Aviation, because the basic Physics of powered flight that were laid down by Wright Brothers, is STILL UNCHANGED in the latest Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

And therein lies my point. Disconnecting the umbilical cord between the so-called "Vedic Religion" and modern Hinduism is completely, completely, completely and fully fallicious. I do not understand why you treat the mother, the starting point of modern Hinduism as something entirely different ? According to me, this entire article is a subset of the History of Hinduism.


 * yes, of course, it is a sub-article, and should be (and is) duly linked from History_of_Hinduism. Just like having a History of aviation article doesn't keep us from having a Wright Brothers article. Would you also argue that we cannot have a Vaishnavism article because we already have a Hinduism article? Or that we shouldn't have an Asia article, because we already have an Earth article? So I am afraid I don't see your problem at all. I think you might want to improve the History of Hinduism artice, which is in very poor state at present. I also don't see how you can imply that we do not have "references to Hinduism", when we have an entire section dedicated to that, and Hinduism is linked from the very first sentence in the article. Sorry, you just don't make any sense. dab (&#5839;) 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is Vedic Religion.
This description of Vedic religion is false, the Vedas itself is heard by spiritual seers -- yogis.

My post clearly states this.

1) this is not a series on HINDUISM 2) I am discussing the Buddhist aspects of Vedic religion, which you call non-sense.

Again, I have supported my inserts with sources, YOU HAVE NOT.


 * do you call this "supporting inserts with sources"? I call it breaking an article. Look (everyone!), I know "Vedic" is a very cool and fashionable word in some circles. It is, however, also a scholarly term referring to a certain historical period, viz. roughly the millennium 1500-500 BC (maybe also 1800-300 BC, that's beside the point). This is what this article is about, Hinduism and Buddhism are only tangentially related, as historical outgrowths. If you want to treat Hinduism or Buddhism, we have, surprisingly, rather nice Hinduism and Buddhism articles. Thank you. Now please, for further development of this article, add further details of scholarly debates on Vedic ritual. Otherwise, find a more appropriate forum for whatever point you are trying to make. dab (&#5839;) 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am with dab on this one. -- Babub ( Talk 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann and Babub, if this is not about Hinduism or Buddhism, than can you tell me why it is discussing Hinduism and has a Hindu template ? Again, if you can't see the ridiculous nature of this article, than perhaps moderation is required.  I will call a moderator if changes are not applied to this article.
 * Again I have put some nice information here, you can add it to the article or be non-constructive and simply continue to delete well supported facts.

--216.254.121.169 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * of course, to make this article fair and balanced remove the discussion on Hinduism if you don't want a discussion on POST VEDIC RELIGIONS.
 * If you want to make buddhist edits, why are you still calling it unbalanced. It looks as if you yourself are unbalanced in your editing. -- Babub ( Talk 13:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is now clearly an article about 'Vedic Religion' in the historical sense of the term. 'Modern' Hindu and Buddhist philosophies should be placed elsewhere, unless it's from a definite historical context. GourangaUK 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dab, it is not that Hindus did not invent history, but in their view it was insignificant as compared to rules of the society (Dharma) and philosophy. Kings and emperors come and go, Rameses, Xerxes, Alexander, Augustus, Kublai Khan, Timur, all; empires are built and obliterated. Aupmanyav 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A mistake made in the article so removed it
''These monistic tendencies are reflected in modern sects of Hinduism like the pantheistic Arya Samaj according to which, there is only one creator who encompasses the universe and it is He whom must be striven to be attained by all. This sect does not worship individual dieties such as Ganesha or Lakshmi, as is done today by most Hindus..''

Arya Samaj are not pantheistic!

--Leafy 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Arya Samaj is not alone in thinking like this. Many Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitists also believe in their deity is the only one creator who encompasses the universe and it is He whom must be striven to be attained by all. So, what is new? Aupmanyav


 * Aupmanyav, Leafy is pointing out that Arya Samaj was not pantheistic. and it was the mistake in the main article which has been removed now.nids(&#9794;) 08:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Another ill mistake
Out of these, Hinduism has maintained almost all of original form of the Vedic religion, and has evolved over time to be the in the polytheistic, highly diverse and multi-faceted form that we know of today.

Is the author of this article adhering to neutral point of view? All hindu traditions are monotheistic or henotheistic, a crude and cursory glance at the religion makes it look polytheistic. I request a cleansing of this article to adhere to verifiable facts and neutral point of ivew.
 * this paragraph is due to some people insisting that Hinduism must absolutely be linked to Vedic religion as practically identical; this is as close as the link can possibly be made. Yes, Hinduism is largely monistic. It is very biased, however, to dismiss polytheistic tendencies as due to a 'crude glance': this betrays unfamiliarity with the concept of polytheism: is is monotheistic propaganda (mostly Christian) that suggests polytheism is incapable of deeper spiritual insight, and the same point you make about Hindu polytheism might probably be made about any polytheism whatsoever. I agree with the removal of 'polytheistic' here, however, since it adds nothing. 'highly diverse' is good enough on its own. The entire point is that Hinduism preserves the form of Vedic religion in many cases, even if the theology or thought behind it has changed drastically. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:05, 26 Augus:


