Talk:Vedas/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014
Please change "While White Yajurveda separates the Samhita from its Brahmana (the Shatapatha Brahmana), the e Black Yajurveda intersperses" to "While Krishna (White) Yajurveda separates the Samhita from its Brahmana (the Shatapatha Brahmana), the Shukla (Black) Yajurveda intersperses" as Krishna and Shukla vedas are the original names of the two types of Yajurveda and not Black or White Veda moreover, the character 'e' before Back Yayurveda is a typing mistake.

Gaurangpkhurana (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Krishna=Black. Shukla=White. (Monier Williams) Reverted and removed e. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Add a book name in the section o"f Further reading"
When I went through this book Name "Nomenclature of The Vedas" that is good book.I am not only saying this you can find it under "Prabuddha Bhārata's" book review section here is the review The author, Swamini Atmaprajnananda 646 PB November 2014. I just suggest you must add this book in the Further reading or where ever you think right. Thank you --Stallion444 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs)

Veda Sanskrit
There should be a footnote that Sanskrit translation into English is very prone to interpretation and may not reflect indigenous understanding by Indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.248.95 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Correction needed
When you view this article Vedas, it has a doubling of two words in the text under the section 'Etymology and usage': The noun is from PIE *u̯eidos, cognate to Greek (ϝ)εἶδος "aspect, form". Not to be confused is the homonymous 1st and 3rd person singular perfect tense véda, cognate to cognate to Greek (ϝ)οἶδα (w)oida "I know". Root cognate are Polish "wiedza", "widzieć", Greek ἰδέα, English wit, witness, German wissen, Latin video.

The doubling of the words 'cognate to' is doubled for unknown reason, but viewing the source of the text does not contain that doubling. Please correct that. 213.172.251.107 14:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for spotting that. Abecedare 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please replace Max Muller with Max Müller. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect dating of Vedas
There needs to be a correction of the dating; the Vedas are said to at least go back before the drying up of the ancient Saraswati River(not only written about but praised as a deity). This 1200/1100bc or similar dating was put forth by racist British "scholars", based on the debunk notion of an Aryan invasion (it was made up, and isn't based on the actual writings themselves, not to mention archaeological and cosmological evidence). This is a travesty of historical documentation, and shows the lack of knowledge, and possible bias, of the contributors to this particular entry. 96.33.189.54 (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Red Daredevil edits
Welcome to wikipedia. I have reverted your edits, because it is poorly sourced and you cut and paste cite pending old version from somewhere. Some of what you added is not directly relevant to the topic, misrepresents Buddhism and Jainism, and reads like WP:Coatrack. The text you added is based on Robert Spence Hardy, who died nearly 150 years ago, is not WP:RS. We need to rely on recent reliable sources. Please discuss your proposed changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Appropriateness of refernce #29
Refernce #29 is not appropriate in that it is not about any kind of evidence to support the dating of the Vedas. I believe it should be removed. This is not a critique of the article pointed to by the reference. Shantnup (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Shantnup: Indeed. Will fix it shortly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead
what is factually incorrect in the lead? which source and page number states what, that supports your claim? why should Nalanda claim be in the lead section, without discussion in the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unifying Hinduism, pages 2-5. This schema of deeming philosophies orthodox and heterodox is a 12th-16th century invention of Vedantins.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: We can add Nicholson's view on orthodox schools from page 4. But we must summarize other scholars. Wikipedia is not Nicholson-pedia. Why are you deleting the views of other scholars, why take sides and ignore WP:NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not about NPOV. Its about reliability.  Your sources are unreliable since other scholars contradict them.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: You have only mentioned Nicholson, not "other scholars". Nicholson states, "it is surprising how widespread and influential this understanding of the schools of Indian philosophy [astika and nastika] remains today". In other words: Nicholson is acknowledging that this doxography is the majority view. What you are deleting, therefore, is surprising and unpersuasive. Disagreement between scholars does not make one side unreliable. As a compromise, I would welcome adding a brief summary from the last 2 paragraphs from Nicholson's page 4, as a clarifying note. Will that be acceptable to you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Flood himself makes similar points to Nicholson on page 231. So you are contradicting your own source.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: Nope. Have you seen pages 81-82 of Flood's 1996 book? Flood's page 231 is not contradicting those pages, nor is it contradicting what is in the "Hindu theology and philosophy" (chapter 10), of which page 231 is a part. We need to summarize what Nicholson acknowledges is the widespread view. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes made by VictoriaGrayson</b> Adiagr (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adiagr: Please explain. You can't vote to abolish all wikipedia content policies, such as abandon WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, see WP:CONSENSUS.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, responding to this post) @VictoriaGrayson: Actually it is you who is cherrypicking, since you have avoided addressing my comments such as about pages 81-82 of Flood above. You are also cherrypicking rules from wikipedia's policy pages.
 * The WP:CONSENSUS states, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
 * See also the first line of this section, and rest of that section, on the same page.
 * Your argument to revoke WP:OR, WP:V, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV for this article, through vote, by asserting WP:IAR as you do, is absurd, unpersuasive and will lead to WP:TE in this and other wikipedia articles. We can take this issue to WP:DRN if you like. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:IRONY. It is your content which is violating all those policies.  We have consensus to replace your cherrypicking content.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) @VictoriaGrayson: Read my comment above. I already invited you to add Nicholson's view as well, into the lead and the main article. If you wish, I will do it for you. We need to respect WP:NPOV, and not take sides. We need to keep in this article what Nicholson acknowledges is the widespread scholarly view. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above responds to this post. @Vic: Do you want me to add a summary from Nicholson as well? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Eh, can I just say that "Your sources are unreliable since other scholars contradict them" is ... how do I say this diplomatically ... not really valid or sensical? Sources are unreliable because they are unreliable, not because everyone agree with them. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to include Nicholson
@VictoriaGrayson: Here is a draft which includes the Nicholson source and what Nicholson admits is the widespread scholarly view. For [note 1] and [19], please refer to this version.


 * The various Indian philosophies and denominations have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). [note 1] Other Indian traditions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka and Ajivika which did not regard the Vedas as authorities are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools.[19] This differentiation between orthodox and heterodox, occurred in and after the 12th-century CE as part of a retrospective construction of mainstream Hindu philosophy based on six systems (saddarshana). This system was adopted by Indian and European Indologists in the 18th- and 19th-century, and is the widespread and influential understanding of the Indian philosophies today. Before then, states Nicholson, the different Vedas-inspired schools had not thought of commonalities between them nor their differences from traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism.

Your comments, suggestions for improvement? Of course, we will expand the main article too to support Nicholson etc in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Once again using one particular schema of orthodox and heterodox.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: This is in the WP:RS. Is there another schema you will like included, or anything more from Nicholson you want added? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Madhava uses a totally different classification. You are just trying to push one specific schema.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: This is an article on the Vedas, not schema. If you identify a WP:RS with page number(s) for alternate schema, relevant to the Vedas, we can include that as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You are the one who keeps trying to insert this material not me.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Since we are in ANI too, I ask you to avoid these silly accusations of "you are trying to push" and "cherrypicking". It is getting tiresome, and violates WP:CIVIL. Just constructively propose language and identify WP:RS that will improve this article. The content above belongs in this article because it is in numerous WP:RS, it is about the Vedas and how they have been influential in scholarly understanding/classification of Indian philosophies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why does WP:CHERRYPICKING exist?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Nicholson as saying that, before the 12th century, the astika and nastika concepts didn't exist. They are even to be found in Manu according to Wendy Doniger. All that Nicholson is saying is that the dividing lines between astika and nastika were clearly drawn in the 12th century. Or, in layman terms, the dividing lines between Hindu and non-Hindu were clearly drawn, ergo Hinduism got unified. Before that, the schools quibbled over details. I don't think any of this needs to go into the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: Indeed. Nicholson dedicates much of chapter 9 to astika and nastika (and part of chapter 8 too) on this. He quotes works from Jainism/Buddhism/Hinduism literature from the 1st-millennium to show astika and nastika in the context of the Vedas. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson: WP:CHERRYPICKING is an essay. Cherrypicking means "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says". You are casting aspersions when you allege this, and being disruptive when you delete entire sourced paragraphs after making such allegations. It is inappropriate to delete WP:RS sourced summaries. The correct action, if there indeed is cherrypicking, is to add 'contradictory or qualifying information' to the article, from the WP:RS and page number(s). In cases of continued content dispute, propose and discuss the additional language on the article's talk page. That is not what you have done so far, while making accusations of WP:Cherrypicking against one or more wiki editors (note: astika/nastika, orthodox/heterodox has been part of this article's lead before my first edit to this article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sages
Should we add a hyperlink to the word sages in the second paragraph: "The Veda, for orthodox Indian theologians, are considered revelations seen by ancient sages after intense meditation..."? Gordon410 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added a linnk to sage (philosophy). There is a link to Rishi later in the paragraph. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Replace last paragraph of lead
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The last paragraph of the lead is about a specific late medieval schema of categorizing 6 philosophies, known as the Saḍdarśana. It is not universal. Madhvacharya did not follow it. Many tantrics didn't follow it. I propose to replace the last paragraph of the lead with: "The Vedas, and its ancillary sciences called the Vedangas, were part of the curriculum at ancient universities such as at Taxila, Nalanda and Vikramashila."

