Talk:Yajurveda/Archive 1

Misquoted texts reverts
Namaste Buddhipriya, I'm certainly far from a vandal as one can see from my editing history. Rather, I try to add a helpful and often significantly voluminous content. On the other hand, your history shows mainly reverts and minor changes. If that's your specialty, no problem with me but kindly give a _criteria_ by which you consider my contribution to Yajurveda 'bizzare' other than your subjective feelings. If you're not a hindu (on your talk page you say next to nothing about your spiritual affiliation or an academic background although from your comments on Narada Bhakti Sutra talkpage it seems you could be a smarta or an advaitist), let me note that these quotes are becoming a serious problem since they are used to misinterpret and denigrate Vedas and to convert its followers to Islam. This should be a concern for any genuine followers of Vedas, whichever sampradaya they belong to. I hope this short clarification is enough for now. I may elaborate on request. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The above comment is by an anonymous IP, not a registered user, so it is difficult to put it perspective. Buddhipriya 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Imho, you're trying to avoid a constructive reply. If that's because you're reverting faster than getting accustomed with the reverted content (which may not be always nonsense), kindly reconsider your approach for the benefit of Wikipedia. --Jan talk

I second Buddhipriya's action, but the lack of sources is a minor point. Even if they were sourced, Islamic misunderstandings of Vedic texts are at best a tangential subject here. Start a separate page for that if you like. (After registering, of course. Your explanation of changing IPs doesn't hold water - registering is the way to avoid that problem.) rudra 05:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no sources issue - in my second contribution I omitted them (although then someone might complain of unsourced input... a dilemma). I just object against calling my input bizarre. Subjective it may be (although I gave my reasons why I see it as serious and welcome improvement), just like your view of it being tangential. My experience is that this kind of tolerance boomerangs in all kinds of ways. Like if you live in India (and not only there), one day you may find yourself blown up by a bomb employed by those who believed such denigration and distortion (not just misunderstandings) of Vedas and became Muslim terrorists. Hope that won't happen to you neither to your family and friends.
 * As far as registering goes, I'm more in favor of content quality than just having an account which in itself can't guarrantee it. So I support Welcome_anonymous_editing and if it gets banned I may even register. But I'm a natural nonformalist. --Jan talk


 * Your refusal to register is a violation of the fourth principle of WP:EQ, which is "Please register yourself". You are quite right that Wikipedia allows anonymous IP users.  Building constructive social relationships over time is also a goal, and registration helps with that.  Your current use of a signature appears to violate the subpoint to "Please register yourself" that says "If you have not registered yourself, do not construct a signature that might make it appear that you have". Buddhipriya 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Registration in itself doesn't guarrantee quality contributions which is the primary goal of Wikipedia and mine too. And since you brought up WP:EQ, kindly don't overlook subpoints #1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (Don't ignore questions), 20 (Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible) and 22 (repeats #2 to stress it). So I'm apologizing (as per #11) for signing with a 'talk' and signing with my IP address only expecting you'll answer my question regarding claimed bizzarre input. --Jan 82.208.2.214

the problem is indeed not that you are unregistered, but the quality of your additions, which seem to be some sort of confused opinion piece. If there is a controversy over the interpretation of specific verses, by all means give us a sourced discussion of it, do not just add claims of alleged "mistranslations" of "Muslim scholars" without saying who claimed what in which context. Since your mistranslations are mistranslations, it is otherwise unclear why we should give them at all, or why we are discussing these verses in particular. Anyone can look up the Keith translation of any verse by following the external link. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding signatures for unregistered users, the guideline Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages asks that unregistered users use the standard procedure for all users, which is "At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~ ." That will create the correct links to enable other editors to more easily go to the correct talk page for the IP address.  The policy "Note that if you choose to contribute to Wikipedia without logging in, you should still sign your posts. In this case, your IP address will take the place of your username."  Using the four tildes is better than typing in the IP address because when you manually add just an IP address the link does not go to a user page, it tries to find an article about the IP address itself, which generally will not exist.