 * IMHO the line above is not incorrect. Surely, Vedic Religion is best preserved in hinduism. And that Vedic religion has evolved over times due to the inclusions of the other native traditions into a highly diverse and multi-faceted form that we know today in hinduism. Don't see anything wrong in this. The line does not say that Vedic religion is the only source of hinduism. Hinduism is polytheistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monist, and even atheist. Which is the 'ism' that is not found in Hinduism? This is because it gives freedom of personal belief to its adherents. Different people derive solace from different beliefs and hinduism keeps itself equidistant from all these beliefs. Geeta says 'All paths lead to me'. Vedas say 'Eko sat, Vipra bahudha vadanti' (One (truth) exists, good people describe it variously), another saying says 'Munde Munde Matirbhinna' (Different heads have different views). What it inalienably requires from its adherents is 'dharma' (fulfillment of duty and right-action) Aupmanyav 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, modern Hinduism has not "maintained almost all of the original form". Ritually, the only connection is the  fragmentary relation between the grhyasutras of the Late Vedic period and the practice of some samskaras today.  Orthodox Brahmins retain somewhat more elements of old practice in this regard, but they are a small minority of Hindus.  The average Hindu (a) visits temples, (b) offers prasada to idols, (c) believes in karma and reincarnation, and (d) wouldn't know deities such as Aryaman, Bhaga, Vayu or Apam Napat from holes in the ground.  In short, if "Vedicism" were a name for a religion, then modern Hinduism would be based on a corresponding "Puranism" (the Agamas, Puranas, and the Mahabharata), not "Vedicism".  But, of course, dogmas are comforting, aren't they?  And they have to have pride of place on Wikipedia too, don't they?  Sigh.  rudra 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First thing, Hindusim is not just Vedic Religion. So many other influences also are incorporated in it, as you rightly said Puranism. Even Vishnu (barely so), Shiva, Shakti, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, Kartikeya, and Hanuman have different origin. Second thing, hinduism is not supposed to be a fossil which would not change. It is a living religion, it has changed in the past and it will change in the future to keep in step with the changing times. Aupmanyav 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, Hinduism today is not Vedic Religion at all. In a sense, puraanam utsannam na kaaryam :-)  rudra 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Vedic civilization
It has been accepted in the 'Hinduism' page that hinduism is not derived only from the Vedas but also from other native traditions. Similarly, it has been accepted that hindus practice their religion in many other forms apart from Monotheism. I suppose, this should be accepted on this page also. Otherwise, let us have a discussion here and we will make necessary changes according to the conclusions of the discussion. Aupmanyav 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Long time, no reply, should I go ahead with correcting the discrepensies? Aupmanyav 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What corrections do you have in mind? The entire page is a complete mess.  Far too many howlers to count. rudra 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically two, (1) Hinduism is not exclusively Vedic. (2) Hinduism is not exclusively monotheistic. (Sorry for a late reply) Aupmanyav 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, though be prepared for an edit war;-) (2) is actually trivially true if the theos involved is of the Abrahamic variety, but even to explain this caveat could be an article unto itself.  (1) is just not politically kosher these days, even though there is hardly anything Vedic about modern Hinduism.  (Neither the use of Sanskrit in ritual nor even the use of "vedic" passages in these rituals make Hinduism Vedic.  I've heard RV.1.1.1 recited over a bowl of water!) rudra 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rituals
This section needs to be revamped thoroughly. I suggest moving the bullet list of rituals to the top, or even using it as an organizing framework. Right now the first paragraph is a complete mishmash - one sentence about the Asvamedha without preamble or context, followed by a screed on vegetarianism. Is vegetarianism a ritual? Is it organically connected with Asvamedha? Why is anything about vegetarianism in this section at all? At best, if vegetarianism somehow must be mentioned (in deference to current norms of political correctness) it should be in a separate section on "Social Practices" or somesuch.

And to top it off, the "information" on gohan and Panini is all wrong anyway, likely copy-pasted from some ignorant webpage. Panini says nothing about gohan or "receiving" cows. The word in question is the cognate goghna, treated specially in Ashtaadhyaayi 3.4.73 (daashagoghnau sampradaane), the standard and straightforward exegesis of which can be found in the Kaashikavritti: aagataaya tasmai daatum gaam ghnanti iti goghno 'tithiH "For one who has visited, (the hosts) kill a cow to give to him, hence a guest is called goghna". Parallel to RV.7.56.17, the literal usage of goghna can be found in RV.1.114.10 (and thus in the SriRudram). rudra 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * your suggestions make perfect sense, please do go ahead. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at this :

goghna [goghna]n. Atypical Yogarudh word in sanskrit E A guest who accepts a cow in donation. This is a typical yagarudh word in sanskrit like pankaj and is used only to mean the above. Mischief creators have joined the word go and gahana (latter meaning slayer or killer) to attribute the meaning slayer of cows to "goghn". This is objectionable misinterpretation of language Source: Paaninii 3-4-73 http://malayalamwords.com/index.php?a=term&t=5ea3aaa8aaaa5db0 IAF
 * My comment about ignorant webpages stands. If you were impressed by the term yogarudh, try a google search to find out how "well known" it is.  Never mind that the lack of a final vowel marks it as a modern vikaara of some Sanskritic term, perhaps medieval at best.  As for goghna, it is used literally in the sense of "cow-killer" in RV.1.114.10, and it is subsequently marked as an idiom by Panini in A.3.4.73, with a shift of meaning from the nominative (normal, given the tatpurusha construction) to the dative (sampradaana) case, to indicate the beneficiary rather than the agent of the action; thus to mean, just as the Kaashikavritti explains, "he for whom a cow is killed (to prepare a meal), i.e. an honored guest".  The attendant rites can be found in the Aasvalaayana grhyasutra, 1.24.31-33. rudra 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sofixit. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't you see the edit-war that would ensue? ;-) All this stuff about cow-killing, sense and nonsense, truth and fiction, probably belongs on a separate page, but even removing the subtopic from this page may be hazardous, with all the zealots around.  (Also, BTW, I should note a mental block on my part, automatically re-Sanskritizing the Prakritism yogarudh back to something like yogaruddha.  It should be yogaruu.dha ("use-lifted") - the "dh" is lingual or retroflex, not dental - and this term indeed means "etymologically conventional".  My apologies to IAF.) rudra 05:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's already fixed ;-). Rudra, are you a European ? (just curious).

Anyway have a look at this :-

The RigVeda refers to the cow as being Aghnya (not to be killed or injured) at least at 17 places. The Vedic texts prescribe death or banishment from the kingdom to those who kill or injure the cow. Rig Veda (10.87.16) clearly lays down that ‘the evil person who kills or eats the meat of horse or a cow deserves to be terminated.’ Further, RigVeda says don’t kill any being. Mimansa, Mahabharata and a large number of texts clarify that killing of animals are prohibited in yajna. Mahabharata (Shantiparva, 265.9) says: ‘It is only the evil-minded hypocrites who started saying that Vedic yajna involve intoxicants and meat eating; it is never in the Vedas.’

“A few words about the word goghna the interpretation of which has added confusion. It is mentioned by Pt. Taranatha in his Vachaspatyam. This Sanskrit dictionary of Taranath was commissioned by the East India Company in order to provide legitimacy to the writings of people like Max Mueller. In view of Taranath’s poor financial condition and a lure of the payment of Rs. 10,000 in those days of 1886, '''(today, almost about Rs 30 lakh or even more) he misinterpreted certain crucial words. Goghna was one of them. Taranath interpreted it as ‘the killer of a cow’ ignoring the meaning given by Panini, according to whom the word meant ‘the donee guest who receives a cow.’ By changing the meaning, Taranath imposed on Hindus that they ate cows,''' in order to provide legitimacy to those who were and are eating cows. There is no reason, whatsoever, to accept Taranath’s interpretation of goghna over and above Panini’s interpretation, unless someone proves that Taranath of late the 19th century was closer in his understanding of Vedic Sanskrit and was a greater scholar than Panini whose date is, at least 7th century B.C.