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - Per above.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the last paragraph, and I don't see how the proposed replacement has anything to do with the original. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like the last paragraph, and I don't like the proposed replacement. astika and nastika are really inappropriate terms to describe vedantic traditions, in my view. Many who use nastika in this day and age use it to label someone an atheist. Whiteguru (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I was pinged by the RFC bot and feel out of my depth on this subject, but I can contribute a comment from an outsider's perspective. When I read the current paragraph, I immediately asked myself "classified by whom"? Having looked up the source, I see that the label of unorthodoxy is applied by those who regard themselves as orthodox. This leads me to two other questions: 1) does the astika/nastika distinction have acceptance as an objective classification in RSs, which isn't evident from the cited source?, and 2) why use these terms in the lead when they don't seem to reappear in the main body of the article? Other than that, the current paragraph seems to contain useful information which isn't covered by the proposed replacement. Eperoton (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per @Kautilya3, plus WP:RS and reasons above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In response to Eperoton, the "orthodox" term seems to me from what I have read to denote "orthodox" Hinduism, which is the system which uses the Vedas most regularly. There almost certainly are sources which refer to such an "orthodox" Hinduism, although I acknowledge I don't have any right in front of me. Also, frankly, the proposed alternative seems to me to be far too short. I think a more reasonable approach would be to seek to clarify the usage of the word "orthodox" in the paragraph. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Encyclopedia Britannica supports the existing lead's usage (I have added supporting refs to the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Pinging editors for neutral input.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology
"Strange" that Jewpedia/Wikipedia does not use the Slavic Slovenian term "Vedeti" (to know) and "Veda" = "knowledge" (abstract form for Znanye in slavic), Jewpedia rather uses greek and latin forms for "to see" which have NOTHING to do with the word Veda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.137.96 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016
Shri Gurucharitra written by Saraswati Gangadhar mentions how the Vedas were transmitted. Rishi Bharadwaja performed tapasya to please Lord Brahma and learn all Vedas in his Brahmacharya ashram. Lord Brahma mentioned that Vedas are limitless and pointed him to 3 huge mountains, the sight of which frightened Rishi Bharadwaja. Finally Lord Brahma gave him 3 fists from the mountains, which became 4 Vedas. Vyasa transmitted these Vedas to his disciples - Rigveda to Rishi Pail, Yajurveda to Rishi Vaishampayan, Samaveda to Rishi Jaimini and Atharveda to Rishi Sumantu. https://mr.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE</ref. Shrigurudevdatta (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Shrigurudevdatta: Thanks for the suggestion. This would be WP:Undue, WP:Primary and WP:WWIN. There are a zillion mythical, fringe, fictional stories on how the Vedas were created/transmitted. This addition does not meet content guidelines and would not improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017
This page says that the texts are considered apauruseya, when it should be apaurusheya. Kaitlinarrieta2000 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please see IAST. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive OR
Where does Max Muller state, "Some English Veda Translators are created so many myths about vedas. The main target is making india hollow."? I looked at page 34 of your alleged Max Muller cite, but that is about Burnouf-Humboldt! Nothing at all is there to support what you added. Please do not add such OR, and do not edit war in this or another wikipedia article. If you have concerns, please explain. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can study my references which is mentioned by me in that "Vedic Controversy".  ~AbHi      Chat Me!! 📥  03:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I studied them. Your contribution failed verification. Please stop the English-Translators-bashing / Europeans-bashing, or inserting allegations such as "making India hollow" etc. We must stick to summarizing the content and conclusions in the WP:RS. Please review wikipedia's content guidelines. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can study a book by Prof. Laxmidatta Dixit's (Vidyananda Sarswati) "Aaryon Ka Aadidesh". There is some of my resources and much more for information. I do not believe that you are studied them. After that you can say. ~AbHi      Chat Me!! 📥  12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not helpful. Instead of asking me to read Dixit next, why don't you explain where does your alleged Max Muller cite state, "Some English Veda Translators are created so many myths about vedas. The main target is making india hollow." on page 34? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Where i said that he is maxmuller? I said some. Maybe you don't know about india before freedom. Here was so many foreigner people wanted to destroy our culture. I said SOME. Not all. But some forefingers like Mr. Muir Was with us. More i do not want to say you can read that book then everything will b explained. ~AbHi      Chat Me!! 📥  03:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Vedic Controversy"
The controversy is that this whole section needs to be deleted, or taken up by someone serious and professional. Look at the horrendous quality of this bit, and it reeks of someone pushing personal bias with poor English skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.197.227 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, claiming Aryan authorship is bullshit!! Jeffreycharlesarcher (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Aryan authorship of the Vedas is more than moderately questionable...
That this article is not editable is evidently to protect the very outdated and racist notion that Aryan invaders to India were the authors of the Vedas. Even mainstream scholars acknowledge that the Aryan invasion, as represented in early 20th century historiography, is not true, and that the ancient peoples of India were indeed the reciters and authors of the Vedas. Jeffreycharlesarcher (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeffreycharlesarcher: Welcome to wikipedia. Please review the content guidelines. We summarize what mainstream majority views are in peer reviewed secondary and tertiary scholarship, to the best of our abilities, per those content guidelines. We must ignore your allegations of "very outdated" etc, and the POVs of others based on Hindu/non-Hindu opinions. Welcome would be peer reviewed reliable sources that state something other than what this article states. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This exactly why wikipedia is useless for serious research. If anything it is an example of what not to do. Now Ms Welch wants us to add up the opinions of all scholars since 1790 and find the results even if more up to date research proves them wrong. The Aryan invasion is a myth perpetuated by wikipedia. 49.207.53.88 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Order ot the sections of the Vedas.
Whoever did this article really doesn't know the basics. In the lead in they state that the Vedas are divided into is: Samhita, Aranyaka, Brahmanas and Upanishads. The actual order is: Samhita, Brahmanas, Aranyaka, and Upanishads. And the definition of "Aranyakas" is totally wrong, it literally means "forest discourses" and were verging in nature to be like Upanishads. (Think Brhad aranyaka Upanshad.) Also there was only one Veda, but at the end of Dvapara Yuga Veda Vyasa divided the one Veda into four. They all came out from same veda so Rig is not older than Atharva. This is all mish mash thinking of orientalist European scholars. And the word "Hindu" is no where found in Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata etc. It is a relatively modern word given to indigeounous people by foriengers. But what do you expect from wickidpedia. Why do I even bother coming here? I will have to figure out how to block search engines from showing wikipedia 49.207.53.88 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Section on Etymology and usage
Can the second sentence under the first paragraph of this section be rephrased? Is "derived" an assertion?

