Talk:Vedas/Archive 6

Missing "("
In the third paragraph of the article, between "śruti" and "what is heard", a poor parenthesis has gone missing. Hopefully a compassionate confirmed editor can find it and put it back.174.21.9.246 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Authorship
I removed the details about authorship from the lead because the claim that "oldest" composition came from Afghanistan and Punjab isn't supported by Upinder Singh's source. Then I removed claim about the same from the section also because Anthony (without page number) is undue and WP:SYNTH. Information about the Vedas being composed in Punjab is correct, but this should not be on lead because lead already makes it clear that the scriptures belong to India. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay; thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Mookerji
I have introduced the following text diff:

Jaykul72 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sources are the same text, from Radha Kumud Mukherjee, Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist. First edition 1947, second edition 1951. Not really recent, but referenced quite often. Mookerji refers to and summarizes Yāska and Sayana; that could have been mentioned more clearly. Likewise, Mookerji refers to the Uśanā smriti and Vācaspati Miśra; that too could have been mentioned more clearly. "Discussing the Vedanta" implies post-Vedic elements in Vedic studies. Nevertheless, nice addition to the sentence on the Vedangas.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Sayana, B. R. Modak (1995), Sayana, has a whole chapter on Western Critics of Sayana. Due weight requests mentioning of these criticisms as well, doesn't it? See also Cezary Galewicz (2004), Changing Canons: Ehat did Sayana think he commented upon; in: Piotr Balcerowicz, Marek Mejor (eds.), Essays in Indian Philosophy, Religion and Literature. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone through Modak's chapter titled "Western Critics of Sayana", however, I do not find any mention which is strong enough to be mentioned in this article. Max Muller's views are concluded on the sentence "Let us not forget that we are standing on his (Sayana's) shoulders". Rudolf Roth and Hermann Grassman's critic that Sayana was removed from Vedic times by 3000 years, but Modak puts a defensive point on the very next paragraph that "Western scholars and Indian scholars differ in many respects in their outlook on life and literature", entering into spirit of India is difficult for them. Also, he then mentions about other German Scholars Pischel and Geldner who have given due credit. What are your views? Jaykul72 (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Grassman is 19th century; Roth too. They are irrelevant to mention in the article. NB: in the line Mookerji also refers to the Uśanā smriti (81-2), which "states that mastery of mere text of Veda is to be followed up by its meaning", "meaning" refers to artha, I guess, which can also be translated as "purpose" or "essence." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, artha translates to meaning. Galewicz has a view that Sayanacarya being from a Yajurvedic priestly tradition, had a bias to think Veda as "something to be trained and mastered in order to be put into a practical ritual use". Modak mentions about commentaries on Rigveda by other authors like Skandasvamin, Udgitha, Venkatamadhava, and Mudgal available in a book by Vishvabandhu Shastri Jaykul72 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * But artha can also be translated as "purpose" and "essence." There's an ambiguity here, a 'lost-in-translation'. In English, "meaning" refers to an exact meaning, a definition. "Purpose" is broader, pointing to some-'thing', some-'action', beyond the literal meaning; just like essence. While a mantra, in its lietral meaning, may be dedicated to a Vedic God, say Agni, in a 'deeper' sense the recitation of the mantras evokes the whole cosmic order (dharma, rta), and the role of the Brahmins in this order. That's what artha  seesm to be referring to here. NB: is artha related to rta?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Artha is a very popular term in Kannada which was the language of the Vijayanagara empire where Sayana was a scholar. The Kannada language has 70% of the vocabulary influenced from Sanksrit. Artha in Kannada means 'meaning'. Appears that you intend to connect artha with purpose and purpose with action. This would be a case of hasty generalization unless you have strong facts to prove it. It is incorrect synthesis WP:OR to have this meaning "(artha-bodha, artha also meaning "goal, purpose or essence," depending on the context" with a citation to Sanskrit dictionary as this referring to a modern Sanskrit dictionary. Meaning of the word 'Artha' as used by Sayana in needed. Mookerji has mentioned the explanation of it and it is a scholarly source. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This text is undue weightage in a article on Vedas and in the chronology section. This is not a discussion on Sayana. With this logic, one can introduce critics of Holdrege and Klostermaier. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Two of Bakshi's quotes have been removed from the edit: and