 * Regarding the content issues, I agree with the comments already made by Rudrasharman and Dbachmann. To build agreement about your points, please raise specific issues here, with sources, and explain what relevance they have. Buddhipriya 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference between two translations is not an opinion but a fact, in this case blatant. The sources were given in the first edit (reposted below) and the standard translation from sacred-texts.com (not mine) was also given. Find a better one if you don't like it. Sure, anyone can look up anything but it should be mentioned that there are certain verses abused for nefarious purposes. If that requires a separate article (and I don't see why it should), let there be such an article.

Misquoted Yajur Veda texts

Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"

Yajur Veda 40:8: "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are in darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the created things."

source: http://www.islamherald.com/asp/explore/dawah/booklet_on_dawah.asp

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakriti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, BUT THOSE WHO WORSHIP VISIBLE THINGS BORN OF THE PRAKRITI, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." -- Yajur Veda 40:9.

This is merely further confirmed in yet another verse:

"The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have NO MATERIAL REPRESENTATION, LIKENESS OR IMAGE." -- Yajur Veda 32:3.

source: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1033

In this way these texts are quoted by Muslim scholars but their real meaning is different:

Sukla Yajur Veda 32.3: na tasya pratima asti - There is nothing to compare with That. 40.8 (Isa Upanisad): http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01243.htm He (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years. 40.9 All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.

A minimalist proposed edit:

Certain Muslims scholars promote translations of Yajur Veda, e.g. 32:3, 40:8 and 40:9, significantly different from standard translations.

That's all. --Jan, using four tildes: 82.208.2.214 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC) -


 * Thank you for providing the links to the two web sites and giving a very concise summary. Both of the links to Muslim sources are to web sites.  I am sure that you are correctly reporting what you are reading, but characterizing these sources as "Certain Muslims scholars" may not be appropriate.  When considering content from web sites against WP:RS, a problem I see with both of those sites is that neither of them cites any reliable primary sources.  That is, they appear to be web sites that push particular points of view.  So the issue from a sourcing point of view is whether or not those sites would, by themselves, be considered reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. On the Internet one can find just about anything on a web site somewhere.


 * These web sites might be classified as Reliable_sources which "includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources (see Exceptions below)."


 * These web sites might be classified as Reliable_sources in which case this guideline would apply: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."


 * Using these guidelines, the worth of the sources seems poor, and I would generally delete any links that I saw to them when used in other articles except as examples of Extremist sources as defined above. I do not think the material is relevant to the article of Yajurveda.  Another editor has commented that if you feel the issue of mischaracterization of Hindu scriptures by persons of other faiths is a noteworthy subject in its own right, perhaps the best thing to do would be to start an article on that topic.  But even then, it would be necessary to find some reliable sources that would document the facts in a stronger manner than these links from web sites. Have any books been written about this subject, for example? Buddhipriya 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a brief mention on Hinduism_and_other_religions? Otherwise, I don't see any relevance here. I mean, we are discussing a "Booklet On Dawah to the World" by one Br. Sabeel Ahmad published on www.islamherald.com, that hardly belongs on our Yajurveda article. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...they appear to be web sites that push particular points of view - yes, with a possibly significant impact, supporting extremists. That's my reason to bring it up. I'm not aware of another books with these particular translations. They seem to come solely from Dr. Ahmad (whose booklet is also at http://www.islamawareness.net/Dawah/dawahbook.html ). He misinterpreted texts highlighted by Zakir Naik (who is quoting them in standard translations though) in http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part2.html and http://msavt.accuwebhosting.biz/main/major.pdf
 * We're witnessing a birth of a propaganda piece... But if there is a prevalent opinion that these sources don't belong to this article, I won't insist anymore, having stated my case. Jan 82.208.2.214 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the guideline on Fringe theories would be helpful in looking at those web sites. Since anyone can put anything on a web site, there needs to be some threshold for notability to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.  As the guideline says, "We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is."  If some crank puts up a web site claiming to be an expert on Lemuria we may inadvertently give inapppropriate credence to that crank by linking to the web site from a Wikipedia article about Lemuria.  The first point of guidance is that "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual."   In this case, you said that "I'm not aware of another books with these particular translations. They seem to come solely from Dr. Ahmad" so he may not yet meet that test for notability.  You may be correct that "We're witnessing a birth of a propaganda piece", in which case this may be the first appearance of a new star in the Internet firmament.  In the case of theories that are so new no one has yet reacted to them, the guideline "If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."


