This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"scripture" is a bad term here, because the texts were not written, but transmitted orally. They were also not "written" but composed in Sanskrit. The article may have to be revised with this in mind. The article is also far from complete, btw, with even the Brahmanas missing (sorry for not fixing it myself, just now. I just don't have the time at the moment). dab(ᛏ) 14:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oral transmission is relevant only to Shruti. The rest were indeed written and can be called scripture.22.214.171.124 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
nonsense. smriti was also orally transmitted, just without claims of divine origin. Vedic Sanskrit reaches down to ca. 500 BC. Scripts started to be used around 300 BC, but for many centuries mainly for mundane inscriptions, quite comparable to the Gaulish language, where people refused to write down religious texts. Written fixation, also of smriti, would date to the Middle Ages, say the time of the Puranas. The Puranas, if you like were "written in Sanskrit". All earlier texts were composed in Sanskrit, and written down much later. The shruti/smriti division has nothing to do with this. dab(ᛏ) 10:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Though i'm pro-hindu etc., the article needs a rewrite - it is not informative enough and needs a bit NPOV.--Leafy 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Go for it - be bold, as they say at Wikipedia. While you're about it, you should restore the original era notation from BCE to BC. This was changed by an anonymous user, against Wikipedia MOS guidelines. Cheers, Arcturus 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)