I object to removal of these two scholarly references from the book on the grounds that Both sources are the same text. They are both independent authors and WP:RS. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding artha: you may have a point there, but I'm not convinced that "meaning" is the only meaning. The broader meaning has two references; the other is Karl Potter.
 * Regarding Galewicz: see WP:NPOV, and my previous quote from WP:TRUTH. Due weight does not mean: quoting from one source from 1947, which gives a pov which deviates from the other sources used here on this topic, and excluding a more recent source which gives a pov which is in line with those other sources.
 * Regarding Bakshi: you have to take a closer look: the text in Bakshi is Mookerji's text. "Artha-bodha" is still mentioned; the second quote is still there. The second quote was misquotedby you, by the way; not the first time.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Bakshi has been paraphrased and cited by your edits so you have not removed them. My main objections (a) Bakshi has mentioned the meaning of arthabodha unambiguously, I stated what was written by Bakshi who is a reputable source, inserting your interpretation of the word artha is synthesis, WP:OR states "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material". (b) Bakshi has been published in 2005 your argument quoting from one source from 1947 is incorrect. (c) Quote from Galewicz is on the subject of Sayana, subject of this article is Vedas and their chronology and transmission. Introducing a four lines of text unrelated to the article is for advocacy WP:ADVOCACY of editor's POV that "Vedic mantras have not been recited for the meaning but only for sounds". I do not understand your argument which gives a pov which deviates from the other sources used here on this topic - Bakshi and Mookerji are WP:RS as you mentioned in a previous debate we represent what WP:RS state. Jaykul72 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please, Bakshi is the editor; Mookerji is the author. The original text is from 1947; Bakshi et al.'s edition is a reprint of Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist. Compare Ancient Indian Education p.18, "The Rigveda itself exhibits an evolution and the history of the Rigveda is a history of the culture of the age," with Early Aryans to Swaraj p.49. Exact same content. The first edition of Ancient Indian Education is from 1947; the second is from 1951. And Ancient Indian Education seems to recycle older publications from Mookerji: Mookerji quotes Winternitz, centuries must have elapsed between the composition of earliest hymns (Ancient p.18, Early p.49, is also being used in Mookerji (1936), Hindu Civilization: (from the Earliest Times Up to the Establishment of the Maurya Empire) p.83.
 * Regarding artha:
 * As I said, you have a point about the meaning of artha, but Karl Potter (1998), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4, ISBN 81-208-0310-8, Motilal Banarsidass, pp 610 (note 17), is a scholarly source too (I copied it from artha).
 * Galewicz (2011), Why Should the Flower of Dharma be Invisible? Sayana's Vision of the Unity of the Veda; in: Federico Squarcini (ed), Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, Anthem Press, p.342-343, note 69, quoting Clooney 1990, p.283-284:
 * That's clear: artha has several meanings, not one, depending on the context.
 * Given Deshpande (1990), the tradition of the Sanskrit grammarians also contributed significantly to the preservation and interpretation of Vedic texts, the meaning of "meaning" (artha) of the Vedas as presented by Mookerji should be seen as "interpretation," not the literal meaning (speech act) which it had for the composers of the mantras. As Deshpande notes at p.20:
 * You introduced Sayana, with Mookerji who refers to Sayana; Galewicz gives another interpretation. WP:NPOV requires to present the various pov's.
 * It's not my pov that the mantras have lost their original meaning; it's what multiple WP:RS state. You seem to have a problem with that.
 * Due weight requires not to give to much weight to the one source, that is, Mookerji. As a matter of fact, the article now gives actually quite a lot of weight Mookerji.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  00:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Due weight requires not to give to much weight to the one source, that is, Mookerji. As a matter of fact, the article now gives actually quite a lot of weight Mookerji.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  00:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing Mookerji
Mookerji's overview is better represented with the following:


 * References


 * Notes

Not really shorter, but quite better, I think. Note that Sayana does not only refer to the Samhitas, which are part of the karma-kanda, but also to the Upanishads, the jnana-kanda. Compare this with Galewicz assessment of Sayana (a Mimamsa scholar), who asserts that for Sayana the proper performance of the rituals is his main concern. There's no contradiction here; Galewicz refers to Sayana's main concern, the karma-kanda and the proper pronounciation of the Vedic sounds, while Mookerji also refers to the jnana-kanda and the knowledge of Parabrahman. And that part, of course, is definitely about "meaning." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to removal of scholarly sources WP:RS without consensus, this is disruptive editing for the purpose of advocacy as I have mentioned before. I have to be provided time for responding. Jaykul72 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "removal of scholarly sources"? Not five times stating the same, as you did, cherrypicking statements to drive home your point, while ignoring the rest of Mookerji's text? Or referencing Mookerji to one source, instead of two? Mookerji (2015) is Mookerji (2011). It's the same text, in a different edition. I've explained this three times now. could you please step in here? I'm getting tired with this repeated lack of understanding, the accusations of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:ADVOCACY, and the misfitting responses.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are three additional sources:
 * (a) Rambachan quoting Shankara has noted on recitation (Sruti) that “Sruti is not a pramana if it fails to engender prama (valid knowledge)” Rambachan, A. 1991. Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge. University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 0824813588 . Pg  95.
 * (b) "The comprehension of the meaning of Mantras by the pupils was very essential. Besides the Vedas, they studied the Sutras which called for elaborate elucidation by the teacher owing to the abstruseness of their meaning." Rawat, P., 1959. History Of Indian Education, Ancient To Modern. Agra: Bharat Publishers, p.47.
 * (c) The Rig Veda holds those to ridicule whose knowledge is confined only to repetition of its words without an insight into their meaning by constant and concentrated contemplation Ghosh, S.C., 2007. History Of Education in India. Rawat Publications.ISBN 8131601102. p.26
 * (d) Galewicz provides in a foot note in the argument of the word 'artha', it should be noted that he does not conclude on the meaning of artha leaves it ambiguous by stating in the first statement "interesting question demanding a separate study yet" and in the second sentence referring further sources Kahrs 1988, Clooney 1994 - full quote
 * (f) Galecwicz has not fully translated Rigveda, his inferences are based on translations of others and no where many other authors who has translated Sayana have provided a different meaning of the word artha
 * (e) On Mookerji, WP:RS Age matters on historical events is this
 * Please note, it is not about the first publication of the source. (g) Cherry picking statements from Galecwicz alone to discredit Sayana, although there are many other sources on Sayana who have mentioned many good things about his translation. Introducing four lines on Sayana which is not subject of this article.
 * (h) In any case, why change the edits and remove several quotes in a hurry with references to scholarly sources while there has been no consensus and repeated objection from me? Jaykul72 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides a forum for civil arguments, there is no need for being rude. Fourth pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P4. Jaykul72 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (h) In any case, why change the edits and remove several quotes in a hurry with references to scholarly sources while there has been no consensus and repeated objection from me? Jaykul72 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides a forum for civil arguments, there is no need for being rude. Fourth pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P4. Jaykul72 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ad a: That's a Vedantin, concerned with the jnana-khanda, who states that mere recitation is not a pramana. That's in line with what other sources say. You're taking Shankara out of the essential context.
 * Ad b: which pupils, which context? This is indeed WP:CHERRYPICKING, from a source from 1957 whichisn't even accessible at Google Books.
 * Ad c: that's Mookerji, again. This is what I mean with "a lack of understanding."
 * Ad d: the interesting part is this:
 * That's in line with what Galewicz states: for Sayana, a Mimamsa, the prime concern is the ritual. One has to be familiair with the sacrifices to know what the Vedas are meant for. Klostermaier (Survey 3rd ed. p.47:
 * That's in line with what Galewicz states: for Sayana, a Mimamsa, the prime concern is the ritual. One has to be familiair with the sacrifices to know what the Vedas are meant for. Klostermaier (Survey 3rd ed. p.47:


 * Ad e: WP:AGE MATTERS:


 * Ad f: Galewicz, as quoted by you:
 * Ad g: Cherry picking statements from Galecwicz alone to discredit Sayana - see WP:GOOD FAITH; you've been warned about that before. See also WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH, again.
 * Ad h: this has also been explained before: because you cherrypick a source, repeating the same sort of statement five times, to drive home your point, while failing to explain what Mookerji tries to tell. A lot of info given by Mookerji is missing from your collage.
 * While I've added a lot of info from Mookerji, the only piece of info I left out is Vachaspati Misra's list of the five limbs of Vedic studies. It's one of several lists, of which you choose to give only this one. Obviously, because it states Sabda (apprehension of meaning of words heard). That's one of those five repetitions. You don't seem to be concerned with the general topic of this section, you only want to repeat your point. If you use this info, you have to summarize the section, not cherrypick one piece of it.
 * While I've added a lot of info from Mookerji, the only piece of info I left out is Vachaspati Misra's list of the five limbs of Vedic studies. It's one of several lists, of which you choose to give only this one. Obviously, because it states Sabda (apprehension of meaning of words heard). That's one of those five repetitions. You don't seem to be concerned with the general topic of this section, you only want to repeat your point. If you use this info, you have to summarize the section, not cherrypick one piece of it.