“It is important to differentiate between the meat of any other cattle and that of the cow, exactly the way not every woman is one’s mother and not every man is one’s father. We have different relationships with each other in society. A cow was clearly given a special status – that of Aghnya – in Hindu society, which means that it cannot be injured or killed. The AtharvaVeda lays down ‘death penalty to those who injure or kill cows.’

http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Oct%2005/Dina.htm IAF

what are you talking about? Panini is not the Rigveda. In the Rigveda, go+ghn means "cow-kill". You allege that Panini, some 1000 years later, glossed a "politically correct" meaning of "guest". Now rudra challenges your claim. The discussion isn't even about whether the RV refers to killing cows (it does), but whether Panini recognizes that it does. The rest of your comment is too confused to make sense. We know that Hindus don't kill cows today. Look at the title of this article, where it says historical: we are discussing a religion of 3000 years ago, not contemporary or classical Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dab, you are right. Panini does not gloss anything.  In A.3.4.73 he merely states that the two words daasha and goghna are irregular in denoting indirect objects (rather than subjects, i.e. agents, as would normally follow from a grammatical analysis).  As such, he is recognizing or recording idiomatic usage, but he does not give the actual idiomatic meanings.  That goghna (effectively) means "honored/distinguished guest" - i.e. a dative of benefit - is an independent datum, from the classical commentaries such as the Kaashikavritti. rudra 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do read the text that I posted once again. It says, "The RigVeda refers to the cow as being Aghnya (not to be killed or injured) at least at 17 places. The Vedic texts prescribe death or banishment from the kingdom to those who kill or injure the cow." end quote.

I will not even present the cliched argument (of the kind presented by Islamic apologists) that a book won't contradict itself. What I say is that if Aghnya in the book means "not to be killed", 17 times how can "go+aghnya" mean "to be killed" ? The reason as I quoted in my first response to this, is that over time "go+aghnya" has been mis-spelled, mis-interpreted, mistaken and mis-whatever-thou-may as "goghnya", or killer of cows--which is wrong. (Do re-read the first response) IAF


 * Please do not propagate bogus theories. goghna is not "go + aghnya".  It is "go + ghna", a determinative (tatpurusha) compound of the form "noun + gerund", typically translated  noun-verb-ing as an adjective and noun-verb-er as a noun, e.g. sarva-dRsh ("all-see-ing/er), vighna-kRt ("obstacle-mak-ing/er"), and, wonder of wonders, shatru-ghna ("foe-slay-ing/er").  The point is that the literal meaning of goghna is not valid in Classical Sanskrit.  It means "guest" by virtue of Panini's rule - actually, exception - that places its meaning in the dative case. rudra 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, is this the place to point out that aghnya is itself a "yogarudh" word? It does not mean "not to be killed", and in fact cannot be used in that sense in Sanskrit.  It means "bull", or "cow" in the feminine aghnyaa.  The loss of literal meaning comes from the fact that the word is in the list of synonyms in the Nighantu of Yaska's Nirukta. rudra 05:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some more food for thought : The word goghna: Academicians (at times)have a penchant of making simple things complicated. Some of them, as pointed by the author of the abovementioned article, cite references to the Sanskrit word “goghna” to be meaning “the slayer of cows”. It is necessary to contest this. There are words in the Sanskrit language that are known as “yogaruudh”. These are the words whose usage is restricted to mean a particular thing regardless of what the etymology may suggest. To cite examples: “pa.nkaj” means anything that grows in the mud but its usage is restricted to indicate only the “Lotus flower”, another example is that of a word “shivraatri” the usage of this word is restricted to mean a special night associated with Lord Shiva and used as an adjective for a night prior to the new moon day of every Lunar month. Even though it is possible to use the words shiva and raatri separately to mean auspicious night as in case of “shivam vaastu” meaning auspicious edifice. In the same way the word “goghna” is used to mean “a guest who accepts cow as a gift (daana)”. There is no ambiguity about it in paaNini 3-4-73

Did Hindus eat beef in Ancient times ? IAF


 * This is getting worse and worse, the trail leading back to the article by a third rate hack that was posted to Hindunet. No doubt you saw Mr Usgaonkar's followup in that thread, where he called the article "meticulous and correct".  He must have been meticulously and correctly inspired by the reference to RV.1.164.40, just as he imagined himself meticulous and correct in finding daana in A.3.4.73.  Wow. rudra 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * you have no idea rudra. Wikipedia is systematically swamped with "articles by third rate hacks from Hindunet". We do our best sorting out the gold dust from the gravel, but your help is sorely needed and appreciated. If you dare, take a look at Aum or Dharma; you'll never be out of work :) dab (𒁳) 10:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

to be fair, the fact that Panini explains goghna as "honoured guest", without stating "for whom the cow is killed" which is the etymological meaning of the term, may be taken to indicate that by Panini's time, vegetarianism was emerging (much like the term lord in English has ceased to imply any connection with the distribution of bread). Which is irrelevant to this article, since it explicitly deals with times predating Panini. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

also, Monier-Williams does gloss agnya as "not to be killed", e.g. Griffith's "inviolable milch-kine" of RV 9.1.9. This doesn't change the fact that bulls are also sacrificed in the RV, but it seems to show that the concept of "inviolable cow" goes back to the RV. I presume this means that milk-giving cows were "inviolable" (RV 9.93.3: utá prá pipya uúdhar ághnyaayaaH="Yea, swollen is the udder of the milch-cow"), which is perfectly sensible of course. I am sure we can find an academic discussion of this, and it is perfectly fair to address the point. dab (𒁳) 10:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, "inviolable" is gratutitous in Griffith's translation of 9.1.9: "milk" => dhenavah and "milch-kine" => aghnyaa, leaving nothing for "inviolable". It seems to have been added, somewhat innocently, only to make up the metre (which Griffith tried to preserve in his translation).  There would be something for it if aghnya were ever used literally, but AFAIK, aghnya is always "bull/cow" in the RV (i.e. it was already "yogarudh" in RV times :-)).  I'm not sure why Monier Williams glossed it: Macdonell does not.  And Yaska makes no etymological comment on it (N3.9).  rudra 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this. Griffith attempts to imitate the meter, translating aghnyaa as "inviolable milch-kine" as it were. This may indeed be worth tracing further. I don't buy that aghnyaa was "yogarudh" in Rigvedic times. It was perfectly transparent that the word means "not to be slain", and that's what it conveyed. There must have been some sort of classification system, dividing cattle into "fit for slaughter" and "unfit for slaughter". I am not sure if the RV has the masculine. I am not sure if there is any evidence for the sacrifice of female cows. Maybe cows were aghnya, and only bulls were slaughtered? I'll have to look for literature on this. Per MW, yogarudha means "having a special as well as etymological and general meaning" btw, so that a surviving generic meaning isn't a contradiction to its being yogarudha. dab (𒁳) 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it's worth pursuing further, but it would take us far afield, with the subtle interplay among issues such as (a) the high value of female livestock in pastoral societies, (b) sacrifices being meaningless unless something of (high?) value is given up, (c) the mystical notion of the sacrificial victim not really "dying" (e.g. "going directly to heaven"), (d) does high esteem ipso facto mean worship, etc. Not to mention the well-known incidence of just-so folk etymologies in Sanskrit (e.g. godhuma, "cow-smoke" or "earth-emanation" for wheat).  Ex silentio arguments are iffy, to be sure, but I find Yaska not passing comment significant when the Nirukta is full of exegetical tales involving the various gods, worship, and social practices.  That aghnya is never used literally in Vedic literature, and that its actual incidence in poetry could have been just a choice among synonyms governed by metrical needs, makes the etymology not as transparent as it seems.  We could have a separate page for this, except that I fear the issue is too radioactive for such a page to survive, IYKWIM. rudra 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

“yogaruudh”

 * There are words in the Sanskrit language that are known as “yogaruudh”. These are the words whose usage is restricted to mean a particular thing regardless of what the etymology may suggest.

