Talk:Rigveda

Comments

I am curious about the new name. I've always seen it as two words and thought that rig defined which veda it was. Danny

In Sanskrit, Rigveda is never written as two different words Rig and veda. The names such as Samaveda, Atharvaveda, Yajurveda are each single words.

yes, sorry for not moving the old talkpage. It is a single tatpurusha compound. In English, *praise-knowledge would maybe be counted as two words (an apposition), but in Sanskrit, as in German *Lobwissen, it is counted as a single word, under a single accent. See Talk:Rig_Veda#Rigveda_or_Rig_Veda. If it was two words, it would be inflected, as *ricām veda. dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seemed biased specially when it mentions Aryan Invasion Theory which is highly debated Ankit Jain 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:The Rig Veda.jpg

the image doesn't show "The Rig Veda", it shows just a printed page with two verses plus Sayana's commentary. There is no reason to show that rather than the actual text, and then on Purusha sukta or something; the same goes for the creation hymn, we can hardly begin showing the full text of individual hymns here. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tilak

"The Orion" by Tilak is a much more important book on Vedic topics. To speak of "The Arctic Home" by Tilak is to remain fixated on Newton's Alchemy and forget his physics. MarcAurel 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

that's not the point, the statement you deleted was in the context of extremely far-fetched claims. Tilak is notable for claiming the Aryans came from the North Pole. If he said other, more reasonable things, by all means discuss them, but don't delete other material. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference in texts

Why are the texts linked to in the article different? I mean, sacred-text's and intratext's ones.

Examples:

sacred-text's edition of Book 6 has 75 hymns, and intratext's has 84. And so on.

Hymn 54 of Book 6 is different: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv06054.htm vs. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/SAN0010/_PE9.HTM

I have also sent an email to intratext asking this question. --Imz 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

their hymn count is completely garbled. I assume they used some broken automatization to break up the text. It is correct up to 2.16. 2.17 breaks off at verse 5, and "2.18" is really 2.17 6-9a. The link is worthless, and I'll remove it now. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How Old is Rigveda?

How old is Rigveda is horribly mistaken. Most of the estimates by modern historians are based on contemplation. True logical conclusion can be seen in the below mentioned URL.

Following are the quotes from http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A09 "Rig Veda verses belie the old chronology (VI.51.14-15 mentions the winter solstice occurs when the sun rises in Revati nakshatra, only possible at 6,000bce, long before the alleged invasion.) Carbon dating confirms horses in Gujarat at 2,400bce, contradicting old model claim Aryans must have brought them. NASA satellite photos prove Sarasvati River basin is real, not a myth. Fire altars excavated at Kali Bangan in Rajasthan support existence of Rig Veda culture at 2,700 bce. Kunal, a new site in Haryana, shows use of writing and silver craft in pre-Harappan India, 6-7,000bce."

Please also see the chapter on "Myth of the Aryan invasion of India by David Frawley" at http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A15

Regards, Prashant (s/w Engg in MNC)

Oldest text of Indo-Iranian languages

Just got curious if it's not also the oldest text in any Indo-European language? If not, which one is? deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gathas (sermons of Zarathrustra) are likely older. The reason being that the Gathas contain a much wider, much older I-Ir lexicon than the Rk, which already has numerous borrowings from Dravidian (not a great deal though). Kuiper wrote a few articles about this which I will cite when I can pull them out from my boxes. The Gathas are virtually "pure" Indo-Iranian, by contrast, though arguably, this could be due to deliberate redaction in the highly nationalistic Sassanian period when few surviving texts of the Avesta were compiled. The oldest firmly dated IE text is the Mitanni scroll which contains the names of a few I-Ir deities; I believe that is 1236 BCE, but I can't find the reference right now.--Almijisti 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was way off; the earliest datable I-Ir words I am aware of appear as the names Suriias and Marutta as the names of foreign gods in a Kassite document dated to ~1760 BCE. I believe this is the earliest example of any IE, not just I-Ir, but I cannot say definitively. The famous Mitanni treaty, between the Mitannian pretender, Matiwazza and the Hittite monarch, Shupiluliumas (my favorite ancient name) is dated to ~1360 BCE (I had a couple correct digits) and has mi-it-ra, u-ru-ua-na, in-dar, and na-sa-at-ti-ia; i.e., Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya. Had to pull out my old thesis to find this.--Almijisti 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating Claims