 * Regarding rudeness: not assuming good faith, repeatedly accusing others of advocacy and a conflict of interest when they disagree with you, is extremely rude.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

NB: the title of this thread displays your concern: "Vedas were recited for their meaning". That's incorrect: the mantras, the karma-khanda, were studied for their meaning, but recited for their efficacy. To do this in a proper way, they had to be memorized. To memorize correctly, they had to be studied - and ideally, the linguistic meaning was part of this study - not of the recitation. Practically, the original meaning was lost, the rituals were recontextualized, and proper recitation sec became the main concern, as exemplified by the Mimamsa's. The Vedantins were concerned with the jnana-kanda, the deeper meaning of the Upanishads. That's what those sources say.
 * I've added some info to make this more clear diff, including Mookerji, but also Frazier (so close, and yet so far...). I hope this adresses some of your concerns. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please, my main concern on disruptive editing is these lines are no longer shown which were added earlier with valid source citations
 * further mentions that Vedas were learnt to realize the truth and "not mere mastery or recitation of its texts" quoting Sayanacharya that "Veda is useless learning to him (for one) who only recites its without comprehending its meaning".
 * The students had to under take vows of vrata of silence, meditation and obedience to realize the truths, once they gain enlightenment they burst into discourses vacham avadishuh.
 * Mookerji states that "mastery of mere text of Veda is to be followed up by its meaning" and mentions that five aspects of Vedic study are Hearing of words (Adhyanana), Apprehension of meaning of words (Sabda), Reasoning leading to generalization (Uha), Confirmation by friend of teacher (Suhritprapti) and Application (Dana)..
 * In this revision it has been removed. I don't see any consensus on removing these lines. That too without giving me time to respond. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to respond to the paragraph 1 until we finalize the paragraph 2 in vedic learning. Jaykul72 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mookerji can be summarized in one sentence: "understanding the meaning of the words of the Vedas was part of the Vedic learning." No need to repeat that five times, other than critizing Staal.
 * Regarding the need to understand the meaning of the words, the article now says:
 * "According to Mookerji, for Sayana the mastery or perception of the meaning (artha-bodha)[note 12] of the Vedas is even more important than learning the texts.[88]
 * "While these truths are imparted to the student by the memorized texts,[120] "the realization of Truth" and the knowledge of paramatman is the real aim of Vedic learning, and not the mere recitation of texts.[121]"
 * That's only (...) two times the same info.
 * Regarding meditation etc., the article now says
 * "The supreme knowledge of the Absolute, para Brahman-jnana, the knowledge of rta and satya, can be obtained by sense-restraint, dhyana, the practice of tapas (austerities),[117] and discussing the Vedanta.[122][note 20]"
 * That's more info than your sentence contained.
 * The sentence "once they gain enlightenment they burst into discourses vacham avadishuh" is incomprehensible without further clarification.
 * Regarding the five limbs, I've explained this above.
 * My edits have improved your contribution, while I have also added additional info in line with your argument. "Disruptive" means removing it or not giving consideration to the other opinions; that's not the case here, on the contrary. NB: note that Mookerji predates Staal; using Mookerji as an argument contra Staal is sort of original research. Holdrege and Frazier, on the other hand, respond to Staal, giving alternate opinions; that's better. The alinea on the meaning of the words is now introduced by
 * So, how much more do you want? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, how much more do you want? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Vedic learning paragraph 2
[Proposal: to]