This argument is completely empty, and indeed stupid, when discussin Vedic Sanskrit. Yes, goghna has become a yogarudha in classical Hinduism (say, by the time of Patanjali?). Which says nothing about its historical meaning in Vedic Sanskrit. hello? language change? (the tacit assumption that Hinduism or Sanskrit is immune to historical change betrays the tired old "Magic Space Aryans" attitude that I hope doesn't need discussion) Saying that people killed cows in 1000 BCE is not the same as claiming different people did the same in 500 AD, 1,500 years (60 generations!) later. This is really all that is needed to refute the above. An argument based on the Manusmrti and what not is perfectly valid for the first century AD, and just as perfectly invalid for the 10th century BCE. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A little research reveals somewhat deeper roots to this modern mystification of goghna. IAF's source is one Surin Usgaonkar, whose source is the "meticulous and correct" columnist Sandhya Jain, whose source is one Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. This worthy has apparently delivered himself of a magnum opus which happens now to be carried by Google Books, one passage from page 274, found by the search tool on the webpage, which I can't help quoting (transliterating the devanagari): "goghna (goghn) means the donee guest who receives a cow. Maharishi Panini formed a special sutra "daashagoghnau sampradaane" (3/4/73) for this purpose which means that the words daasha and goghna (goghn) represent the receiver of the charity (sampradaana)." So, there you have it, behind all this furor is an "expert" who doesn't know that sampradaana is a technical term in Sanskrit grammar for the dative case. The baloney never ends. Sigh. rudra 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * lol :) and Panini is a Maharshi now o_O dab (𒁳) 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it my turn to say "you have no idea"?:-) The sentences, in the same paragraph, immediately following the passage I quoted leave no doubt as to the Swami's understanding of sampradaana: "han = hiMsaagatyoH, where gati (gati) word has many applications in various situations, like: to reach, to move, to approach, to receive, to collect or to receive knowledge, etc. In this way Maharishi Panini clarified the literal confusion and established the correct meaning of the Vedic word goghna (goghn) by especially making a rule that the word goghn only means the receiver of a cow."  IOW, Swamiji is quoting the dhaatupaa.tha and claiming that the root han here should be taken not in the sense of hiMsaa but in the sense of gati, and that too not in its principal meaning of "movement"  but in its variant meaning of "acquisition".  Of course, that would make goghna ("cow-receiv-ing/er"), of all things, a completely regular tatpurusha (with a normal accusative relation of noun to verb/gerund), with no need for the dative case at all!  It also seems that our good Swamiji is probably not the inventor of this extraordinary exegesis.  He is indebted to Pandit Brahmadatta Jijnasu, author of a vritti in Hindi of the ashtaadhyaayi. The real sources of this revisionism are Arya Samaj ideologues. rudra 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I admit, Rudrasharman that your arguments about goghna are indeed correct. So my conclusions upon taking your views and mine into account are : -

Griffith's translation of RV 1.114.10 mentions "cattle". Its true that Oxen were allowed to be killed in RV. So just like "Stars in the sky" is used to refer to all luminous cosmic objects, although technically there may be planets, asteroids, moons, etc. in the group, "cattle" may have meant all bovine creatures in the herd, and not cows per se. So obviously the blessing of furthering rudra's dart must have meant for the killable bovines i.e. oxen.

In English, cattle strictly means plural of cows only and not oxen. So it was construed that RigVedic people killed cows. Anyway even if the latter part is refuted by the fact that RV prohibits cow slaughter and advocates cow-worship in 17 places, the nay-sayers in a parting shot have still declared that RV is self-contradictory. IAF


 * Actually, In English, "cattle" is generic ; the RV, being a collection of hymns, not of moral precepts, has no such prohibition; and, by the same token, has no claim to consistency simply because it's the collected work of many individuals, some of whom lived far enough apart in time that social conditions were not likely to have remained unchanged. (The RV is not the Quran! "Contradictions" prove nothing.) rudra 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Plan to put Vedas, Upanishads on website This site and maybe the individuals associated with it might be more responsive to the controversies of 'goghna'. IAF
 * IAF, as we have established, there is no "controversy of goghna". Only a self-declared Swami who cannot tell a grammatical case from a symposion. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and yes, it appears that mother cows ("milk kine") were not slaughtered even in Rigvedic times. That's only common sense for a pastoral society, and has nothing to do with vegetarianism. But it is notable as an apparent nucleus of the later "holy cow" concept. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when serious scholarship can come out of Maharshi Dayananda or Aurobindo? 'Gavam', I suppose means herbivores, it could have been reindeer, if Aryans lived in the Arctic regions. I am surprised by the use of 'cow' in English for a she elephant. Aupmanyav 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can assure you it is undisputed that go (from PIE *gweus) does in fact refer to cattle :) that's not the problem here. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to your superior scholarship. And Vedic Sanskrit did change many times. The 'nairuktas' tried to explain what became unintelligible. There was Yaaska (Wikipedia says he lived in 7 Century BC). Before Yaaska was my namesake 'Aupmanyav', probably 3000 years ago.

RV.10.87.16

 * "The Vedic texts prescribe death or banishment from the kingdom to those who kill or injure the cow. Rig Veda (10.87.16) clearly lays down that ‘the evil person who kills or eats the meat of horse or a cow deserves to be terminated.’"