 * There are many examples on Wikipedia where fringe ideas are covered in detail, e.g., Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations, and it may be easier to get agreement that a fringe idea deserves an article about the fringe itself rather than giving the fringe notability by including it in the main article for the topic. Buddhipriya 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with categorizing a dezinterpretation of a scripture as a 'theory' and the above examples (Lemuria, Moon hoax) are imho also quite non-fitting but given the Wiki notability criteria, let's consider this issue settled. Thanks for your comments. Jan 82.208.2.214 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic interpretation of Hindu scripture may have some notability in the context of communalism (South Asia) etc. But it should be discussed in context, not scattered across various articles on individual scripture. You are most welcome to start writing an Islamic exegesis of Hindu scripture article if you can be bothered, and if you can muster some references on the topic. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Black first White came later
I've changed the order of placement of the Black v/s White Yajur Veda. The former is written first and the later is know to be written by a Rishi much later.

I've check this at multiple locations all said the same. Kindly research and consider adding the details about the same.

I've found various sources saying that the Black Yajur Veda was taught by a Guru to his Pupil and later the Pupil was disregarded by the Guru and asked to Leave. The Pupil after penance got the new Yajur Veda from Lord Surya. I've seen this story almost every where. I will quote books telling the same.

An online version of the same Black White Yajur. It is a must that the chronology of the New Yajur Veda be mentioned as It will give important facts for the researchers to study on.BalanceRestored 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Krishna Yajurveda (OLD) and White Yajurveda (NEW)
I am thinking of adding a postfix OLD and NEW to the titles for visitors to understand that the White yajurveda was created later. Kindly comment about the same.BalanceRestored 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dab wrote the following "taittirīya saṃhita (TS) of Panchala"
Kindly provide the exact citations for the same.BalanceRestored 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Shukla and Krishna really recensions of Yajur Veda?
Daya Krishna, in his book "Indian Philosophy - A Counter-Perspective" raises some pertinent questions regarding the status of the black and the white yajurveda.

"First, there is no such thing as the Yajurveda. We have either the Krsna Yajurveda or the Sukla Yajurveda. These are not treated as sakhas of the Yajurveda, but if one were to do so one would have to point to some Mula Yajurveda of which they were the sakhas. And there is no such Yajurveda extant at present. But do we, then, have a Krsna Yajurveda or a Sukla Yajurveda? As far as I know, there is no such thing either. What we have is the Taittiriya Samhita and the Kathaka Samhita, the Kapisthala Samhita, and the Maitrayani Samhita. These are all supposed to be sakhas of the Krsna Yajurveda, but then where is the Krsna Yajurveda of which these are the sakha?"

He further adds, that on closer examination even the claim these are parallel versions is suspect

"In fact, if we look at the structure of these four Samhitds of the Krsna Yajurveda, they show such variations that it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as sakhas of one and the same Veda. The Taittiriya Samhita is divided into seven Kandas, each further divided into Prapathakas which are then further divided into Anuvakas consisting of Mantras and Brahmanas. The Kathaka Samhita, on the other hand, has no Kandas but only Sthanakas which happen to be forty in number. These are divided into Anuvakas which contain the Mantras. The Kapisthala Samhitd, which also is supposed to belong to the Kathakas, consists of forty-seven chapters containing various sections. The Maitrayani Samhita, on the other hand, consists of only four Kandas containing Prapdthakas which consist of Anuvakas containing Mantras. It is not only that the structure of these texts is different, but also the sequence of the Mantras or even the Anuvakas is different in different Samhitas."

He proceeds to point out more discrepancies (regarding inclusion of certain Khila mantras from the Rc.) which are too technical to present here. All the quotes are from the Chapter Vedic Corpus : Some questions.

I think it deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.164.59 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yajurveda. 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/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How is any part of Max Mueller still there in Wikipedia when it is widely known he deliberately MISTRANSLATED with HORRIFIC opposites of what's written?
How is any part of Max Mueller still there in Wikipedia when it is widely known he deliberately MISTRANSLATED with HORRIFIC opposites of what's written? Doveranalyst (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong
Yajurveda translation is wrong 2401:4900:41D4:9FA1:CE3E:CB:1BB3:5FA8 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)