add

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I really, really, really don't understand why you refer again diff to Early Aryans to Swaraj, when the original source is Ancient Indian learning. You're really only concerned about driving home your point, aren't you?
 * Your line
 * is a repetition of
 * and
 * No need whatsoever to repeat this a third time.
 * Mookerji mentions several lists of the limbs of vedic learning; the reason for picking this one is obvious, as explained two times before. Yet, the following text
 * just ignores this. It is cherrypicked from that alinea on p.196. If you use those, summarize the essence of that alinea, instead of picking out just one list. All the lists there illustrate the opening-sentence, mastery of the mere text of the Veda is to be followed up by that of its meaning. Again, repetition.
 * P.196 is also referred to in this sentence:
 * No need for these repetitions. It's ironic that you accuse me of advocay, when you keep repeating the same line over and over again.
 * As explained before,
 * is incomprehensible. I've replaced this diff with
 * NB: you missed this fine quote from Mookerji p.29 (emphasis mine):
 * I've added diff the quote from Mookerji, and changed artha-bodha to a direct quote diff:
 * This means that the same info is now repeated three times. It also means that we're talking here about the education, and not about the actual praxis. Can you now please get over it and move on? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. What is the point in this diff diff that you have a problem about? The sentence shows that the students had to undertake vows to realize the truths. Where is it repeated three times? Can you please point me to the line where it is repeated? It is a sentence quoted from a valid source. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. No, the quote from Mookerjee is important "mastery of mere text of Veda is to be followed up by its meaning", it means that meaning was important than the mere recitation of text. This is obscured in the remaining sentences. Please do not modify the quote. Assume good faith. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. that five aspects of Vedic study are Hearing of words (Adhyanana), Apprehension of meaning of words (Sabda), Reasoning leading to generalization (Uha), Confirmation by friend of teacher (Suhritprapti) and Application (Dana) - what is "cherry picked" and what is the point to illustrate? Meaning was important in vedic studies was the point of the paragraph as mentioned by Mookerjee. Why refute it? Just like Holdrege, Staal, Klostermaier, Galewicz  are WP:RS Mookerjee is also a WP:RS, I am also introducing Rambachan, Rawat and Ghosh into this paragraph. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4. once they gain enlightenment they burst into discourses vacham avadishuh. -- agree that this can be removed. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5. Rereading the latest changes, thanks, this is good. Issues resolved on paragraph 2 for the edits introduced by me. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added diff the quote from Mookerji, and changed artha-bodha to a direct quote diff:
 * This means that the same info is now repeated three times. It also means that we're talking here about the education, and not about the actual praxis. Can you now please get over it and move on? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. What is the point in this diff diff that you have a problem about? The sentence shows that the students had to undertake vows to realize the truths. Where is it repeated three times? Can you please point me to the line where it is repeated? It is a sentence quoted from a valid source. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. No, the quote from Mookerjee is important "mastery of mere text of Veda is to be followed up by its meaning", it means that meaning was important than the mere recitation of text. This is obscured in the remaining sentences. Please do not modify the quote. Assume good faith. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. that five aspects of Vedic study are Hearing of words (Adhyanana), Apprehension of meaning of words (Sabda), Reasoning leading to generalization (Uha), Confirmation by friend of teacher (Suhritprapti) and Application (Dana) - what is "cherry picked" and what is the point to illustrate? Meaning was important in vedic studies was the point of the paragraph as mentioned by Mookerjee. Why refute it? Just like Holdrege, Staal, Klostermaier, Galewicz  are WP:RS Mookerjee is also a WP:RS, I am also introducing Rambachan, Rawat and Ghosh into this paragraph. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4. once they gain enlightenment they burst into discourses vacham avadishuh. -- agree that this can be removed. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5. Rereading the latest changes, thanks, this is good. Issues resolved on paragraph 2 for the edits introduced by me. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4. once they gain enlightenment they burst into discourses vacham avadishuh. -- agree that this can be removed. Jaykul72 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5. Rereading the latest changes, thanks, this is good. Issues resolved on paragraph 2 for the edits introduced by me. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ad 1: The info on the importance of understanding is repeated three or four (or five?) times; the vow has been merged to
 * ad 2: This line,
 * says it all.
 * ad 3: I've explained this three times now: you pick out obe of several lists; you should summarize the essence of that alinea - which is, again mastery of the mere text of the Veda is to be followed up by that of its meaning. Again, mere repetition.
 * ad 4: hurray!
 * ad 5: thanks heaven!
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ad 5: thanks heaven!
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Retro to Vedic Learning Edits sourced from Mookerji
Now that paragraph 2 is settled for the text, retro on behavioural issues, It was you who introduced Staal (Mantras are meaningless), Holdrege (emphasis is on phonology and not on meaning), and Klostermaier (Mantras are magical sounds in Vedic rituals). We have agreed to it. Subsequently, I introduced Mookerji quoting Sayana that "mastery of mere text of Veda is to be followed up by its meaning" there is a valid viewpoint from a WP:RS just as Doniger is a WP:RS, this was improved upon, thanks for that diff. To which, you have introduced a counter-view paragraph on Sayana from Galewicz (Sayana's artha means purpose) diff. In my opinion, this was cherry picking, undue as this isn't an article on Sayana and Galewicz does not have a definite fully backed view on this point hence advocacy but you stated that it was necessary. It got rough when you modified all the lines and removed several quotes introduced by me on Mookerji diff but introduced some other views from Mookerji. IMO, this was unnecessary and disruptive, the Mookerji viewpoint was useful as it added pursuing meaning was also the purpose. Thanks, Jaykul72 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've moved a few lines upwards diff, to provide more of an introduction c.q. overview; I hope this is okay with you. This way it's clearer that there are different ways of interpeting the Veda, and different parts within the Veda with different emphasises. NB: the division of "gods, ritual, Brahman" is iluminating; it's clear that it is 'the gods', the old Rigvedic deities, are the ones who's meaning has been 'lost' over time. While for the performing priests the corretc performance is most important, and for the Vedanta knwoledge of the Absolute is the ultimate aim, the old gods have disapeared in the twilight zone. Even the immortals are not timeless... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Images
Vedas are shrutis. Why are we putting all these images of books and pages? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Max Muller is quoted. It is proven his translation was fake
By deliberately removing any mention of mistranslation and instead misleading readers with Max Muller quotes, you are endorsing appropriation of Indian culture, deliberate mistranslation, a major contributor of racism and slavery. Joshua (from Wikipedia) has himself accepted that Max Muller mistranslation is well known. Why is it still included? Why is he glorified for his racism and revulsion that he evokes for Indian culture and heritage by creating fake narratives in indology?