"...This is reconstructed as being derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *u̯eid-, meaning "see" or "know".[22]..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.71.88 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017
"repeated again" to "repeated" since it is repetitious 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  06:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vedas. 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/20140918022828/http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ngmcp/about_ngmpp_e.html to http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ngmcp/about_ngmpp_e.html

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) 03:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please pipelinke hymns in the lead to Music of India
Confirmed editors please do it, i can not do as an ip. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation
They were created by Vishnu as 4 children (since knowledge is pure as children) and not Bramha. Vishnu had given Bramha to bestow the Vedas to the human race. However, in the process the vedas were stolen by demon Haigriv. Vishnu in his Matsya avatar kills Haigriv and retrieves the vedas. He decides to keep them with him. However during the great deluge, owing to Manu's cleverness to preserve the saptarishi's to continue delivering knowledge, Vishnu impressed hands upon the Vedas to Manu, Shatarupa and Saptarishis. Source : Vishnupuran. Raunak22 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Astiķa doesn't correlate with term orthodox
Astika means one who believe the God or with reference to that time period it means a believer of shruti and smriti  Srijansuryansh (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Are Vedas "religious" texts?
I contest the opening sentence "The Vedas (/ˈveɪdəz, ˈviː-/;[1] Sanskrit: वेद veda, "knowledge") are a large body of religious texts"

Propose to change this to philosophical texts.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018
Rig Veda was written at around 1700–1100 BCE Samaveda was written at around 1500 BC. Even though not exact date is given this date was Max Müller Kaysonsedu (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make exactly.  Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources where appropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is "composed" not "written" ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Authorship and lead
In response to the previous discussion, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've copied part of the lead into the body of the article: diff "Authorship"; diff "Ideas and concepts" and "Authority of the Vedas." Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, yet these three topics were only mentioned in the lead, not in the article; quite odd, isn't it?
 * The section on "Ideas and concepts" might be expanded; but it might also be removed again.
 * Additionally, I've added my proposal from the previous discussion to the "Authority"-section diff, despite lack of further discussion; this because there already was information on this topic in the article.
 * I also think that the copied parts in the lead might be shortened, but I welcome comments from other editors as to what might be removed from the lead.
 * It is not surprising that the lead is different. India-related pages have had a long history of various editors promoting their favorite version of the a topic in various sections of pages, but never being able to put in place a high-level lead which integrated those various sections. In many pages, therefore, the leads were rewritten using the best sources, with the expectation that editors would use those sources to rewrite the main body (which, btw, you have done in small part, for which you deserve our thanks).  That usually stopped the edit-warring and POV promotion in the article main body, but the rewriting proceeded in fits and starts and sometimes never really did reach any conclusive stage (in many, it barely has begun).  In such states, these articles have remained, justified with the principle: a POV main body with an NPOV lead is better than a POV article.  This is very likely one of those pages.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverts
User:Abecedare reverted diff a series of edits by User:Ulughu Khan, edit-summary

Ulughu Khan then reverted Abecedare diff, edit-summary

I agree with Abecedare; in addition, I think that those additons are substandard, and in case of the "Criticism"-section WP:UNDUE and highly selective. All in all, a number of arbitrary lists which are hardly informative. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Origin: this is not about the origins of the Vedas, but a list of explanations about the origins of the Vedas, as found in various scriptures. What's the relevance (and accuracy) of this list; what's the context?
 * Authorship: again, a statement without context, from one source.
 * Criticism: why these criticisms? What's the historical context?
 * Origin: I agree with you on this one.
 * Authorship: Without context? It is pretty straightforward. Who wrote the Vedas? As for one source, there is a unanimity among historians, as far as I know that the Vedas are penned by the mentioned people, so it's not like I'm giving a biased or controversial opinion.
 * Criticism: The fact that criticism exists at all is enough reason to mention it here, in addition to the fact that the Vedas are held in respect by 800 million people, so giving the opinion of detractors is warranted. The quoted sources furthermore are eminent and respected scholars in this field, not partisan or unlearned opinions. The logic behind adding a quote praising the Vedas by Voltaire can be asked the same questions you have asked me.
 * User:Ulughu_Khan —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the info on the rishis diff, including the two sites you gave in this revert (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Veda and https://www.ancient.eu/The_Vedas/ ), and moved it upwards. The rest of the section I've removed; it's WP:OR. For the statement "This is evidenced by the Anukramanis and the some of the hymns contained within the Vedas" three references to the Rig Veda are given, namely Rig-Veda Ⅰ 62,13, Rig-Veda Ⅱ 19,8, Rig-Veda Ⅰ 78,5. That's an interpretation of a primary source. Same for the quotes there-after.
 * Regarding Ambedkar, the full quote is as follows:
 * Ambedkar, a Dalit, is arguing here against the oppressive views of orthodox Brahmins. That's his good right, but it's not good editing to selectively use a part of a non-scholarly work to push your own agenda here.
 * regarding the Criticism-section, see this essay: Criticism. Criticism-sectons are to be avoided; they are excuses to vent one's own criticism of a subject. The choice of sources is arbitrary: only one editor, you, has selected them, out of thousands of sources. If you think such a section is relevant, you should try to offer proposals at the talkpage and gain WP:CONSENSUS, instead of unilaterally, and in denial of multiple reverts of your edits by multiple editors, pushing your personal preferences. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."
 * "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. "
 * Interpretation of primary sources, called secondary sources, provided they are done by reliable, published source are allowed. See WP:SECONDARY
 * The fact that Ambedkar was a Dalit, or the notion that he might have had an ulterior motive, does not discredit the objective fact of the authorship of the Vedas, propounded by him and also by people who were not Dalits. Attributing malicious motives to him and his objective research without any evidence is a gross misconduct.
 * About the criticism sections, there are literally entire separate pages for the criticism of the scriptures of the major world religions: the Talmud, Bible, Qur'an, Hadiths and Mormon scriptures. A small section for the criticism of the Vedas is hardly an excuse to "vent one's own criticism of a subject." If you are bothered that I am the only one selecting the sources, feel free to add criticisms from some of your own.
 * User:Ulughu_Khan —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTGETIT. There are better sources on the Vedas, and you keep pushing your own awkward statement on this topic. It's just too simplistic. "This is evidenced by" needs a source, not quotes from primary sources. Regarding Criticism of the Bible: that's not the kind of religion-bashing article you've got in mind. Same for Criticism of the Quran.
 * WP:DONTGETIT. There are better sources on the Vedas, and you keep pushing your own awkward statement on this topic. It's just too simplistic. "This is evidenced by" needs a source, not quotes from primary sources. Regarding Criticism of the Bible: that's not the kind of religion-bashing article you've got in mind. Same for Criticism of the Quran.


 * NB: the lead states the following:
 * That's the kind of nuance we need; but odly, this info is not in the body of the article.
 * That's the kind of nuance we need; but odly, this info is not in the body of the article.


 * The lead also states
 * That would be part of a "Criticism"-section, renamed "Authority of the Vedas." Odly, this info too is not part of the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be part of a "Criticism"-section, renamed "Authority of the Vedas." Odly, this info too is not part of the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you don't get my intent in making the "Authorship" section. I made that to answer the question "Who wrote the Vedas?" from a purely objective and secular point of view; as in who actually wrote it, similar to the authorship of other non-religious texts like the Norse Sagas or other ancient religious texts. I know that Hinduism regards them as eternal, but that's a religious notion and not objectively true. The Hindu view of the origin of the Vedas is expounded in the lead, as you said. You can make another section for it if you want to explain it further. As far as I know, all secular historians agree on who authored the Vedas. If there are some who have other theories, feel free to add them in the appropriate section.
 * Also, I'm not interpreting anything here, I'm just paraphrasing the views of eminent scholars in the field.
 * User:Ulughu Khan —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. And take serious the comments that your additons are sub-standard, poorly sourced, violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and that you're edit-warring. Regarding Ambedkar's view on the Vedas, he starts his appendix with the following (p.128):

At page 133 he states, and concludes:

What you do, is solely presenting Amedkar's conclusion, without presenting his question, and his statement that Hindus belief in the pre-existence of the Vedas. That's a violation of WP:NPOV - apart from the fact that Ambedkar is not the best source for this, as also pointed out by Abecedare at your talkpage diff. A good addition would be the summary which I formulated diff, and which you reverted diff:

Ambedkar's views on this are relevant, but not in this WP:UNDUE way. At best, they can be part of a sentence in an  "Authority of the Vedas"-section:

You better accept this proposal; it's as close as you will get to what you want. If you criticise this discourse, than do it good, not in this superficial and sloppy way. Edit-warring and pov-pushing, and disregarding the comments of other editors is not going to help you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Quick comments on 's proposals.
 * On Little is known about...who memorized them.: the content is non-controversial and while two of the references (Violatti and Ambedkar) are of relatively poor quality the others should suffice or are easily replaced by existing citations in the Śruti article. However, the content is redundant since all this is already mentioned in the very first two paragraphs of the lede.
 * On The authority of the Vedas has also...dominant Brahminical social order The content is fine although again I would recommend using only the secondary scholarly sources (Patton, Naggapa, or others that should be easy to find) instead of the citing the original critiques themselves since, as we have seen recently, these often polemical works can be easy to quote-mine and even misrepresent. That said, if we plan to introduce (say) a Authority and influence section, we will need to compose and discuss its content on the talkpage first since it would necessarily need to include the view of the orthodox schools, heterodox schools, modern reformers etc. Finally, if I recall correctly, there was discussion on this talkpage some years back on the scope of this article; it would be good to check the archives, look up the arguments there (and possibly pinging the earlier participants), so that we don't end up reinventing the wheel.
 * please join in the discussion here about the proposed additions; if, instead, you continue to just edit-war and violate wikipedia's policies on sources, neutrality and copyright, you'll just end up being blocked or topic-banned. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree above (with Abecedare) regarding Ambedkar and Violatti being of poor quality and their assessment should be avoided.
 * Though I don't see why we need a section called Vedas. It can be easily merged with Vedas (the very first section before the subections). Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ambedkar's "subjective view"
Aman.kumar.goel removed sourced info, edit-summary "Summary of his subjective view don't belong here", from

to

I relly don't see why this part of Ambedkar's views doesn't belong here, even less the comment "subjective": this are his opinions, right? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had removed it as well because the edit seemed recent, was WP:UNDUE and also incorrectly represented the source. The source does not support that he "saw it as part of the oppressive Varna (caste) system propogated by the dominant Brahminical social order". The source does not exactly state why he didn't accept the authority of Vedas thus it is best to leave that part out. Orientls (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Check; you've got a point regarding the source. It was also based on the other sources, which are more explicit. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of the word veda 'vid' does not add value to this article
, The root of the word veda is not the subject of this article, hence I have removed the text which has an unduly long mention about the word "vid".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's misleading to state that The root of the word veda is not the subject of this article; the subject of the etymlolgy-section is the etymology of the word "veda"; for that subject, this info is relevant. It's informative to know that the word has older, Indo-European roots. WP:UNDUE is not applicable here; that's about giving undue weight to some pov against another pov. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * A long reference to the root word vid is not in the scope of this article. Please see WP:NOTDIC, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia articles can provide a good definition, but including a long reference to a word root is not the subject of this article. Depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement is unfairly positioned to rake a point of view on a controversial topic rather than create a summary of encyclopaedic knowledge.Jaykul72 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the WP:DIC, Wikitionary should be used for:
 * ::Jaykul72 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The etymology-section is only a small part of this article, not the main topic, so I see no objection to the inclusion of this info. Please explain this statement: Depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement is unfairly positioned to rake a point of view on a controversial topic. Which pov, which "controversial topic"? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As WP:NOTDIC states wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is also a specific mention of including etymology in Wikitionary. The whole etymology should be moved out of this article into Wikitionary. The current etymology has definitions from English, German which are modern languages, this will also lead to a wrong example to include definitions of the word from Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi, French and many other languages Jaykul72 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIC does not state that etymogy-sections, which are pretty standard at Wikipedi-articles, are not to be part of Wikipedia-articles. And instead of answering my question, you come up with yet another argument: someone might expand this section with other examples, therefore the whole sectkon should be removed. We're not discussing problems here that haven't happened yet. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Etymology sections are petty standard in this subject area and, IMO, of self-evident encylopedic value for a 3000+ y.o. literary text. Abecedare (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Millennia-old oral vedas?
This edit diff added the following text:

Sounds like a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, or imprecise. The article saysThe Samhitas date to roughly 1700–1100 BCE, and Witzel suggests the possibility of written Vedic texts towards the end of 1st millennium BCE.; "several millennia" is at least two millennia, that is, the end of the third century BCE. That's a difference with what the article says. So, what do the sources say? Ergo: none of these sources give a date before 2000 BCE, except maybe Pruthi, but that one is not WP:RS.
 * - no pagenumber, but it must be p.47, which says what was first composed 3000 to 4000 years ago. That's in line with 1700–1100 BCE.
 * - I can't access p.286, but p.278 refers to Frawley, Tilak, and others; p.279 states that the "Aryan invasion theory" is discredited; definitely not WP:RS.
 * - pagenumber (7) seems to be incorrect; yet page [...] states "dating them is notoriously difficult." Several dates are given then, including Fllod, who gives ca. 1200 BCE for the Rig Veda. That's in line with mainstream scholarship.
 * - no pagenumber, but "the Vedas, which can be dated to 1200-800 BCE.

The statement Brahmin Hotar families had to learn and recite the entire Vedic books with thousands of hymns, and pass them to the next generation. is referenced by. Which year? 19th century is regarded as outdated ping Fowler&fowler), and the claim of learning the entire Vedic corpus seems WP:EXCEPTIONAl.

Wood states that "purely oral transmission has now probably died out"; the additon states This practice of learning by recitation exists even today. This referenced by Hexham; yet, Hexham does not seem to make such a statement.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Michael Wood, The Story of India Hardcover – 1 October 2007, BBC Worldwide ISBN 9780563539155:
 * R.K.Pruthi, Vedic Civilisation, Discovery Publishing ISBN 8171418759 page 286:
 * Why is a 19th century book outdated? Books are facts. Jaykul72 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is a 19th century book outdated? Books are facts. Jaykul72 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is a 19th century book outdated? Books are facts. Jaykul72 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the following diff, based on Wood: "The Vedas were orally transmitted for several millennia, and not written down until the Middle Ages." Books on India from the time of the Raj, from before 1947, are generally considered untrustworthy at Wikipedia, and mostly rejected. Not all books are WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1
you removed diff the following info, edit-summary Undid revision WP:AD Accuracy Dispute, Jack Goody's book does not question oral transmission:

I don't see what's inaccurate here; Goody, according to this piece of text, does indeed not question oral transmission. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The paragraph starts on an improper premise with Jack Goody's quote mentioned here "the Vedas are not the product of an oral society" - where is this mentioned on the cited book by Goody? The editor infers that "vedic literature is too consistent to have been composed and transmitted orally across generations". Which is not the summary of the reference by Goody. This inference of Goody is also not supported by the second reference by Lopez,, who states "Goody sees the Veda as a written tradition passed down, for the most part, by oral means.", which means Veda has been a oral tradition for most part. Jaykul72 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're omitting "without being written down"; Goody does not dispute the oral transmission, yet questions sole oral origins. See also here. I'll search for the quote tomorrow; a mobile phone is not very convenient to do so Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  01:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Gotcha; the quote is from Lopez (2016), Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sūtra, Princeton University Press, p.34. Lopez: "Goody sees the Veda as a written tradition passed down, for the most part, by oral means." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor introduces a POV that "Vedas are not the product of an oral society" without any verifiable citations for it. The editor unduly provides weightage to this POV in four lines of the text, while refuting it in four words "without being written down". If the intent of the editor is to state as what really Goody mentions, and as you said "not dispute the oral transmission, yet questions sole oral origins", then the editor should research appropriately scores of books where the historians have mentioned oral tradition as the main reason for the transmission of Vedas and then add a small weightage to a fringe theory with appropriate citations. Jaykul72 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But where is this quote ""the Vedas are not the product of an oral society" in Goody? Jaykul72 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've made some adaptations diff. Why do you ask where is this quote ""the Vedas are not the product of an oral society" in Goody, when I've already written that the quote is from Lopez (2016)? Trust me, the editor in question, User:Ms Sarah Welch, did "research appropriately scores of books". Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I only speak of what is written in the edit that I have undid, the edit says "Jack Goody state that "the Vedas are not the product of an oral society"", which I cannot see in Jack Goody. So, unless you show me where it is in the Jack Goody, WP:AD, WP:VERIFY claim remains. Jaykul72 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the present text. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lopez, D.S. (1998). Elaborations on emptiness : uses of the Heart Sūtra. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Pub. Is a good book but on Buddhism, this does not stand in weight for a book on Hinduism. The dispute here is that Lopez mentions "the Vedas are not the product of an oral society" from Jack Goody. Where is this inferred in the Jack Goody book? WP:VERIFY Jaykul72 (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack Goody has argued that "the Vedas are not the product of an oral society," but "a written tradition passed down, for the most part, by oral means." According to Goody, the Vedic texts likely involved both a written and oral tradition, calling it a "parallel products of a literate society." Goody's views have been strongly criticized by Falk, Lopez Jr,. and Staal, but have also found some support. - This is still WP:AD Jack Goody does not infer that "the Vedas are not the product of an oral society", whole paragraph on a refutable, fringe theory isn't acceptable Jaykul72 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
[Regarding this formulation:]‌

