Talk:Shatapatha Brahmana

Age of the ŚB
"The ŚB is notable as one of the oldest prose (non-metrical) Sanskrit texts altogether."

Who said this? Prose texts such as the Aitareya Brahmana and the Pancavimsa Brahmana are considered older by most. If anything, the ŚB is one of the youngest of the "true" Brahmanas (i.e. excluding the Gopatha). There is also a classical controversy going back to a varttika of Katyayana according to which the ŚB is not to be refered to with the -ina.h ending associated with other Brahmanas (as per Panini). IOW, the ŚB was not considered clearly as old as others in its class, and all the Brahmanas happen to be prose. This is discussed in Eggeling's introduction to his translation. I suggest removing this sentence, as unfounded. rudra 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keith, (in the introduction to his translation of the) Aitareya Aranyaka, p.38, writes: "by common consent, the Satapatha is one of the youngest of the great Brahmanas"; and footnotes: "Cf. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, pp. 203, 217. The Jaiminiya may be younger, cf. its use of aadi, Whitney, P.A.O.S, May 1883, p.xii." rudra 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * this would explain my frequent surprise to find full-fledged Vedanta in an "early" Brahmana... assigning it to the 8th to 6th c. BC seems reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"""Linguistically, it belongs to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit, dated to the first half of the 1st millennium BCE (Iron Age India)."""""

What is the proof ? Do you mean to say SB is post Arthasastra and Buddha ? Wikipedia should not be used to project some wayward thoughts into making it a fact of history. Srikant Talegari's books have debunked most of the myths about dating Vedic texts. So this should follow the recent accepted facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apexpreci (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody claimed SB was "post-Buddha", or "post-Arthasastra". It may well predate Buddha by more than a century. Srikant Talageri is an autodidact who has published a book with a lunatic fringe publisher. It stops there. He has not "debunked" anything as far as I am aware. --dab (𒁳) 18:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talageri is part of a dying cult. He even recently wrote a book to “debunk” Early Indians by Tony Joseph. But fortunately Talageri’s work got only the little attention it deserved ChandlerMinh (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shatapatha Brahmana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801202320/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b5c_15.pdf to http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b5c_15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics in SB
Presence of mathematics, especially of multiplication and division, in SB has been established through the fifteen factors of 720 mentioned in SB 10.4.2.1-18. However, how these factors have been obtained in the absence of a script, place-value system and zero, has not been addressed. Absence of script, and hence of numerical symbols, in Indian subcontinent after the decline of Harappan civilization (1900 BC) until the appearance of Brahmi script in the Ashokan edicts (~300 BC) is well known. Place-value system and the symbol for zero are also later inventions. So, either SB is of an age after these systems came into existence, or if it is from 700 BC or prior to that then the problem with finding factors of 720 has to be addressed. 2600:4040:558C:AC00:38EF:18DF:90D4:1170 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)