Talk:Purusha Sukta

Cats?
Can anyone enlighten me as to the meaning of the word "cats" used by Griffith in verse 4? Please try this meaning I collcted from Monier William's online sanscrit dictionary for the word 'cat'-'to hide oneself' or 'to cause to hide'.The sanscrit pronounciation of the word 'cat' is CHAT.Please note I am also not sure about the exact word 'cats' you mentioned here.

"Thence he strode out to every side over what cats not and what cats."

I searched hi & lo on the Internet, but could not find any suitable explanation. Here are some other verses with the same enigma:


 * 1:65:4 "to his sister floods, he cats the woods as a King eats"
 * 1:143:5 "sharpened jaws chews up and cats the trees, and conquers"
 * 2:35:7 "swells the Gods' nectar and cats noble viands"
 * 6:4:5 "Even he who cats his firm hard food"
 * 6:14:1 "That mortal cats before the rest, and finds"
 * 6:15:1 "from ancient days the Child cats everlasting food"
 * 8:91:11 "That which the white-ant cats away"

Could it be that these were typos or derived from an archaic English font that should be "eats"? I don't have an original 1896 paper edition available to confirm my theory; maybe someone here does. If correct, then verse 4 might be referring to plants & animals (i.e., things that don't eat, & things that do eat).--Funhistory 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I can answer my own question after reading verse 14. Parusha might've created the world, but Henry Ford created the car:  "Forth from his navel came mid-air, the sky was fashioned from his head, Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions."  I hope no one will mind my correcting Griffith's text in the article.--Funhistory 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For a slightly alternate spelling of the entire text, free from "C" typos, visit www.aspiringindia.org--Funhistory 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This creation uses yagna metaphor to teach us that teh universe arose from one source. Uses analogy of yagna in which the pashu (animal) offered is the Cosmic person (Purusha). Here the end product is "Creation". 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.

- Purusha here refers to formless and Infinite God as the first 3 verses clearly define. Everything in the poem is symbolic - that's how the seasons Spring was used as melted butter and autumn as an offering.The first part is about the greatness of God, the second part is about the creation and social order, the third parts goes on philosophically about how to attain oneness with Him and the last part is about a prayer to grant the wishes, desires and happiness of all.

In Hinduism everything revolves around Sacrifice(Yajna) and as one of the oldest and holiest poems in Hinduism it talks about the "sacrifice" of the God himself. With his sacrifice of a form he created the elements of the universe and life on earth. And this prods us humans to our own duties and sacrifices following the example of the Lord.

Less Quotations
I think the article should have less quotations and more interpretations by scholars or hindu religious figures, as the Nasadiya Sukta article does.. I'm removing the Griffith's translations. leaflord (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving original research, unsourced materials, and biased claims here.
Dear editors, kindly abide by the policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY as required by Wikipedia. The quality of the article is currently poor owing to content that do not agree with either/all of the three policies. I am thus moving all of that material here, so people who may wish to restore such content can do so after going through the above three and following the guidelines there.

These material that do not confirm to the above three policies can be found in | this version of the article:

Article Introduction: ''Why the purusha suktha was assigned to vishnu is yet to be understand. A rarely used version of the Suktam has an additional 6 verses appended to the end, which is termed the Vaishnava-anuvaka since it has been adopted from the Vishnusukta, a composition of the Rigveda Samhita. The verses of the Uttara-narayana and the Vaishnava-anuvaka do not possess any coherence with the original 16 verses of the Rigveda Samhita, the literary and Vedic tradition has tied them together for reasons not yet known.''

Purusha sukta/sookta is the only Rigvedic hymn dedicated to the Purusha, and thus, even though appearing in a late book of the Rigveda, the oldest attestation of the Purusha.

''As a creation hymn, the Suktam is monotheistic and pregnant with philosophical speculations. In its archaic mythological setting, the Suktam is in striking contrast to the famous creation account of the Rigveda v.10.129-130.''