I removed some nonsense (such as "new evidence turning up all the time", and by edit conflict also reverted the addition of a list of ancient texts. This is offtopic here, go to Ancient literature (where we are linking to from this article at the appropriate location). dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I could agree that the place for the detail you removed does not need to be here, and I updated Ancient literature. However, the dating claims are still not documented, and the paragraphs point is hardly nuetral. The unspoken assumptions appear to be:

1) the RigVeda is the oldest literature

2) the RigVeda is the source of all religious thought

3) "recent finds" related to the RigVeda equal adequate evidence

I am happy to see the RigVeda represented as the oldest of all literatures, if that is what it is. I humbly (not sarcasticaly) ask for objective peer reviewed evidence before being told that is the case. If there are those whose religious or nationalistic sensibilities are offended by this, consider another approach: if the RigVeda really is the "truth", does it matter if it is the oldest, the source, or adequately supported archaeologically? If so, we need the objective citations. If not, we need verifiable claims to form an objective opinion. Thank you for the attention to this. mamgeorge 20:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

not at all -- the "recent finds" stuff was a recent addition by an anon, and I removed it. If we say somewhere that the RV is the "source of all religious thought", I didn't spot it, and the statement should of course be removed. I don't see where we are claiming that the RV is "oldest literature". Oldest Indo-Iranian, for sure, and oldest with unbroken oral tradition, but not "oldest", golbally, by a long shot. I don't see where you read something like this into the article. As explained in the "dating" section, the 1500-1200 range is the general rough consensus in philology; I'll see if the date goes back to Oldenberg and insert a proper reference. Since the composition of the hymns certainly spans several centuries, and the redaction is several centuries later still, the date is not particularly controversial. You could say that the RV as we know it evolved over a millennium, say 1800-800 BC, with the earliest nucleus in the early part of this range, and the final redaction in its final phase. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the checks; I appreciate you dedication. I have some questions, if you can bear them; they seem appropriate to the topic. I do not have a quick way of verifying these details; do you?:

1) Limiting the scope to Indo-Iranian may be correct. I was thinking Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Ugarit etc. would apply to those boundaries though; do you have a link that clears that up?

2) A redaction is editing for publication. Are you saying the Vedas were published in the 800 BC? Do we really know how old it is? How are we determining this?

3) How old are the oldest existing copies? Where are the oldest documents kept? How are they classified? Have they been dated? Have any Bibliographical analysis been applied to them? What is their percentage or error?

4) Oldest oral tradition... I have no reason to doubt that. On the other hand, how do we know what people believed prior to when it was written (which is why I asked...to begin with)?

Just got your latest comment: "look, this is totally undisputed. You won't find a single scholar saying otherwise". Many history based websites show much younger dates; I will not cite them because I can not evaluate their claims objectively. Can you? Without a citation, I have only another opinion about what the opinion is.

Thank you, mamgeorge 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also been curious about the dating of the Vedas. They are supposed to have been transmitted orally with no diglossia for millennia and I find it hard to swallow. A [paper] (pdf, page 5) by Prof. Witzel, which among other things defends the dating of the earliest parts of the Rg Veda to 1500BCE, makes a case based on the fact that iron and fortified cities are 'not' mentioned in it, so it must precede the Iron Age in the Punjab.

Anyways, from what I've seen, dating the earliest parts of the Rg to 1500BCE does seem to have mainstream scholarly support, and that is all that matters. - Kingsley2.com 08:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

that's interesting. I've had to defend this article against pious attempts to insert Neolithic if not Paleolithic dates, and suddenly find myself forced to defend the dates as being not too early. Scholarship is certainly unanimous in dating the text to the 2nd millennium. Of course it may well contain ideas that go back as far as you like (such as PIE Dyaus Pita, who may well date to the 5th millennium), but as a text there is just no way it predates 2000 BC. Now while the youngest parts may rather confidently and uncontroversially be placed in the 12th century (give or take a century), it is undisputed that the earliest parts predate this by several centuries. Just, how many centuries? I am confident that most scholars would date the bulk of the text to after 1500. But the 'bulk' is not the earliest hymn. Oberlies settles for 1700. While few people would insist that the earliest parts must date to this early, I am sure most people would willingly grant the possibility. Therefore let us stick with Oberlies' 1100-1700: Oberlies did not try to forward a hypothesis with this, he rather reviewed scholarship and found that this is more or less the consensus.