Is this the basis for the sentence I've tagged as needing a citation? The translation is awful in literal terms, and tendentiously propagating a serious misinterpretation. Please don't someone quote the "meticulous and correct" Sandhya Jain (more accurately, the cribsheet she surely regurgitated) to cite AV.8.3.16 as another data point. That would be even worse. rudra 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * RV 10.87.16 is about some sort of demon or evil spirit killing cattle, horses and people, and Agni is invoked to defeat such malignant spirits. It is silly to try and turn this into a legal prescription. Some people are apparently obsessed with finding their own beliefs buried in the RV. I hold this to be a lack of respect towards the text, a bad-faith instrumentalisation. Honest philology respects the text for what it is in its own right without such attempted after-the-fact projections. This seems to be a feature of various Hindu reform movements in particular, and should be addressed there, not here (we explicitly introduced the "historical" into the title to avoid such "latter-day Vedic religion"). New religions movements may be perfectly notable and interesting in their own right, and have every right to be discussed on Wikipedia, but it won't do to conflate them with religious practice of a completely different age. dab (𒁳) 11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The entire sukta is addressed to rakṣohāgni ("Raksas-slaying Agni"), and is a spell against demons.  There is nothing about humans anywhere; it's all about demons, sorcerers and other evil spirits (raksas, yātudhāna, etc).  The first 23 verses of RV.10.87 correspond (with 4 after 6, 12 after 21, 17 and 18 interchanged, and a few variant readings in words) to the first 23 verses of AV.8.3, and parts of AV.8.3 are used in more than one Atharvavedic ritual, according to the Kausika sutra.  Thus, e.g., AV.8.3.15-18 (== RV.10.87.16,18,17,19) are used in an expiatory ritual when cows give bloody milk.  The entire hymn has an Atharvavedic "feel". rudra 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, Indra, Varuna, et al were probably actual names of people---or in more brutally frank, and anthropologically correct terms---the names of tribal lords. It is by this prism that I request the RV to be seen, and not by the motivation of negating or obliterating all that "reformers" say. To me that interpretation is perfectly valid. Of course the first sentence doesn't refer to RV 10.87.18 (must be some other reference).

Besides, to me the cow does appear to be refered to as "Aditi" in RV 10.87.18 IAF


 * Well, you're the one who quoted this passage here, off some website., and then asked us again  to read the full piece.  Did you mean that we should figure out what Makkhan Lal was refering to in the first sentence? rudra 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

IAF: Indra, Varuna, etc. may have their origins in actual (tribal) personalities, but by the time of the Vedic canon, they had certainly passed through the stage of legend into divinity. As such, what matters is not the personages, but what they represent. E.g. Varuna is important because of ṛta (of which he is the upholder), not vice versa. The Rgveda offers an incomplete view into this full system of beliefs (it is, after all, an anthology geared towards liturgy, not a prospectus to describe each divinity comprehensively), but that is no reason to force these beliefs into molds dictated by the (never admitted yet pressing) need to affirm latter day pieties. rudra 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rudra, I still do not think there is any ambiguity in that. Right now I do not subscribe to any third-party source. RV 10.87.16 is not to be construed as a canonical decree, however the idea of cow-slaughter being bad, nay a crime is definitely apparent from this and many other verses in RV.

The earlier edit was that cow-slaughter was undesirable and even abhorred, and prosecution was advocated for those who killed it. Instead of prosecution, we may change it to the killers were wished to be killed by powerful dieties like Agni.

It should also not be written that while extolling Agni, Indra et al that the praise of killers of the cow-killers was heaped upon them---this I say because independently also, RV does accord non-killable status to the cow at numerous places (the rudra verse to kill cattle notwithstanding). IAF


 * I am unsure of what this discussion is about. The entire sūkta of RV 10.87 (25 verses in toto) is devoted to an appeal to Agni to provide protection from the yātūdhānas, a type of demon  (rākṣasa) .  The content of 10.87 in toto is characteristic of RV hymns in which deities are invoked for protection against evil spirits.   10.87.16 is one of a series of verses in which Agni is asked to destroy the yātūdhānas in various ways, in 10.87.16 by cutting off their heads.  In 10.87.16 the yātūdhāna are described as eating the flesh of man, horses, or other animals, and stealing the milk of cows.   There are various passing mentions of cows, but what has this to do with cow sacrifice?  In 10.87.17 the curse continues by praying that the yātūdhānas may not consume the milk of cows; in 10.87.18 the curse is given that the yātūdhānas shall drink poison from the cattle, etc.  Reading yātūdhānas as "cow killers" makes no apparent sense, but it does seem that one of their annoyances was stealing milk. For the text of RV 10.87 see H. H. Wilson edition volume 4, pp. 410-415.  For definition of yātūḥ as "an evil-spirt, a demon, Rākshasa", and the compound yātūdhāna with the same meaning. see V. S. Apte, A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, p. 784. Buddhipriya 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. It's a long story.  Basically, a while back (~5 years ago), there was a flap in the Indian media over beef eating in Vedic times.  Possibly the high point of this "debate" was DN Jha's book, Myth of the Holy Cow (banned under one title, revised and republished under another.)  Anyway, some articles by the columnist Sandhya Jain, such as  this one, made the rounds in various diaspora blogs and mailing lists, with "many evidences" (as the fringecrufters are wont to say) pushing a predictable POV.   Naturally, regurgitation of these "evidences" was bound to spill over from blog-and-chatter-space onto Wikipedia. rudra 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, there is mention of Rudra's arrow finding its mark on cattle, not cows. The ultra-secular brigade (especially the media) has taken it to mean that RV people ate cows.

I differ because it strongly appears to be a simple case of an anomaly or rather a quirk in Indian languages that is visible even today :

Examples :


 * In hindi, chidiya means female-bird whereas chida means male-bird. However, any flock of birds will be called chidiyaan which strictly is the plural of female.


 * Billi means female-cat, whereas billa means male-cat. However don't we always use billiyan for cats which is strictly a plural of female cats only ?


 * In hindi itself, buddha means old-man and buddhi means old-woman. But boodhe generally referes to a motley group of old-people although gramatically it strictly is the plural of old men.