''In fact, the concept of Purusha pre-dates the cult-based ascriptions like Vaishnavite Sri Vishnu or the Shaivite Bhava. The Purusha was conceptualised as the primordial existence, transcending all Gods and even the creator. However, subsequently, in the cult-based Vaishnavite interpretation, the Purusha sukta was taken to identify Vishnu as the Supreme Being and to draw parallel to the Vishwa Rupa of the Lord Vishnu.''

Content section: The parallel to Norse Ymir and Greco-Roman Zeus is often considered to reflect the myth's origin in Proto-Indo-European religion.

Context section: ''Further, the Suktam is composed in the archaic, old early Vedic Sanskrit language as opposed to Classical Sanskrit, currently used and understood. This language barrier renders the Purusha Suktam extremely difficult to literal interpretation and symbolic clarification.''

--Gandharva95 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

NOT An Actual Sacrifice
The following translation of the Purusha Suktam is from http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-2.html:

Verse 6 yatpurushena havishA | devA yajnam atanvata | vasanto asyAsI-dAjyam | grIshma idhma Saraddhavi: || 6 || (yat) That (yajna) rite that (devA:) the gods (atanvata) performed, (purushena) with the Purusha himself as (havishA) havis, the fire offering, (vasanta) the Spring (AsIt) became (Ajyam) its ghee. (grIshma) The summer became its (idhma) samit-wood firebrand, (Sarad) Autumn became (havi:) its burn offering. What sort of yajna is this sRshTi yajna? Nothing exists but Brahma-purusha, who envelops all. '''Logically, none of the ritual paraphernalia, the materiel, exist. It does not make consistent sense, to me, to look at this as an actual rite of "sacrifice''', where the gods sacrificed a giant to create the world", as this has sometimes been decribed. This was in a comparative work that compared the Purusha Suktam to the Norse tale of how the Aesir made the world from the body of Ymir, the frost-giant. Consider however the traditional view of this as a mAnasa yajna, a meditative sacrifice, of and in the heart, the first gedankeneksperiment, if you will! The sRshTi yajna was Purusha's alone. He was havirbhokta, he who enjoys/eats the havis -- burnt offerings to the fire. His senses were the devas, the gods, who were the ritvik-priests of this sacrifice. Nothing but himself existed to sacrifice. And so he sacrificed himself (purusheNa havisha) as the offering into the creative fires of his heart. A sacrifice of his self to himself, for what or who existed but he? So the devas bound Brahma as the beast of sacrifice, and made ready for the rite.

In other words, this hymn is NOT describing an actual sacrifice. It's describing a meditative sacrifice in the mind of Purusha. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy about authenticity of Purusha suktam
WIth all due respecit to Babasaheb Ambedkar, he was no expert on Sanskrit or the Rig Veda. So why is he being quoted on the authenticity of the Rig Veda. ALl the others were 19th century European imperialists who only wanted to prove that Indians were not original thinkers and that Indian civilization was less ancient and inferior to European. All these have no place here. Please put a separate article for all these criticisms. Get a real Sanskrit scholar to completely rewrite this article, not questionable Europeans claiming to be experts or other opponents of the Vedas and Hinduism in general.

