Talk:Mandala 1

Anukramani
according to


 * 1-10 Madhucchandas VaiSvAmitra
 * 11 JetA MAdhucchandas
 * 12-23 MedhAtithi KANva
 * 24-30 SunahSepa AjIgarti later DevarAta VaiSvAmitra
 * 31-35 HiraNyastUpa ANgiras
 * 36-43 KaNva Ghaura
 * 44-50 PraskaNva KANva
 * 51-57 Savya ANgiras
 * 58-64 NodhAs Gautama
 * 65-73 ParASara sAktya
 * 74-93 Gotama RAhUgaNa
 * 94-98 Kutsa ANgiras
 * 99 KaSyapa MArIca
 * 100 RjrASva VArSAgira
 * 101-115 Kutsa ANgiras
 * 116-126 KakSIvAn Dairghatamas
 * 127-139 Parucchepa DaivodAsI
 * 140-164 DIrghatamas Aucathya
 * 165-191 Agastya MaitrAvaruNI

Henotheism
it's not clear to me why you removed sourced info "because of henotheism tangent." , I suppose you wonder too? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Because this text doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with Mandala 1. I also wanted to restore the sentence on the editio princeps. Haukur (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the "Interpretation" sections is mostly about verse 1.164.46, which is quoted verbatim. Let's see what MSW has got to say. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We could write a separate article on the Rigveda 1.164 hymn, where interpretation of this sort might be at home. But it's a bit unbalanced to go on at length about one particular hymn in the article on the mandala as a whole. I'm working on an article on hymn 1.32, by the way. Haukur (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems Haukur's real concern is balance and over-emphasis on one hymn, rather than whether this article should mention henotheism at all. I agree that the article needs to discuss the "mandala", not predominantly a particular "hymn". Reverting it to an old version makes it worse though, as that version too is mentioning the same single hymn but alleges "emerging monism or monotheism" without citing any source. This is an old dated source which discusses many more hymns of mandala 1 (and other mandalas) in henotheism context. There are more recent sources on this. The old version of this article is worse. Though, the situation is a bit more complicated. In the 19th-century, there emerged a view, one championed by Dayanand Saraswati and his Arya Samaj group. This group offered this hymn as one of its proof that the Rigveda teaches monotheism, and Hinduism is a monotheistic religion (we heard the same minority/fringe arguments in some recent textbook controversies). We must avoid inadvertently highlighting the fringe in this article. In short, Haukur is right in ways, as is JJ. We need to address the balance issues, focus on the mandala and the various hymns in a more comprehensive, constructive manner. But reverting is back to that old version is not the way, it weakens this article further. We do need to address the essence and spirit of Haukur's concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we all basically agree on the path forward. I may work on this a bit after I finish up with hymn I.32. Haukur (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've now written an article on Rigveda 1.32. Haukur (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)