So I think this is the same peculiarity that we witness when rudra's dart is wished to pierce cattle. I'm sure that this does not mean only female cows, but a group of cows + bulls. In fact, I think that the presence of this feature in Hindi and other Indian languages may indeed have its roots in this very referal of cattle in the RV. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Changing history
Of late, some Jain/Buddhist leaning editors have started vandalizing articles like this one and Dharmic religion. They just cannot stomach the fact that the liturgy of Sanskrit began with the Rig Ved, continued with the other 3 Vedas and later the Upanishads.........after many centuries later came along the Jaina and Buddhist ideas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jainism, Buddhism are not offshoot of Vedic religion
Jainism is not not a part or offshoot of vedic religion. As a matter of fact Jainism totally rejects authority of vedas. Jainism representing shramanic stream and Hinduism representing vedic stream have co-existed peacefully as a part of great Indian culture. Making Jainism a part of Vedic is a great travesty of truth. This has been proved by Indian and western scholars alike.--Anish Shah 11:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the point is that it originated as a reform movement of Vedic religion. Protestantism is also an offshoot of Roman Catholicism, even if it rejects all papal dogma. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It did not originate as a reform movement. This itself is a controversial and disputed point of view. There are many western and Indian scholars who agree that Jainism is an original religion. Just as Hindu orthodox view claims itself to be the mother religion of all Indian religions, there are references in Jainiam that brahmanism (i.e. Hinduism)is an offshoot of Jainism. Whatever may be the truth, it hs been buried in the annals of pre-historic period. Protestantism is a sect of Christainity like Roman Catholicism. It simply rejects papal dogma as you rightly said. But it does not reject the bible itself. Islam under no circumstances can be considered as offshoot of Christainity even though they admit Jesus as a prophet prior to Muhammad.--Anish Shah 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what it even means to state it is an "original religion". But I admit I don't know much about this. Ideally, you should cite some source discussing the origin of Jainism one way or the other. In fact, you could also cite it at Jainism, the "history" section of which is practically worthless as it stands. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Only some "universalist" Hindu tracts that can't stand anything not to be "Hindu" raise claims of the supposedly derivative character of Jainism, Buddhism et al. And there's plenty of respectable material that does not make any such crass claim, when there was every opportunity to do so. One example would be Basham's introduction to Part II: Jainism and Buddhism in Vol 1 of Ainslee T. Embree, Sources of Indian Tradition. Another example would be Part II: The Epic Period of Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy, Vol 1. A third example would be The Heterodox Systems (chapters 8-10) of Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. The notion that Jainism, Buddhism, Lokayata and whatever else are all "offshoots" or "derivatives" of Hinduism is a strictly Hindu POV through and through. rudra 07:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a Hindu PoV, but an inference derived from historical facts and occurrences, to be only refuted by a small (but growing) section of Jain/Buddhist fundamentalists, who percieve themselves and their faith being unduly gulped by the Hindu tidal wave. Rudra, you are refered to the Dharmic religion talk page |here. I have posted an excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita that clearly mentions one tirthankar as a demon. On top of this, the Jains firmly reject the Vedas (now don't ask me for a citation on this; if you still don't know this common fact, then I cannot help it).

All this proves the Protestant character of Jainism. Indian_Air_Force(IAF) —The preceding  signed but undated.

Also, let me clarify that while discussing on this topic, nobody means any disrespect towards Jainism. Jainism is a great faith and its illustrious followers have time and again proven themselves. What we shall discuss here, is purely academic. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we shall not discuss "purely academic" irrelevancies. Until you produce at least one reliable source, there is absolutely nothing to discuss. rudra 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You still have not produced a reliable source for your edit. Because you can't.  The Dharmic Religion talk page is basically unreadable.  All that can be made out is that the sum total of your "case" is a mis-citation of Olivelle and something from Frawley, of all people.  But these talk pages are not for your rambling screeds.  They are about the content of the article.  No one gives a rat's ass for your views, or what might seem "logical" to you.  Produce reliable sources, or go away.  rudra 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not produced sources because there are none. For commonly known facts, that is NOT needed. That no western or Indian scholar bothered to write about all these things till now is neither my problem nor a concern. Check the history of Dharmic Religion page edits, for example. I have already elaborated that there are no sources that Dharmic religions are closely interrelated, but this commonly known fact needn't have a 'source'. If you want a 'source', then buy a ticket, fly down to India and ask around anybody for yourself. Otherwise accept the facts (not mere views) that are being put forth, and keep quiet. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 11:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing academic nor intellectual about IAF's claim that Jainism and buddhism are offshoots of Vedic religion. It is simply parroting the right wing. In fact they are a continuation of Sharamanic tradition nothing else. These are the ground realities In India.--Anish Shah 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not too sure if that qualifies as an academic source, but Girilal Jains book The Hindu phenomenon deals with the subject.

In view of deliberate attempts in recent decades to project Buddhism and Jainism as separate religions, distinct from Hinduism, it would be in order to deal with them in passing. the attempts have clearly been motivated by the design to separate their followers from the parent body called Hinduism just as Sikhs have been to an extent. Though not to the same extent as in the case of Sikhs, the attempts have succeeded in as much as neo-Buddhists and at least some Jains have come to regard themselves as non-Hindus.

In reality, however, Buddhisms and Jainism have been no more than movements within the larger body of Hinduism, not significantly different from Lingayats, Saktas or Bhaktas of more recent times." page 24-25, The Hindu Phenomenon, ISBN 81-86112-32-4.
 * Hope that helps.--nids(&#9794;) 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Viscious81 that was an excellent source. It does help a lot. Adding acid to injury is the fact that the author himself is a Jain. Now since we have a source, we can make the appropriate changes in the intro. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Viscious81, Girilal Jains book The Hindu phenomenon cannot qualify as a source. The role of girilal jain was dubious and infamous. Girilal Jain was sacked in 1988 as Times of India editor when he developed Hindutva sympathies. Hindu phenomenon is nothing but a collection of his articles spewing venom on minorities in India and was done simply to earn brownie points from his ideological masters i.e. Hindutva Right wing. Hence this is not an accepted source. While IAF is rubbing his hands in glee I have already cited dozens of sources that Jainism is independent of Hinduism. For every such charlatans like girilal jain we have hundreds of genuine Hindu scholars who claim jainism as a distinct religion from Vedic Hinduism.--Anish Shah 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In his over enthusiasm of imposing his POV in wikipedia, IAF has scored a self-goal by admitting that Jain tirthankars are mentioned in Vedas and then going on to say that  Jainism also arose sometime after Buddhism as a protestant offshoot of Vedic religion. This is a good example of foot in the mouth that he regularly indulges in. Thanks IAF for admitting that Tirthankars and Jainism predates vedas.--Anish Shah 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Girilal Jain was sacked . Any sources for that.--nids(&#9794;) 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Officially", he retired. Unofficially, he was forcibly retired, in a classic publisher versus editor duel.  So, yes, in a basic sense, he was sacked by Samir Jain (no relation) who in the mid-80s had inherited the family business of which the Times of India was a part.  That Samir Jain and Girilal Jain did not get along at all was well known.  It seems that Samir Jain wanted to "tabloidize" for greater mass-market revenues, while Girilal wanted to keep the emphasis on political and public affairs commentary .  It was mostly coincidental that Girilal Jain's personal views also changed during that time.  From a strong supporter of Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party, he became a strong critic of Congress-style politics.  The Shah Bano case probably had a lot to do with that, and as the Hindutva tide gained momentum in the late 80s (this was before Ayodhya), his sympathies went along.  His Hindu Phenomenon is not impartial, but it's the work of a seasoned political journalist, and thus a decent source of "informed" or "notable" opinion rather than scholarly facts.  rudra 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rudra, I am just curious, are you Indian. You have really good knowledge about the Indian politics.
 * I know about his confrontations with Samir Jain. But no matter how badly he would have wanted to, Samir just didnt had the power to sack Girilal Jain.
 * As for the Shah Bano case, Girilal Jain is the only intellectual (that i know), who did not oppose the scandalous piece of legislation called Muslim Women (protection of rights on divorce) Act. Something that played a significant role in Hindu renaissance. Rest assured that Muslims will not cite him for their case.nids(&#9794;) 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Girilal was still a Congress-vadi in 86 during the Shah Bano affair. I think, though, that it was instrumental to the sea change in his views that occurred in the next few years.  I mentioned it only because I don't think his particular political views at the time had much, if anything at all, to do with his unceremonious ouster from TOI -- though the argument could be made post facto by people who don't know any better. rudra 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Girilal didnt oppose the Muslim women act even in his vicious Hindutvavaadi book "The Hindu Phenomenon". His reasons are interesting though.--nids(&#9794;) 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Classic quote from The Hindu Phenomenon, making the rounds: "The Hindu genius is to blur issues, not to confront them." :-) rudra 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IAF, you have reverted 5 times within a 24 hour period:, , , , . While no admins happen to be watching, I suggest that you not try to push your luck. rudra 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rudra, you have also violated the 3rr. --nids(&#9794;) 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of it, though it's my understanding that the fourth ("more than three") revert is the actual violation. Three (as in my case) is still pushing it, I agree. rudra 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For the education of Hindu chauvinists: The materialistic theory is a bold attempt to rid the age of the oppression of the past and prepare the ground for the great constructive efforts of speculation. It is one of the three major heterodox theories -- the others being Buddhism and Jainism -- in that it did not draw its theories from the Veda and Upanishads and did not attempt to justify its teachings by reference to those basic orthodox texts. (Source: S. Radhakrishnan and C.A. Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Princeton 1957 ISBN 0-691-01958-4. Pp 227-28, Chapter 8: Cārvāka)