--thanks,Jaykul72 (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Vedas are not the product of an oral society" - that's what Lopez says, who is WP:RS. Goody's views have attracted considerable attention in the scholarly literature, which makes them noteworthy. Max Muller does not mention "thousands of hymns," nor "families." Kishore mentions the families, but also not "thousands of hymns." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lopez's inference does not reflect in Goody's book. In any case, there are no secondary references for this fringe theory WP:FRINGE on vedas not being an oral tradition. Unlike a strong record of authors who have overwhelmingly stated that Vedas were oral tradition. So oral tradition text needs to be provided due weightage. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Max Muller's quote, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India: Delivered in the Chapter House, Westminster Abbey, in April, May, and June, 1878, Volume 28; Volume 959, page 151:
 * says "class of priests", "whole treasure of their sacred and national poetry" Jaykul72 (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please engage in talk page before modifying my good faith edits, I have provided several citations. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some comments regarding your latest edits & comments:
 * Rath and Staal diff:
 * Their comments are better suited at the start of this alinea.
 * Rath ("Rath mentions that it does not suffice to characterise vedas as “oral” since it depends significantly on a memory culture.) could be given in a note.
 * I don't see the value of Staal's comment ("According to Staal this tradition “is far the more remarkable, not merely because it is characteristically Indian and unlike anything we find elsewhere, but also because it has led to scientific discoveries that are of enduring interest”.") It's taken out of context, and needs clarification. I think it's WP:UNDUE, also given the next point.
 * Both should be either properly presented as quotes, or paraphrased; as it is now, it's a WP:COPYVIO
 * This summary of Goody:
 * "The Vedas are not the product of an oral society" is a direct quote from Lopez; we represent what WP:RS state, not what you think of those sources. Your summary interprets Lopez; better stick to exact quotes. According to Lopez, Goody argues that there was both a written and an oral tradition, which were parallel products.
 * Several authors have criticized Goody; this has been mentioned in the article, giving due weight to opinions contrary to Goody. That the Vedas were transmitted orally has also been mentioned multiple times. Goody is noteworthy; he's attracted considerable attention.
 * This edit split one sentence unnecessary into two; to have it in one sentence was fine; this one sentence could have been modified.
 * This edit introduces Max Muller again; believe me, pre-1947 sources are routinously rejected.
 * This edit inserted the full I-Tsing quote again, unnecessarily. The essential part, as pointed out by Griffiths, was already summarized by me, while the full quote is given in a note.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reintroduced my edits as your summarization of the edits changed the meaning, reduced the context behind viewpoints of "oral/memory tradition vs written tradition" and introduced jargons that cannot be understood by mass of readers. WP:PCR Jaykul72 (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reintroduced my edits as your summarization of the edits changed the meaning, reduced the context behind viewpoints of "oral/memory tradition vs written tradition" and introduced jargons that cannot be understood by mass of readers. WP:PCR Jaykul72 (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Introducing jargon has little to do with it; the only "jargon" I added, as a summary of I-Tsing, is "mnemotechnical," a term used by Griffits. Giving the full I-Tsing quote does not clarify this, but instead obscures it; Griffits makes clear that it is the use of alphabet as a mnemonic technique is what matters in this quote. I even noted that the Staal-quote you introduced needs context, so if you really care about context, walk your talk. You're basically trying to present the Vedas as an unique, millennia old phenomenon, which is a religious point of view easily recognisable as the traditional Brahminical view on their lore. Now please answer to my specific, concrete points listed above, and explain, and provide examples, for your 'explanation' above.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: an alternative hiztory, p.106, and Holdrege (1996), Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture, SUNY Press, p.346, have much more to say about the means of memorisation than I-Tsing. Holdrege also states that memorisation does not mean understanding, and that the srotriyas often do not understand what they recite. Seems quite relevant to me to add to the article. Regards,  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It would undue to provide weightage to Lopez's inference of Goody's view in this article. Considering that Goody himself has stated that he has only an interested outsider's viewpoint on the subject (pg 111), and tries to offer a simplest explanation based on limited evidence (pg 116) Goody, J. (1987). The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York: Cambridge University Press. pg 116. Also other author's do not have the same inference from Goody, Wilke, A. and Moebus, O. have stated that, Goody’s argument is that early works in India bear hallmarks of a literate culture and existed side by side with oral transmission. and also Harry Falk found that Goody’s theses were clearly proved wrong by the historical material from ancient India Wilke, A. and Moebus, O. (2011). Sound and communication : an aesthetic cultural history of Sanskrit Hinduism. Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter. Pg 192 Bronkhorst says that,A number of Indologists have reacted to Goody’s ideas and pointed out that his conclusions cannot be extended to India without major adjustments. Johannes Bronkhorst (2016). How the Brahmins won : from Alexander to the Guptas. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 9004315519 page 164 You didn't answer my previous point on Lopez - Lopez is a good book but on Buddhism, this does not stand in weight for an article on Hinduism. No other references to the inference of Lopez. So, I would either summarize it or move it to note. Jaykul72 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased Rath's reference and moved Staal's quote above. Removed Muller's citation. Jaykul72 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilke and Moebus do not state

They state:

You have misquoted Wilke and Moubus, and taken the quote out of context. At the same page, Wilke and Moebus give an extended summary, which is the same as Lopez: Goody argues that the Vedas "are a product of a culture of writing," which were transmitted orally. Wilke and Moubus give a concise and nuncex summary; use it appropriately. That Lopez' book is on Buddhism is totally irrelevant; as stated before (two times), Lopez is WP:RS, the topic is Goody. Goody is relevant because of the previous sentence: "Witzel suggests the possibility of written Vedic texts towards the end of 1st millennium BCE." Witzel places the time of written Vedas far back in time (Witzel is a far better source than Wood); Goody dates written versions even further back in time. Wilke and Moubus are yet another prove that Goody's ideas have attracted significant discussion, ergo, are relevant. The I-Tsing quote is still WP:UNDUE and unclear, while the Staal-quote is also WP:UNDUE, meant to underscore the uniqueness of the oral transmission, meanwhile omitting the loss of meaning noted by Holdrege. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me state the issue here so that we are on the same page, we are discussing the article on Vedas, topic is "Chronology and transmission". There are two viewpoints on how the Vedas were passed down both of which need to be presented with due weight. Mainstream viewpoint with lot of supported literature is that "Vedas were passed down by oral tradition"       . A fringe theory presented by Goody, quote from his book Even if they were not written down at the moment of composition (and this we can hardly know), these works, including the Vedas, bear the hallmarks of a literature culture. Moreover, these texts have existed side by side with oral transmission for atleast 600, possibly 1800, or even 2500 years Goody, J. (1987). The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York: Cambridge University Press. pg 122. While there are different sources to mention Goody's work,  this article previously quoted from Lopez He argues the Vedas are not the product of an oral society whereas, Lopez himself mentions in conclusion, Goody sees the Vedas as a written tradition passed down, for the most part, by oral means. Currently the article mentions Jack Goody has argued Vedas bear hallmarks of a literate culture along with oral transmission quoting from Wilke, A. and Moebus, O. (2011). Sound and communication : an aesthetic cultural history of Sanskrit Hinduism. Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter. Pg 192, this is similar to the quote from Goody's book as mentioned above. Hence, I don't see any issue with the current article. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * actually, this quote from Goody (1987), The interface between the written and the oral, Cambridge University Press, p. 122, which you added and then removed again from the talkpage, is actually quite good:
 * "bear the hallmarks of a literature culture" - that says it quite comprehensible, doesn't it? And the second line is also quite clear: oral transmission continued after the texts were written down. And the texts may have been written down already in the first millennium BCE - or not.
 * These are the Lopez-quotes, including Lopez (2016), Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sūtra, Princeton University Press:
 * What Goody seems to say is that the people who composed the Vedas had a kind of literacy; their culture was not solely oral. Anyway, when coupled to Witzel, the relevant piece of info is that, according to Goody, the Vedas may have been written down quite early. But that's not the main point of Goody; his main point is that the Vedas were not the product of a strictly oral culture. This is relevant in relation to this part from the Wiki-article:
 * Anyway, my compliments for digging-up Goody himself; I like that. I think I rest my case her, on this point. Well done! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What Goody seems to say is that the people who composed the Vedas had a kind of literacy; their culture was not solely oral. Anyway, when coupled to Witzel, the relevant piece of info is that, according to Goody, the Vedas may have been written down quite early. But that's not the main point of Goody; his main point is that the Vedas were not the product of a strictly oral culture. This is relevant in relation to this part from the Wiki-article:
 * Anyway, my compliments for digging-up Goody himself; I like that. I think I rest my case her, on this point. Well done! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my compliments for digging-up Goody himself; I like that. I think I rest my case her, on this point. Well done! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my compliments for digging-up Goody himself; I like that. I think I rest my case her, on this point. Well done! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

‌

Nodding head a Vedic practice?
, the following edits are again a fringe theory WP:FRINGE, which has not been claimed by any other author, can you please provide any other citations that nodding the head and making physical movements with particular sounds has been a vedic tradition:


 * References


 * Notes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 30 may 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Jaykul72, but we present what WP:RS state; Doniger is as WP:RS as can be. could you please give your thoughts here? Callig Doniger fringe is not very helpfull.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because WP:RS states, does not mean it should be presented. From WP:FRINGE, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight from WP:UNDUE, generally tiny minority views should not be included except in "see also"Jaykul72 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The theory is that "physical movements" are matched with "particular sounds and chanting in a group"; nodding with the head is an example of such movements. What do you find problematic about that? Maybe you have sources, represnting a majority view, which say that recitation is done without movement, to aid memorisation? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't read about any such "physical movements" matched with "particular sounds and chanting in a group" with a specific example of "nodding with the head". Jaykul72 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you are misquoting me, I am not saying Doniger as fringe, specific example of "Nodding with the head" there is no other author who has claimed it.Jaykul72 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, first-timer for me too (duh....). Vedic Chanting – a Perfectly Formulated Oral Tradition -- Dr. S. YEGNASUBRAMANIAN:
 * Which means, I think, that nodding the head accompanies a "raising or lowering the pitch" (compare with a dirigent?). See here for the document, which also contains Sanskrit: शिरःकंपी (if I'm correct), shirahkampee, too literally meaning "to chirp" according to Google translate. Or, according to this blog, "shiraH kampii= head, one who nods", Google translate शिरः कम्पी. Ah yes: Sanskrit Dictionary: शिरःकम्पिन्, "shaking the head." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This source does not pass through WP:REPUTABLE, it is a self published article WP:SELFPUB which is not under editorial review. You suggested me to remove Max Muller as a source on this page earlier which was listed as a fourth source on my edit. Jaykul72 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the physical movement is associated with "raising or lowering pitch" along with physical movement, this becomes a mnemonic technique. I have moved it under notes see here. Jaykul72 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to use that source in the article, but it gives an indication that Doniger's comment is not that weird. As noted before, Doniger is WP:RS, a hot-shot in Indology; don't mess with her.
 * The emphasis in the mnemonic techniques is on sound; that info is missing. The article also doesn't refer to shiksha, to which the source above refers. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added info on this diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added info on this diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

, I have requested a third opinion on this dispute as per WP:3O Jaykul72 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided additional information on the use of physical movements as an aid to memorizing and recitating the Vedas:
 * The one piece in this text you object to is "nodding the head," which comes from WP:RS. Objecting to a WP:RS is not a reason to remove a lot of other information from WP:RS, as you did here and here. Purely WP:DISRUPTIVE. The only valid reason for mass-reverts is WP:VANDALISM. You could have used a instead, just for those three words, as I did here. And you also undid my formatting of the references. Stop this; the next station is WP:ANI.
 * Regarding WP:FRINGE:
 * Doniger is given in a direct quote, three words, and no more than that. That's not undue. There is no indication that her's is a weird idea, except for the fact that you've never heard of it. The mainstream view seems to be that memorization is aided by physical movements and gestures. And remember, again: Doniger is mainstream scholarship, almost exemplary; her publications are, almost by definition, WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doniger is a perfectly fine source and arguing about a direct quote is downright silly. I don't see a dispute here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When I have added quotes on Vedic memorization techniques [I-Tsing] or [Rath], this topic has been mentioned by many authors so this needs due weight, you chose to move them to notes. Yet, you chose to provide quotes from Doniger and Holdrege? Not once, see the [Jack Goody] discussion too. This is WP:POVEDITOR with a typically held point of view by Western Academicia to question the Vedas. The second pillar of Wikipedia is to maintain Neutral Point of View. How is Joshua Jonathan's "cp editing" maintaining NPOV? Jaykul72 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That topic is given due weight; as mentioned before, I added additional info, and links to relevant page. Regarding WP:POVEDITOR: maybe you can explain where I have a WP:COI? I think you should take care of "cause-driven editing," given subpages like User:Jaykul72/sandbox. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a subpage for "Alternatives to Aryan Invasion Theory" is to find alternatives to Aryan Invasion Theory. Was that a research that I should not be doing? In any case whatever passions anyone might have, Wikipedia pages should be neutral in content. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When I have added quotes on Vedic memorization techniques [I-Tsing] or [Rath], this topic has been mentioned by many authors so this needs due weight, you chose to move them to notes. Yet, you chose to provide quotes from Doniger and Holdrege? Not once, see the [Jack Goody] discussion too. This is WP:POVEDITOR with a typically held point of view by Western Academicia to question the Vedas. The second pillar of Wikipedia is to maintain Neutral Point of View. How is Joshua Jonathan's "cp editing" maintaining NPOV? Jaykul72 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That topic is given due weight; as mentioned before, I added additional info, and links to relevant page. Regarding WP:POVEDITOR: maybe you can explain where I have a WP:COI? I think you should take care of "cause-driven editing," given subpages like User:Jaykul72/sandbox. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a subpage for "Alternatives to Aryan Invasion Theory" is to find alternatives to Aryan Invasion Theory. Was that a research that I should not be doing? In any case whatever passions anyone might have, Wikipedia pages should be neutral in content. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a table of my search on this topic:

Thanks, Jaykul72 (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan, Doniger does not say "matching physical movements" such as mudra (hand signs) and nodding the head[disputed – discuss] together with "particular sounds and chanting in a group.". Synthesis of multiple sources to reach a conclusion is WP:OR. Jaykul72 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll change it (not right now; busy with other things at this moment). Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this discussion still seeking a WP:3O or has consensus been reached? Leijurv (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Leijurv, we are still seeking a third opinion. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 has already commented, stating the obvious that Doniger is perfectly fine as a source. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:UNDUE -
 * As shown in the table above, no other author has mentioned about either of these physical movements "Nodding the head", "Chanting in group". For that reason, the weightage provided to this quote is undue. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You WP:DONTGETIT: we represent what WP:RS state (and (usually) not what tbey not state); this what Doniger, who is WP:RS states. If you want to make a comparison for each and every piece of info at Wikipedia to find what other sources are silent on, we can stop editing. The fact that sources don't mention a specific piece of info which is mentioned by other sources, does not mean that those sources which don't mention it have a different viewpoint. They don't have a viewpoint. They would have a different viewpoint if they stated someting different from the fkrst source; in this case, if they explicitly stated that the recitation of the mantras is not accompanied by physical movements ("like nodding the head"). You can't conclude from their silence that Doniger is incorrect; that's WP:OR. Now please stop misinterpreting these policies and WP:GETOVERIT. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is due weight and what is undue weight is the matter of this debate, there are many other WP:RS WP:REPUTABLE sources with one viewpoint that is not backed by any other author. As per your interpretation of WP:UNDUE, those viewpoints can be introduced into this article. I need an answer, that can stand the test of time, on how as an editor does one determine whether a viewpoint is due or undue. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's something I can understand. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's something I can understand. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Srotriyas
Holdrege defines srotriyas as

This is about a special group of people who have been trained as reciters. This is not the same definition as 'Srotiya' mentioned in the note,

Both these are disconnected 'Srotriyas' and 'Srotiyas'. This is WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 6 june 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you found a better, clear definition. The definition that I found was not my definition, though, but a definition from a source. Be carefull what you call original research. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Goody and Frits Staal
I have moved the Houben & Rath and the Staal info/quotes out of the note diff, and copy-edited this after checking the sources diff. Ironically, Staal responds to Goody, a detail not revealed by Houben and Rath. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the full quote from Staal back into a note, and retained the essence diff; it's simply too long to read comfortably, and undue compared with the condensed info presented inthe rest of this paragraph. It's also not clear what those scientific discoveries are. The essential points are that he is responding to Goody-Watts, and that he states that oral trasmission is far more remarkable than written transmission. The text as it is now:


 * References


 * Notes

Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've also provided the clarification diff I requested diff, in vain. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaidika Sampradaya
Regarding these edits, which added


 * Holdrege does not mention "Vaidika Sampraday," nor "Vedic wisdom"; she just refers to the teacher-student transmission, sampradaya. That the Vedas have been transmitted orally for several thousand years has already been mentioned; no need to duplicate this. After formatting and correcting the references, I've merged this with the line which said the same diff.
 * is self-published, and therefor not WP:RS. I removed diff therefore this piece of info:


 * minus "initiated by the Vedic Rishis who heard the primordial sounds," which seems to be from the Holdrege source. According to this site, Shriver was a journalist, not an historian. The sentence
 * makes no sense. What exactly is "the Vedic tradition"? In the previous sentence you wrote "for several thousand years the Samhitas have been transferred from teacher (guru) to the student (shishya)"; now the "Vedic wisdom" has been transmitted through commentaries and explanantions? The Brahmanas are part of the Vedic tradition. And, checking the source: p.21 does not mention the Brahmanas or Shankara. You meant p.xxi... What the source says is:
 * Condensed:
 * Actually, Shankara rejected ritualism, and laid emphasis on the Upanishads and the smriti, not on the samhitas. He reinterpreted the Vedic tradition, incorporating Buddhist influences. No mention in this source of commentaries and explanantions, no explanation what exactly this "Vedic tradition" is. Just a repetition of what has been stated by now several times yet.
 * Condensed:
 * Actually, Shankara rejected ritualism, and laid emphasis on the Upanishads and the smriti, not on the samhitas. He reinterpreted the Vedic tradition, incorporating Buddhist influences. No mention in this source of commentaries and explanantions, no explanation what exactly this "Vedic tradition" is. Just a repetition of what has been stated by now several times yet.
 * Actually, Shankara rejected ritualism, and laid emphasis on the Upanishads and the smriti, not on the samhitas. He reinterpreted the Vedic tradition, incorporating Buddhist influences. No mention in this source of commentaries and explanantions, no explanation what exactly this "Vedic tradition" is. Just a repetition of what has been stated by now several times yet.

All in all, repeating the same over and over again, misrepresenting the sources several times: the Vedas, c.q. the Vedic tradition, have/has been transmitted orally for over 3,000 years. At some point, this has been stated often enough (something about WP:UNDUE?...). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Leela Prasad does mention the phrase "Asampradavit sarvasastravidapi murkhavadeva upiksaniyah," yet she does not translate this as "Interpreting the text based only on one’s intelligence is asampradya - non-tradition," but as "One who is ignorant of tradition has to be ignored like a fool, even though versatile in all shastras." The "translation" quoted is not a translation, but an explanation. As explained by Prasad, the sampradaya ('tradition') "bears the authority to clarify and provide direction in the application of knowledge." I've corrected this diff, moved this piece of info upwards too diff, and added additional info to it diff, to make it more substantial than a quote from Shankara.

Arbitrary break #1
I have moved this quote to the notes, "When the mantras are recited in the Vedic rituals "they are disengaged from their original context and are employed in ways that have little or nothing to do with their meaning." Holdrege, B., 1996. Veda And Torah. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, p.347 as this is already captured in the previous quote by Staal referenced by Holdrege the mantras have lost their original meaning, and are not linguistic utterances. This also brings undue importance to discursive meaning on the "mantras" section of the Vedas. Brahmanas already have commentaries on them. As Holdrege mentions further that the mantras are held to have a "constitutive meaning" of their own. Jaykul72 (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The piece of info you want to move into a note is nota repetition, bu a further explanation. That's not WP:UNDUE diff. It explains that the recitations are not nonsense or so, but have acquired another meaning, or usage. Holdrege is responding to Staal; give the full argument. Staal is an influential scholar; his point of view should actually be in the lead, so relevant is it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion is on "mantras" section of the Vedas and not the whole Vedas itself. This Wikipedia article is about "Vedas" and in that topic of "Chronology and Transmission", is a long discussion on the meaning of "mantras" section of the Vedas due importance in this topic? Jaykul72 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. As mentioned above, Staal is an influential scholar, his point of view is relevant. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This can be moved into another section called "Meaning of Mantras" where we can bring other other viewpoints from authors like Kaivalya, Pandit Rajamani, Alper. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Holdrege discusses this in relation to the transmission:
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Staal has been provided due importance in preceding sentence as i mentioned before Staal referenced by Holdrege the mantras have lost their original meaning, and are not linguistic utterances. I introduced a paragraph on Sampradaya which is important for Chronology and Transmission of Vedas which you have moved. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH:
 * The info on sampradaya has been explained: repetition; a self-published source; and a truly undue piece of info, misquoted from the source, which I nevertheless have retained. Staal might actually be expanded. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sampradaya is not mentioned or repeated, can you please provide sentences where it was mentioned earlier? Self published source can be replaced with published sources. But why remove the paragraph and move to oral tradition? 04:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs)
 * The info on sampradaya has been explained: repetition; a self-published source; and a truly undue piece of info, misquoted from the source, which I nevertheless have retained. Staal might actually be expanded. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sampradaya is not mentioned or repeated, can you please provide sentences where it was mentioned earlier? Self published source can be replaced with published sources. But why remove the paragraph and move to oral tradition? 04:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs)

Sampradaya was new, 3000 years of oral transmission was already mentioned. Therefore, merged with existing info. And to repeat myself on Staal, the sentence "they are disengaged from their original context and are employed in ways that have little or nothing to do with their meaning" gives crucial addition info.

Staal explains that the Vedas, or their post-Vedic usage, do[es] not have the same meaning and intent as when they were composed. The Vedas as they are being used today are not what they were back then; they are not that 'timeless' and primordial as the tradition believes, but subject to change, as every other human creation. That's crucial. It hints at a discongruency between scholarly approaches, reading the Vedas as a text, and their actual usage, as sacred sounds. If you want to understand what the Vedas mean in India, you shouldn't read them as texts, but understand them as those sacred sounds, "primordial rhythms of creation", preceding the forms to which they refer.