Would you get an atheist/ hater of Abrahamic Religions to give a commentary on the  Torah, the new testament or the Koran from his perspective and criticisms and treat that as canon? Then kindly treat Hinduism similarly and get a genuine Hindu expert of the Vedas and Vedantism to write this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.197.221 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment. This article is completely Euro-centric in its bias. India and followers of the Vedic culture now have to learn about it from Europeans and Buddhists!? The Europeans were trying to destroy Vedic culture as part of their colonization program. And the Buddhists have been against the Vedas since day one. Quoting these scholars is like quoting Nazis about Judaism.Chandraputra (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandraputra (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the Ambedkar quote because he is not a Sanskritist or in any way an expert in the Vedas. He was a lawyer and a politician. How does that make him an expert in the Purusha Sukta? Chandraputra (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * I am fine with the removal of the Ambedkar "quote" because it was not actually a direct quote, but a paraphrase of his opinion. Also agree that Ambedkar is not a great source on the Rigveda and ancient Indian history per se, but it would nevertheless be useful to cite his (and, say, Gandhi's) thoughts on Purusha Suktam as notable 20th century responses to the charge that the Sukta proved that casteism was intrinsic to Hinduism (BA's take was the the verses were a later addition; MKG's take was that the verses were to be read as allegories). The article currently does a very poor job of covering any of this.
 * As for the "colonial/imperialist/Christian scholars" vs "native scholars" debate: such soapboxing is not really helpful to improving the article, and living up to Godwin's law is a great way to ensure that you are not taken seriously on wikipedia. Focus on finding what modern academic sources say on the topic and summarize them fairly in the article instead.
 * Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Vedas do not support caste by birth, that is a corruption of Vedic teaching. You can refer to Bhagavad-gita 4.13 where it states that varna (caste) is NOT determined by birth but by guna -- quality of the man and karma -- the actions they perform. There are many references like this through out the Vedas, Puranasa and Itihasas. And acaryas such as Ramanuja, and Caitanya were totally against the so-called caste by birth. Gandhi's attempt at getting rid of caste was a fiasco because he didn't understand what it was a corruption of.

Regarding Godwin's law, does that mean absolutely nothing can be compared to the Nazis? The Nazis were expert in propaganda they had an agenda regarding the Jews, they spread false propaganda about the Jews. So should we believe what the Nazis had to say about the Jews? The European colonial powers had an agenda in India and did whatever they could to maintain control and exploit that country. They bled it dry. Just consider that the modern image of India is that of an impoverished country of starving people. But at the time of Columbus India (and China) was the wealthiest country in the world. Three hundred years of British rule and it is what you see now, struggling to get back on its feet.

You mentioned going to reliable sources but Indians do not think that the Western scholars quoted both 19th or 21st century are reliable for reasons already mentioned because that agenda is still going on today see http://www.invadingthesacred.com