In India this crucial period [7th-5th BCE] in the world's history was marked on the one hand by the teaching of the Upanishadic sages, who admitted the inspiration of the Vedas and the relative value of Vedic sacrifices, and on the other hand by the appearance of teachers who were less orthodox than they, and who rejected the Vedas entirely. It was at this time that Jainism and Buddhism arose, the most successful of a large number of heterodox systems, each based on a distinctive set of doctrines [...] (Source: A.L. Basham, The Background of Jainism and Buddhism, in Ainslee T Embree (Ed), Sources of Indian Tradition 2nd Ed, Vol 1, Columbia 1988, p.43) rudra 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From the above post, I learned that it does not discuss the mechanism for Price control of rice in China. Is there anything else.nids(&#9794;) 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, in this scheme of discussion, for the first time I've seen that the argumentative editors kept ranting about, "We wanna see sources" and when confronted with one (and a very well known one at that), they went into discredit-the-author mode. So the accusations on Girilal Jain started. Look, we are here to not discredit authors---that the author was credible, is reason enough to quote it. "Hindu chauvinism" is not my motivation; rather, the quelling of wrong theories propounded by Jain fundamentalists is.
 * Today in India, Hindu-bashing is a fashionable rage. The secularists, the Left, the historians, the "minorities" everyone is at it. Lagey raho.


 * Now as for the above two sources (C. L. Radhakrishnan and Basham), they mention that Jainism did not accept the Vedas (accept in the sense that they disregarded its absolute authority) which is true. But to say that and I quote, "they did not draw from its teachings" can easily be countered from the fact that the Vedantic concepts of Dharma, Karma, Nirvana, Rebirth theory, Moksha, meditation, were borrowed by these religions. This is a glaring historical fact, and is evidence that these religions though being protestant in nature, did borrow many core concepts from Vedic/Vedantic traditions and hence were offshoots or descendants of the Vedic religion. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 06:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

dear people, this dispute is completely offtopic. Take it to Dharmic religions. This is the article on historical (BCE) rituatualism. This article should link to the articles on later Dharmic religions to give historical context, but any particulars regarding their history should not be discussed here. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dharmic religions is about to be deleted as it was part of the evil Hindutva conspiracy.--nids(&#9794;) 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

--Thanks dab for providing a reference from S. Cromwell Crawford that :-
 * 1) These were not direct outgrowths of Vedism, and
 * 2) Alongside Brahmanism was the non-Aryan Shramanic culture with its roots going back to prehistoric times.

It further merely says that they were influenced, not an outgrowths and yet they arose independently. This is the understanding of any reasonable person from the reference howsoever IAF may twist its meaning.

And yet after providing this reference, you have kept that "Religions that have continued from the Vedic religion ". I thought that you were smarter than that. What a goof-up. It needs correction. --Anish Shah 07:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

your way forward is by sticking to WP:CITE and bringing up further evidence along the lines of Crawford. Yes, Shramana tradition is something of an antithesis of Vedic Brahmanism, and has been since at least the 6th century BC. These are the "Gymnosophists" of classical authors. There is still no denying that Buddhism has been influenced by Vedism, constitutes a reform movement of Vedism, and essentially replaced Vedism in the 3rd century BC. Indian Buddhism was in turn replaced by astika Hinduism in the earliest centuries AD. Even before this, Vedic Brahmanism amalgamated with non-Brahmanic, non-Sanskritic traditions. This was a sort of Counter-Reformation, as stated by the EB: "The great epic Mahabharata represents the attempt of Vedic Brahmanism to adjust itself to the new circumstances reflected in the process of the aryanization (integration of Aryan beliefs, practices, and institutions) of the various non-Aryan communities." These are processes that led to the end of the Vedic period. Vedism proper ended around 500 BC, because of the pressure of non-Sanskritic Shramanism on one hand, and the internal "adjustment" to these "new circumstances". Vedism only tenuously survived in Shrauta traditions. With the resurgence of Hinduism in the Early Middle Ages, "Veda" came to be a fuzzy carry-all term, and finally culminated in the "reclaim the Vedas" movements of the 19th century (Vivekananda and friends) who had lost all connection to the original context of these texts.