It also hints at an explanation for the fact that "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text" (Axel Michaels (2004), Hinduism: Past and Present, Princeton University Press, p.18; see also Julius Lipner (2012), Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, p.77; and Brian K. Smith (2008), Hinduism, p.101, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Sacred Texts and Authority, Wipf and Stock Publishers. The contents, the original meaning, are not important in Hinduism; Hinduism is disconnected from the original meaning, only retaining the form of this root in a changed meaning.

No, that's not WP:UNDUE; it's essential for understanding the roots and development of Hinduism. And, with regards to the neutral point of view policy that "each article or other page in the mainspace [should] fairly represent all significant viewpoints," it is counterbalanced by Holdrege's assertion that

That's balanced. By removing that info from Staal, you distort the balance, and cripple Holdrege's argument, as she is responding to this argument from Staal. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your inference that The contents, the original meaning, are not important in Hinduism; Hinduism is disconnected from the original meaning, only retaining the form of this root in a changed meaning. is incorrect. It is a hasty generalization. Like every religion there is one which is in practice and there is one which is followed by the scholars. The contemporary literature on "Rig Veda" right from Max Muller, H.H.Wilson, Pischel, Geldner to Doniger is based on the original interpretation of Sayana. I quote Jackson on Sayana - Jackson, W.J. (2017). Vijayanagara Voices : Exploring south indian history and hindu literature. Routeledge. ISBN 0754639509 . Chapter 3. There have been a lineage of scholars who have interpreted and added to the knowledge warehouse of Hinduism in every generation. Take the case of Mathematics from Aryabhata 5th century, Varahamihira extended it in 6th century, Bhaskara I who wrote commentary on Aryabhata in 7th century, Sridhara who commentary on Aryabhata in 8th century, Aryabhata II who wrote commentary on Sridhara in 10th century, Sankaranarayana who wrote commentary on Bhaskara I in 9th century, Bhaskara II who extended the works of Bhaskara I in 12th century, Narayana pandita who extended the work of Bhaskara II in 14th century, Madhava of Sangamagrama who is credited for Calculus and Madhava-Leibniz series in 15th century. All these works were in Sanskrit. This lineage of mathematicians happened because there was a tradition of understanding and interpreting oral or written texts.  Jaykul72 (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do not fully understand the reference to Sayana and Jackson. You state
 * Jackson writes
 * "Databank" is not the same as "based on." And it may be true that there is an ancient tradition of Sanskrit scholarship that's still alive today, but we're talking about religious practice, not about Sanskrit scholarship. The meaning c.q. usage of the Vedas has changed, somewhere in history; that's what we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This debate is about whether there was an understanding of the Vedas from history or was there a mere transmission of it without any understanding. Therefore, we want to weigh the due on the Staal's line. I don't think one should cherry pick on the words like "Databank", Sayana's commentary has been relied upon by modern Vedic scholars. I produce the full quote below.
 * The earliest of the commentaries written on the Vedas are the Brahmanas Aitareya Brahmana, Kaushitaki Brahmana, Taittriya Brahamana, Samavidhana Brahmana, Arseya Brahmana, Devatadhyaya Brahmana, Shakdwipiya Brahmana in the 6th to 8th century BCE. Astadhyayi was written by Panini in 4th century BCE which provided the grammar to interpret the Sanskrit oral works. Rishi Jamini wrote the Mimansa Sutras required for critically analysing the Vedas in 4th century BCE. Mimamsa books by Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara extended the critical thinking concepts of Jaimini in 7th century CE. Adi Shankara wrote several commentaries on the Vedas in 8th century CE. Madvacharya who is the elder brother of Sayana wrote several commentaries on Vedas in the 14th century. As you can see the lineage of scholarly interpretation of oral texts is as well seen in religion. However, Staal's comments should be seen only in the light of modern day rituals which use the Vedic mantras mentioned in the Samhitas. Vedas have other parts Brahmanas, Aryankas and Upanishads which are read and interpreted. Staal's quote can be moved to a section in the article - "Modern day usage of Vedic mantras". Jaykul72 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This debate is about whether there was an understanding of the Vedas from history or was there a mere transmission of it without any understanding. Therefore, we want to weigh the due on the Staal's line. I don't think one should cherry pick on the words like "Databank", Sayana's commentary has been relied upon by modern Vedic scholars. I produce the full quote below.
 * The earliest of the commentaries written on the Vedas are the Brahmanas Aitareya Brahmana, Kaushitaki Brahmana, Taittriya Brahamana, Samavidhana Brahmana, Arseya Brahmana, Devatadhyaya Brahmana, Shakdwipiya Brahmana in the 6th to 8th century BCE. Astadhyayi was written by Panini in 4th century BCE which provided the grammar to interpret the Sanskrit oral works. Rishi Jamini wrote the Mimansa Sutras required for critically analysing the Vedas in 4th century BCE. Mimamsa books by Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara extended the critical thinking concepts of Jaimini in 7th century CE. Adi Shankara wrote several commentaries on the Vedas in 8th century CE. Madvacharya who is the elder brother of Sayana wrote several commentaries on Vedas in the 14th century. As you can see the lineage of scholarly interpretation of oral texts is as well seen in religion. However, Staal's comments should be seen only in the light of modern day rituals which use the Vedic mantras mentioned in the Samhitas. Vedas have other parts Brahmanas, Aryankas and Upanishads which are read and interpreted. Staal's quote can be moved to a section in the article - "Modern day usage of Vedic mantras". Jaykul72 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Staal's comments should be seen only in the light of modern day rituals which use the mantras in the Samhitas is in line with what the article states:
 * There's no need to move it.
 * How close is the "traditional meaning," as presented in the Brahmanas and the later commentaries, to the original, historical meaning? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How close is the "traditional meaning," as presented in the Brahmanas and the later commentaries, to the original, historical meaning? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
I've rephrased the sentences diff diff diff, changing

into


 * References


 * Notes

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Staal's comments should be seen only in the light of modern day rituals which use the Vedic mantras mentioned in the Samhitas., Klostermaier (2007) p.55states:

That's from a commentary from 2,500 years ago; not exactly referring to "modern day rituals," but instead coming from a time 'only' ca. 700 years after the usual dating of ca. 1200 BCE for the Samhitas of the Rig Veda. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) I provided already provided quote from Jackson on Sayanacharya had not written a voluminous commentary explaining or paraphrasing every word of the Rig Veda, many traditional meaning would be unknown today. this means every word of Rigveda was provided commentary by a Vedic scholar in 15th century. This is directly in contrast to the paragraph which infers that Vedic mantras are and have been only "magical sounds" The words of the mantras are "themselves sacred," and "do not constitute linguistic utterances." Instead, as Klostermaier notes, they become magical sounds, "means to an end.
 * (b) Gayatri mantra is a Rigveda mantra recited by millions of Indians since time immemorial every day. This mantra has retained its meaning even today and when people say it, they do it with full understanding. Frawley, D. (2010). Mantra yoga and primal sound : secret of seed (bija) mantras. Twin Lakes, Wi: Lotus Press. ISBN 0910261946 p.160-161:
 * . Pg
 * Jaykul72 (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added some nuances in response to your concerns on the misunderstanding that the mantras are "only" magical sounds, and some info referenced by Jackson diff, to reflect the difference between the loss of meaning in the application of the mantras in Vedic ritual, and the preservation of this knowledge in Sanskrit scholarship. Note that these two observations do not contradict each other, on the contrary: the niruktas were necessary, precisely because the original meaning of the mantras became lost to "ordinary people." One example of a mantra which is still comprehended today does not falsificate Klostermaier's or Staal's observations on this.
 * NB: Jackson's quote is preceded by this sentence: "The meanings of the Rig Veda barely survived the bottleneck of the loss of Hindu autonomy." This confirms that the meaning of the mantras was lost to most people. The preceding page is also interesting: "The founding king needed the official sanction of the religious authority" - just like the Brahmin needed the king and other rulers for an income. Compare Charlemagne and Pope Leo III; they needed each other. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although digression, this relationship between King Harihara I and Vidyaranya shouldn't be generalized, Leela Prasad pg 68-70 has a better insight Jaykul72 (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll read it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)