Therefore you should not be surprised if Indians (BTW I am not an Indian though I do live in India) are not exactly thrilled to see completely Euro-Centric articles about India, as if Indians know nothing about their own culture, but need to learn it from the West.Chandraputra (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not controversial, we can recognize that there is a dispute about the authenticity of purusha sukta. While many of these authors have been outdated within the mainstream scholarship, we have recent authors who would regard it as 'later', and make no further discussion. Maybe we don't need any further explanations, there is no controversy, and according to every of these citations. I would rather change the title of the section, and limit it with 1 quote, who it would be? Probably Max Muller, others can be just attributed by their names, that they considered the hymn to have been formed later. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too looked into this and there doesn't seem to much controversy about dating or "authenticity": The Purusha Sukta (and the 10th Manadala overall) are widely accepted to be of later origin and "modern" relative to the earlier Mandalas of the Rigveda. The date I see most often is ca. 800 BCE. I will update the section with more up-to-date sources attesting to this, in the next day or so.
 * There is the whole other issue of the varying 20th century interpretations of the Sukta text related to varna, which would need to be dealt with in a section of its own as I mentioned above. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is "David Keane (2007), Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law" who is referenced three times considered to be an authority on Purusha Sukta? According to http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/keane-david his specialty is French and Law, and he also speaks Irish. But he doesn't know Sanskrit, yet he is now a expert on Rig Vedic suktas and whether they are corrupt or not. Hmmm. My postman literally knows more Sanskrit than he does.Chandraputra (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The very dating of the Vedas is highly controversial so to stick the date you propose to use will simply be to give the dates that Christians wanted to give to Vedic civilization in order to make it fit into the Mosiac chronology. This is why I find Wikipedia good for some things like Mathematics and Physics but useless for the current subject.Chandraputra (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum and discussions are not helping anyone or anything anymore at the moment. If you can find a citation that would confirm, that these datings are flawed, let us know about it. If you are going to make discussions and promote revisionism, it will likely be ignored. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why then has David Keane, who doesn't know Sanskrit and is not a specialist in Vedic studies quoted as an authority?Chandraputra (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It says that some scholars have disputed, and they have, but that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't better sources than that?Chandraputra (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had pointed one. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of lead
@Wareon In your edit, you changed the first sentence of the long-standing lead, to mention that Purusha sukta is an interpolation, even though information that Some scholars state that certain verses of Purusha Sukta are later interpolations was already mentioned in the lead and therefore this sentence is redundant, and now lead does not follow MOS:FIRST, that first sentence of the lead should be definition of the subject. Therefore old lead should be reverted. Abhinav Yd (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * i agree, and also the citation used to claim its an interpolation is a work by 'david keane' who himself in his paper cited the work of nagarjan v ,who himself is discussing and citing the work of max muller. it is not their independent research. neither david keane or nagarjan v are vedic scholars. only max muller was.and both are only basing their work on his research. so its not fair to calim scholars are saying it.only max muller is.no other vedic scholar is saying that.so its better to mention that then simply deceiving the readers by an extremely weak source which itself depends on another vedic scholar to make a claim. everything can be found in page 26 of the cited source. Cosmotech92 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to arrange a "Vedic scholar" here. See WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * what type of reply is this? then why would anyone write "as per scholars its an interpolation" for a vedic hymn if you cant find reserch of vedic scholars on the topic claiming the samne.and yes, there is a research-by Max Muller, which should be mentioned explicitly. and in any case the lead fails MOS:FIRST. the lead as of now is trying to decieve readers by using a source with titile"caste discrimination".biased much?? nd yes the source is WP:RS but not for this subject.i mean did you even read what i just wrote above? Cosmotech92 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * also i dont want to get into edit war so i am tagging some editors who i think are experienced regarding policies and proper use of references with context. @Fylindfotberserk @CapnJackSp @Joshua Jonathan.will wait for their reply(if they chose to reply).other editors can too reply and explain.if conclusion will be that my above objections and statements are wrong then so be it but replies like "nobody is going to arrange vedic scholars here" are not satisfactory.i am not editing anything as of now but if proper explaination is not provided for why lede is presented like this, lead would be adjusted to meet the guidelines of wikipedia. Cosmotech92 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The info about interpolation is indeed repetotious; it seems to me that the first sentence could do without it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * modified the lede.and yes after some more research,there appears to be more than one vedic scholar making the claim so mentioning only max muller was not appropriate.however there are some disputing it too.hope current new lede is as per guidelines. Cosmotech92 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to look for "Vedic scholar" to fulfill your unwarranted wish. "1500 BCE - 500 BCE" date for Vedas were given by Max Muller and many scholars use that date for Vedas. Are we going to reject them all only because of your yet-unknown vendetta against Max Muller? Don't make these absurd arguments. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you have reverted the lede without proper explaination when its mentioned what policies are being violated with the lede.i will not engage in edit war with you as your agenda is pretty much clear but i am hoping some editor will see through your deception.thank you Cosmotech92 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * also nobody rejected anything .the problem is you dont even read discussions properly and edits i made.just busy reverting everything that dosent suit your pov.you falsely mentioned 'unilateraal decision' in revert summary and went against Consensus. as of now, its only you who is opposing the motion of modifying the lede to meet MOS:first and WP:NPOV. there are atleast three in support. also no veda mentions its an interpolation so i dont understand how it fits in first sentence.WP:UNDUE its an outside study of scholars with some even opossing it.it does not belong in first line as a conclusion because you like it that way. you  have been a wikipedia editor for long time i see,you are experienced maybe you have good connections and support as you are bypassing every policy imaginable to push your pov without any fear of any action against you by anyone.for sure i will not unnecessarily waste my time anymore explaining it to you but do rember the only constant in life is 'change'.someone one day will surely see through it. i am sure.have a good day Cosmotech92 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPA. I have already described why I reverted. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here after the ping - I was recently invited by the bot to vote at another similar RFC, and my suggestion here is similar - If interpolation is central to the discussion around it, and it is indeed referred to as an interpolation, it should be mentioned prominently. If some adjustments are necessary for it to not be repetitive, those should be taken. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree and for that i only removed it from the first sentence as per MOS:FIRST but the concerned editor ignored all these concerns and reverted the edit.what should we do? Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * iirc, there should be good sources to suggest that the Purush Sukta is not infact interpolated. It's a common thing in news media etc to suggest that it was inserted later, based on older scholarship, but more recent scholarship no longer agrees with that. But of course, Cosmotech92, you need to present actual reliable sources for this. I'll try to look around today, let's see if I find anything. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i appreciate inputs from both you and captnjack and i agree.but the thing is that i am not saying that it should not be mentioned that its an interpolation.the whole point is the first sentence of the lede which is not npov by any means nor follows MOS:FIRST.first sentence should simply mention its a hymn in the vedas.interpolation or not should be discussed after it.am i wrong? and also as captian and joshua said actions for extreme repetitiveness should be taken.do advice Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in MOS:FIRST for supporting your view. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * what are you even talking about?"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.
 * Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead". my point is first sentence should just mention its a hymn in vedas, which it is. interpolation or not should be discussed after it.but problem is you are so hell bent on discrediting the sukta that you wont be able to understand it. let all others decide as well who are interested in the topic.you dont have hegemony of the topic(i hope so).let others contribute too. Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do see your point: it might be better to discuss whether or not it's interpolated later in the text rather than having it in the first sentence. But if it's uncontroversial that it is interpolated, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing others that it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence: people are going to see it as a very important, salient fact regarding this. So you need to present at least something rather than just motioning towards Vedic schoalrs or the unreliability of Max Mueller. Anyway, in the frist source I had access to say, it motions towards why the sukta was added, doesn't exactly say whether it was added during the compilation of the text or was added later (i.e. interpolated). I might check other sources later, but it's difficult for me since I won't have access to a computer for quite some time. Here's the source:
 * (Brerton and Jamison 2014) The Rig Veda (3 volume set) p. 1538: This hymn is also notable because it is the only Rgvedic mention of the four varṇas, the hierarchical division of  the social order that forms the theoretical basis for the caste system. One reason that the hymn may have been included in the  Rgveda to provide a  Rgvedic charter for such a division of  society. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thats the thing its very controversial.the sukta is literaly the basis of hinduism as its practised today.and wikipedia treats it like its a joke. Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the second sentence of your comment is pretty dubious, but leave it. Please present an academic source asserting that it's not interpolated, or that it's controversial to say that it's interpolated. Anything. Because you're not going to get anywhere just questioning the current sources. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you know there is a reason why only a single sukta out of avaialbe suktas in all the vedas is attacked from max muller to our modern athiest(as per his page) mr goel :).i might be wrong tho but i strongly sense motivations.call it sixth sense Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * there is one source in the article itself in section of 'authenticity' and i will find more in coming days.but as i said the thing is point is not if its interpolated or not and i dont disagree with scholarships claiming it to be interpolated either.thing is we all agree it should be mentioned after the first line except this single editor as of now.i will give it some time for more inputs.if consensus would be against it then so be it but if not we all have to make sure this editor dosent get away with unilateraly reverting others edits.i am new here so i depend on experienced wikipedians like you a lot. Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything can be done about the "unilateral reverts" as you call them. I also find it pretty annoying, but Wikipedia has a tendency to put adjectives like that, specially unflattering ones, in the first sentence on many articles. Since it has been there for some time, you would have needed a consensus of two-three editors to remove it, and so there was nothing wrong with Aman reverting your changes. You need to present sources, and have some agreement on the talk page before you can make changes that won't be reverted even if some editors disagree with it. Making arguments and citing policy is not enough, and they're usually better understood by the reverting editors. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * well abhinav and joshua supported my vision for first sentence.and captn and you also did(now dont you betray me lol).but ya as i said i will find more sources and wait for more consensus if its required.sometimes i feel wikipedia is a total leftist portal.good for science and stuff.very biased for religion Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia and the its editors do have biases that affect the way information is presented, you're right about that. I guess one has to be aware work their way around it, as with any primary, secondary, or tertiary source, really. Science just has fewer options for slanting it one way or the othe; it's much, much more empirical. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * what do you think of the WP:WEIGHT argument? If you look at the Jamison citation, or any work mentioning 10.90 (I checked a few mentioned in the Varna section of Oxford Bibliographies' Caste article), they simply mention what the sukta is about, without commenting on its authenticity one way or the other. I don't think it is proportionate for us to mention the authenticity part so prominently in the lead based on one source mentioning someone else's claim of interpolation without affirming or denying it. It would be better to have a more neutral lead, no? regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See the section on Purusha_Sukta. There are many more sources that say it is interpolation. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * none of These are any scholars.two are maybe some academic work citing others and  rest are just biased  books. example titles are:1.)riddles of hindutva(wow so neutral)
 * 2.)The trauma of caste(overwhelmingly neutral lol)
 * 3.)contours of Hindu Rashtra- i mean srsly?
 * and one or two academic work you cited also depends on past work of someone else and are just mentioning purusha sukta in their work as "ya many 'critics' agree that its interpolation","in the opinion of...., this is interpolation". you call it research in such a critical subject?
 * and also there is a Zoroastrian text similar to purusha sukta in avesta (by the iranian branch of indo-iranians, other being indo aryans who created vedas).they interpolated too? You cannot discredit a hymn of vedas which is universally accepted by hindu society in the first line describing it and that too based on these biased books.i understand you hate hinduism but why even do this type of deception ? That is my opinion.ill wait what others have to say, if they have to say anything. Cosmotech92 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * call it interpolataion as much as you want in the article, fill it completely with it .cite all these biased books.no issues. but first sentence should not be pov pushing. Cosmotech92 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPA. Your WP:TROLLING is getting out of hand. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this debate from the sidelines for a while, because I am busy with other stuff. But I agree that the lead sentence is misleading and unhelpful. It is well-known among Vedic scholarship that the books (mandalas) 1 and 10 were later additions to the Rigveda, but still added during the Vedic period. "Later period" is weasel wording and "interpolation" makes it sound even worse. The source is not WP:HISTRS. I recommend mentioning "10th mandala" explicitly, instead of the coded "10.90", and leave the exact chronology to a more detailed discussion in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
 * No its not misleading. There are 2 Vedic periods. 1 is early Vedic period from 1500 - 1000 BCE and another is "later Vedic period" from 1000 - 600 BCE. John Muir noted "hymns which we find in this collection (Purusha Sukta) are of very different periods". I have cited enough sources above which confirm the importance of the fact that this hymn is interpolated. There are no sources that dispute it except the religiously motivated ones that fail WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think a number of sources from 19th century, pre-independence Indology and reports of some remarks have much value here. Modern sources do not prominently promote the interpolation narrative, so following them we shouldn't either. The sources determine how important a given fact is, not the editors. Considering the opposition by various members, I think you should stop adding it back. I will make an edit shortly, hopefully in accordance with the comments here.
 * Regarding the second part, a variety of reasons might motivate someone to oppose (prominently displaying on Wikipedia) the idea that the hymn is interpolated; aside from pro-varna religious Hindus, an anti-Hindu might oppose it in an effort to portray Hinduism as essentially casteist and fundamentally at odds with modernity. Conversely, reformist Hindus might want to promote the "interpolation" narrative to counter this idea of varna divisions in "uncorrupted Vedic Hinduism", and so on. It doesn't make sense to dwell much on motivations. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 02:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with, there is a lot of opinionated western scholarship. Michael Witzel, who counts as WP:HISTRS, says this:

So the Purusha-sukta, along with the rest of Book 10, comes at the junction of the Old vedic and Middle Vedic periods. There is plenty of other evidence that it arose in the Kuru State where a sedentary society and a "Brahma-Kshatra alliance" was formed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Replicating my comments from Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. There are various references that state the Purusha Sukta is a hymn in the Rigveda, without any reference it being an interpolation. The view that it is interpolation is divided. Defining it in the first sentence as an "interpolated hymn" is WP:POV pushing. Redtigerxyz  Talk 12:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You cannnot dictate your own POV here. You should instead provide sources that say the hymn being interpolation is misleading. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aman Kumar Goel, noone is disputing the sources that Purusha Sukta is an interpolation; also there exist sources that do not refer to it as simply "90th hymn of the 10th mandala of the Rigveda" (the lead sentence), read (not interpolated hymn in Rigveda) references already provided. We should include both POVs in the lead that it is interpolation and it is not as in the current version . this version pushes the POV that it is an interpolation on two counts:


 * 1) Defining it as "an interpolated hymn" (MOS:FIRST)
 * 2) Making the blanket statement that "Scholars state that verses of Purusha Sukta are later interpolations to the Rigveda." (instead of "Some scholars state that verses of Purusha Sukta are later interpolations to the Rigveda,[1] while some dispute this idea"); as though it is a general consensus that all scholars believe it is an interpolation. Let's have a Neutral POV and present both POVs.  Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are your scholars who disagree that it is not an interpolation? Nobody disagrees. The hymn is interpolated and it should be in first sentence. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The only single person pushing his pov and asking the same question again and again here is 'you'.its only 'you' who is against the consesus. do you not understand english? can you not read comments from everyone? what part of mos:first you dont understand? what part off all the explaination provided by everyone you dont understand? what part of people not disagreeing that interpolation part must be included but not in the first sentence you dont understand? what part that its not a universally accepted 'fact' that its interpolated you dont understand?blatant pov pushing. Cosmotech92 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Given the tons of spelling mistakes and grammatical problems in your message, you should really work over your WP:CIR instead of asking me "do you not understand english?" Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * its really a time waste debating with you. given you cannot understand simple reasoning by people ,you are not worth my time.consensus is against you. wp:democracy dosent apply here.proper reasonsing is provided, just your biased mind is unable to comprehend.and yes i dont use grammarly or chatgpt before typing my comment like you.you are just not worth my time but do rmbr this time you go against consensus, you will be reported. Cosmotech92 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am typing on Wikipedia well before "grammarly or chatgpt" were even invented. Stop WP:TROLLING me. You have been warned. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * its you who just made fun of writing skills and now playing victim..wow just wow. and stop unnecessarily attacking my talk page..it comes under harrasment Cosmotech92 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "do you not understand english? can you not read comments from everyone?" was said by you, not me. Your continued dishonesty is tantamounting to outright WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * if you keep on repeating the same thing again and again even after explaination by so many people, then any sane person will say that. its not trolling. you dont know the level i can troll people.so let it be.i made my point i dont wish to engage with you anymore.i know what you are trying to do Cosmotech92 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still haven't been provided with scholarly sources that say this is not an interpolation. Now read WP:FOC and comment only on content as you have been already told before on talk page of yours. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * for starters,one is in the article itself and your argument is flawed.its like asking give me scholarly sources which say some hymn "x.y" in some veda is an interpolation.can you give me scholarly souces which say sukta 5.8 is not an interpolation?for one: rigveda does not mention its an interpolation.its an external research. people who claim its an interpolation may have a bias, which is explained by many people above.no one is saying it cannot be an interpolation.sure, it could be.do mention it.but its not a universally accepted "fact" so does not belong in first sentence.its very simple to understand.this is my last comment. i dont have any more patience.if others wish to engage with you they can.i am done for good.everything is here in talk page.all the arguments. Cosmotech92 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are sources that say this hymn is interpolation. Those trying to undermine this fact from the lead should show what sources they have read. Your mental gymnastic is not needed. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I got notified on my talk page about this discussion from a user who is now blocked. I note the lack of reliable sources stating that is not interpolation. As such, I am restoring the last stable version. Wareon (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring all the discussion here, on the talk page. Please respect the consensus. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CapnJackSp agreed with the stable version and so did I. Don't ignore that I frequently demanded reliable sources that disapprove the fact that is interpolation. Cosmotech92 is already blocked per WP:NOTHERE. And now Wareon has also agreed that the new version was problematic. Where is the consensus? There is none. Keep the stable version unless you really gain consensus. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the argument that something widely held to be interpolated should not be called as such. quite hard to subscribe to. I could entertain a suggestion to combine the first two sentences, however, for more coherence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "widely" called so. It's a few marginal sources, most general sources mentioning the sukta say nothing like it. Anyway, this is quite brazen and annoying, as usual for Wikipedians. Do whatever you guys like. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 13:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite (TrangaBellam)