So, are Buddhism and Jainism "offshoots"? The answer is, it depends on how you understand the term "offshoot". They were alternatives to, and, for several centuries, the effective replacement of, Vedism. If you don't like "offshoot", we can stick with "post-Vedic religion" until somebody comes up with a source that uses "offshoot" to describe this situation. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your education on Medieval India. Despite your long drawn lecture nowhere you could prove that Jainism is an off-shoot of Vedism. your statement until somebody comes up with a source that uses "offshoot" to describe this situation is disappointing. You have a notion without proof that it is an offshoot and hence are waiting for some one to provide the citation. Till then you will keep the statement that "Religions that have continued from the Vedic religion " and any one who changes it or puts a disputed tag will be threatened. So be it. --Anish Shah 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional references from Scholars on uniqueness and non-vedic character of Jainism -

"As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and, therefore governable by Hindu law, we are not told this date of secession [...] Jainism certainly has a longer history than is consistent with its being a creed of dissenters from Hinduism." -	J. L. Jaini, 1916 Jaina Law, Bhadrabahu Samhita, (Text with translation ) Arrah, Central jaina publishing House) P.12-13

"Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather unique and very non-vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism." -	P.S. Jaini, 1979, The Jaina Path to Purification, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, p. 169

Tons of scholarly references have been provided on this issue. (also see the talk pages on Dharmic religion) Contrast this with the lack of scholarly sanction on the "offshoot" theory.

Now the question is - Are reasonable editors willing to listen ?--Anish Shah 09:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anish Shah, why the hostility? so, if you're going to be vitriolic, be vitriolic against trolling such as here, not against people who actually support you, albeit from a more reserved and neutral stance. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I admitted that "offshoot" isn't a good term, thus supporting your position
 * I came up with the academic source supporting your claim that Shramana is "non-Vedic" (I did your job for you)
 * nobody ever claimed the Jainas "fall in the Vedic fold". By "shooting off", to the contrary, they were anti-Vedic from the beginning. Lutherans "shot off" Roman Catholicism: no Lutheran ever fell within the "Roman Catholic fold", by definition.
 * nobody ever claimed "Jainas are dissenters from Hinduism". Jainism can be traced to at least the 6th c. BC. What is commonly described as "Hinduism" is a syncretism of Vedic, Vedantic and folk traditions cobbled together over the Early Middle Ages, contemporary with the decline of Buddhism. Had you read my "long drawn lecture", you would have noticed that I fully agree with you: Jainism+Buddhism came, Buddhism went, Hinduism came, Jainism stayed.

Age of Shramana traditions
Ok Peace ! I have deleted/ amended the alleged hostile sentences/ words. But words "post-vedic religions" for Shramanic religions is also patently wrong. And if Shraman and Vedic religions are parallel then where is the scope of shramanic religion being a continuation from Vedism ? Also once again your following statements here show weak understanding (no offence meant) of the situation where the facts are sacrificed at the cost of supposedly "reserved and neutral stance" -
 * Comparison of Lutheran is incorrect as Lutheran is a sect and Jainism is a seperate religion.
 * "Jainism can be traced to at least the 6th c. BC." I am glad that you mentioned "at least" but still it does not bring a true picture as you are in falling in the fallacy that Mahavira was a founder of Jainism.

To be fair, Yes I admit that you have managed to delete most of the POV's and now the article is More NPOV.


 * look, the 6th century in India is deep prehistory. It is impossible to be sure about anything. We can barely surmise that something like "Jainism" may have existed back then. Of course, if "Hinduism" goes back to the Indus Valley Civilization, so, I suppose, does "Jainism". But that's just extending terms to unknown prehistoric religions. So before you accuse me of "weak understanding" of the 6th century BC in India, let me ask you whence you take your apparently stronger understanding of the same. The Britannica has " Jainism originated in the 7th–5th century BCE in the Ganges basin of eastern India, the scene of intense religious speculation and activity at that time. Buddhism also appeared in this region, as did other belief systems that renounced the world and opposed the ritualistic Brahmanic schools ... The first Jain figure for whom there is reasonable historical evidence is Parshvanatha (or Parshva), a renunciant teacher who may have lived in the 7th century BCE ", so I cannot be that far out of mainstream. If you know better than that, you better cite rock solid academic sources, because tall claims need good references. I am sure the concept of "itinerant ascetic" is as old as the hills, but the term Shramana is from the (Vedic) Shatapatha Brahmana: there are no earlier sources for this. The earliest mention of gymnosophists is in the 1st century AD. I am sure even neolithic Mehrgarh had its loitering sadhus, but that hardly amounts to saying "Jainism dates to 4000 BC". dab (𒁳) 12:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Jain Tirthankars (Arishtanemi) and now even Shramana have been proven to have Vedic/Vedantic origins. So, the source of Mr. Girilal Jain that was provided earlier was right --> Jainism is a derivative of the Vedic faith system. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that, and it appears you're just trying to annoy Anish now. Jainism opposed the ritualistic Brahmanic schools. If "derive" in your book means the same as "oppose", you are correct. In this sense, Christianitiy is "derivative of" paganism, and Communism is "derivative of" Capitalism. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have expounded it earlier on this very page that by derivative, I mean that Jainism has ingrained values like moksha, rebirth et al which have Vedic/Vedantic origins. This is true. If, as you said that shraman traditions or at least a recognition of shramanic practices is present in some Brahmana (provided it dates earlier to Jainism), then that is another evidence that backs the clear view, that Jainism is a derivative of whatever faith system that preceded it.

Again, I may like to point out that terms like "Vedic Brahminism" are totally ACADEMIC in nature, and have only been invented by Britannica Encyclopedia, even when there is no such a concept in India. It is blatantly false and is liable to be rejected outright, even though it comes from the hallowed portals of Britannica (which by the way is quite anti-wikipedia and does not regard it at all). In this case, I'm afraid Britannica's reputation notwithstanding, the opinion of Indians is far more weighted. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vedantic" is not the same as "Vedic", and "moksha" in Vedanta may just as well have Shramanic origins as vice versa. Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism are all reform movements that move away from Vedic ritualism. If "Vedic Brahminism" is totally academic (I agree), why do you keep removing it? If Britannica endorses a term, and IAF the Wikipedian disendorses it as "blatantly false", I am afraid the verdict is clear. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DAB, I'll give you a dab of wisdom. Vedic Brahmanism as a concept is totally fictional in India. That it is a western invention does not make it suitable to be added here.


 * Buddhism and Jainism arose much after the Vedantic period, which itself were commentaries on the already concluded Vedic period. The only difference between these 2 periods is that the nomadic authors of the Vedas had finally settled and started commenting on the Vedas. You cannot even insist on adding Buddhism as a reform movement of the Vedic tradition (when infact it is a few centuries later than the advent of the Vedantic), Same goes for Jainism.


 * Now, as regards the Shrauta tradition, it was more due to a practical compulsion i.e. a scarcity of writing material like paper or rock edicts. It is only today that if you go to any 2nd rate temple there are priests who have memorised many of these texts and will clamour to perform yagyas at any place. Shrauta is, but one of the least significant aspects though it has assumed a religious significance NOW. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Newsflash: this is Wikipedia, not your blog. rudra 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Shrauta may be insignificant to Hinduism, but it is of vast significance to Vedic ritualism. If you do not care about the topic, what are you doing here? --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)