Max Muller: Persistent mistranslations of samskrtam and Hindu scriptures Sarma N Gullapalli http://www.anantaajournal.com/archives/2018/vol4issue1/PartB/4-1-17-129.pdf

F. Max Muller and a. B. Keith:" Twaddle", the" Stupid" Myth, and the Disease of Indology Herman Tull Numen 38 (1), 27-58, 1991 (Cited by 24) https://brill.com/view/journals/nu/38/1/article-p27_3.xml

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/max-muller-839064-2016-12-06

https://veda.wikidot.com/fundamentals-of-indology-wrong

https://www.salagram.net/MaxURdog.html Doveranalyst (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021
I am requesting to add "criticism" or "addition from other religion" section: Many analysts of Hinduism claim that Hinduism embraces elements of all contemporary religions, therefore scriptures such as the Vedas (espacially Rigveda) and Puranas of Hinduism contain elements of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and have adopted significant amounts of Greek religion and Avesta of Zoroastrianism; for example: Asura from Ahura, Deva from Daeva, monotheism, Varuna, Vishnu and Garuda from Ahura Mazda, Agni from fire temple, heavenly juice called Soma from the drink called Haoma, Devasur's battle from the war of words of contemporary Indians and Persians, Arya from Ariya, Mitra from Mithra, Bṛhaspati from Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́ or Dyēus and Zeus, Yajna from Yasna, Ṛta from Asha, from Nariyasangha to Narasangsa, Indra, from Gandareva to Gandharva, Vajra, Vayu, Angiras from Ahriman, Mantra, Shambhala, Kalki, Maitreya, Yam, Yaksha, Rakshasa, Rudra from Sarva, Nasatya from Nanghaithya, Ahuti, Humata to Sumati etc. 116.58.201.237 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Syncretism is common to all religions so don't see what is particularly outsanding in the case of Hinduism. In any case, a sea of blue links with little context or explanation is not particularly helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022
A major problem in using the vedas as a sourse of history is the problem of dating the Rig Veda. The dates that have been suggested for the composition of this text range from c. 6000 BCE to 1000 BCE.Many historians take c. 1500-1000 BCE as the period of composition of early Vedic literature and c. 1000-500 BCE as that of later Vedic texts. This chronology is essentially based on the tentative dates suggested by Max Muller in the 19th century. The Rig Veda contains world's oldest surviving poetry. Emran Ali Boramari (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 07:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022
Utkarsh Cosmos (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC) The four Vedas – Rig, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva – are not the work of any single author. In ancient India, there were many rishis (sages) living simple, contemplative lives in hermitages high in the Himalayas and along the banks of sacred rivers. The rishis had names like Angiras, Bhrigu, Yajnavalkya, and Gargi (Gargi was a woman).
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SK2242 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022
Vedas are not religious texts. They discuss a lot of scientific topics ranging from spirituality to medicine, many of which are yet to be proven by modern science. These are often presented using symbolic and personification, which might make it seem religious. It is an important text for people seeking to know more about the purpose of human existence. Vedas became religious texts only after westerners came to India and wrote its culture off as a separate religion. 89.211.180.189 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 11:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023
please change Pancaratra to Pancharatra CuriosityPays (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Vedas was written in Nepal. Don't write ancient India.
Vedas was written in Nepal. Don't write ancient India. 103.148.23.180 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable and verifiable source for that claim?
 * Chris Fynn (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)