 * @Abhinav Yd, Aman.kumar.goel, CapnJackSp, Cosmotech92, Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, Redtigerxyz, TryKid: I have rewritten the lead and you might wish to take a look. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks. (I changed my mind about "interpolation" after re-reading R. S. Sharma. It is a pity that Witzel hasn't clarified it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think that interpolation is the wrong term to use in the context notwithstanding Sharma. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is what I read from R.S. Sharma. The Purushasukta, with some variations, is also found one of the last few chapters of Atharvaveda. So, he concludes that it was composed towards the end of the Atharvaveda period ("Middle Vedic period" as per Witzel's terminology). But Witzel doesn't say that the 10th mandala was composed all the way till the end of the Middle Vedic period. So there is a problem here. Secondly, Sharma also has a lot to offer by way of the "prehistory of the varna system". For a long time, Vaishyas were simply called Aryas, and Shudras wasn't recognised as a class. So, if Purushasukta was composed at the juncture of the Early Vedic and Middle Vedic periods, it leaves no room for this "prehistory". But, except for RS Sharma, nobody has noticed this prehistory, which is sad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, looks good. Added the word "generally" to reflect a general consensus; rather than a universal fact.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And who is disagreeing? You must name them here instead of making unilateral modifications to unopposed lead. Wareon (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Vaman Shivram Apte defines it "of the 90th hymn of the 10th Maṇḍala of the Ṛigveda (regarded as a very sacred hymn)." . Britannica calls it a "Rigvedic hymn" "Quite another myth is recorded in the last (10th) book of the Rigveda: the “Hymn of the Cosmic Man” (Purushasukta) explains that the universe was created out of the parts of the body of a single cosmic man (Purusha) when his body was offered at the primordial sacrifice." R C Majumdar in Vedic Age uses the hymn to “prove that the formulation of castes, if not the Caste System, was already a fait accompli in the age of the Rig Veda”. "The Puruṣasūkta: Its Relation to the Caste System"

Arvind Sharma says "It may also be added that chronologically the Purusasukta is a “late hymn”) as it belongs to the tenth mandala." (first and tenth mandalas are generally considered the most latest; however it is not considered an "interpolation"). Benimadhab Barua, A History of Pre-Buddhist Indian Philosophy (University of Calcutta, 1921) p. 33. says "considered as the first theocratic basis of the Caturvarnya system of the Brahmanas”.
 * Also, suggest renaming "Authenticity" to a more neutral title. Authenticity suggests that there is a discussion if the hymn is counterfeit like the Gyuwon Sahwa. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Vaman Shivram Apte is too old so he cannot be considered. Arvind Sharma is not really supportive of your view.
 * The headings are fine and reflecting the content. Wareon (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)