regarding "writing" and "publication", I suggest you read the entire article for background. I added some stuff regarding writing in ancient India. The point is that writing is irrelevant when discussing the Rigveda. I suppose it would have been written down from the 8th century or so. The oldest scraps of manuscripts will be a couple of centuries old. The Vedic methods of highly organized, professional oral tradition really rendered the introduction of writing a side issue. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Linguistically speaking the Gathas are arguably at least as old, perhaps much older than the RV, according to research by Boyce, Haug, Kellens, etc.--all reputable Iranicists. It is, of course, even more difficult to attempt dating of any of the Avesta, owing to the centuries of privations following Alexander's victory over the Achaemenids and the deliberately artificial compilations attempted under the Sassanids. That said, it is far from settled in the I-Ir scholastic world that the RV is older than the Gathas or vice versa. It's difficult to say, really, because it is likely that the dialect of the RV isn't even the same as later Vedic Skt and may be closer to that of the Gathas than the rest of the Samhitas. One mustn't overlook the fact that the Gathas are almost devoid of non-I-Ir words, while the RV has numerous Dravidian and Munda borrowings (see Kuiper 1991; Aalto 1971). This is ambiguous, admittedly, but it could point to an earlier redaction than the RV; that is, maybe Zarathustra's audience had not yet fully split into Iranian and Indic worlds (perhaps significantly, the sermons themselves depict a society that was on the verge of a terrific collapse).

At any rate, there are portions of RV x that may even predate ii-ix, particularly the akhyana hymns, which perhaps were remnants of a very ancient epic or cosmogony. I believe that establishing a terminus a quo for the RV is next to impossible; for one thing, only one of the five known rescensions exists. As for the other samhitas, the Samaveda has several hymns that do not appear in the Sakalya recension and may be remnants of the other rescensions or, perhaps, apocrypha. The Sakalya rescension was not compiled into final form until the 6th or 5th centuries (this date is, at least relatively well accepted even according to indigenous tradition, ascribing the work to the sage Vyasa). Even the "serious" literature on the subject of RV dating is about 10% evidence and 90% conjecture; nearly all of it that derives from a lingustic analysis is devoid of any real understanding of the archaeology and most archaeologists have only cursory knowledge of the texts (Rau was a notable exception). Muller originally thought 1200 BCE then he revised this downward to 1500 later in his life; Haug was convinced that it was at least 2400 BCE (Haug was perhaps the greatest of the early Indo-Iranicists), and Kaegi thought it was even earlier. The idea some have that 19th Century Europeans had any consensus on or need for a late chronology for the Vedic literature is simply false. I have elsewhere pointed out the circular reasoning that goes on in most of Vedic dating articles. The situation is not comparable to any other field of ancient studies, owing to the singular importance of I-Ir research to the entire field of historical linguistics and IE linguistics in particular. It's unlikely to resolve in my lifetime. On top of all the traditional academic slowness, Vedic dating has in recent years become one of the most politicized topics in all of humanities research.--Almijisti 07:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Almijisti, Avesta mentions Hapta-Hendu as the fifteenth home of Aryans and Rangha as the sixteenth and the last. That means that the Avestans first came to India and went later to Rangha (because of heat and fever) before Avesta was complied. So definitely the RigVeda is older. I do agree that Avesta remembered some stories better (example, deluge with snow), while Vedics remembered other stories better. Aupmanyav 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversial 'Out of India' theory

Please refer to the following paragraph, 'Kazanas (2000) in a polemic .. diametral opposition to views in mainstream historical linguistics, and supports the controversial Out of India theory,.. ' Let me point out that 'from within India' theory is even more controversial. Aupmanyav 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

huh? "Out of India" and "from within India" are the same thing. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting/Font test (sorry, can be deleted in some minutes)

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

you should use {{lang}}: ऋग्वेद dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

thx for the hint. just exploring different handling here and in de:. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Pjacobi#Vorlage:IAST

Introduction

• The introduction "Rigveda, a tatpurush compound of etc...." appears vague. Its as though a knowledgeable audience is being addressed. What, whose, when, where etc. are addressed quite later in the introduction. Are such kind of introductions in fashion or what ? I propose to change it to a more conventional one like the one for Avesta.IAF
  • how is it vague? Do you mean, overly specific? This is the brief bracket explaining the Sanskrit term, too short for a separate "etymology" section, and too central to be banished to a footnote imho. I see nothing wrong with it. As always, if people don't know what a tatpurusha is, and would like to find out, they can click on the link. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's vague for a first-time reader who may think its quite uninteresting or may wonder what is it. That tatpurush is a mouse-click away is not as far-away as the patience that is tested by introducing literary prowess right in the beginning. Besides, the order of merit usually is what, when, whose, etc. Its finer meaning can come in between this list or sometime later. This trend is seen in the pages like Ashok and Sanskrit also. I would like the opinions of others on not only this page, but other such pages also because we must make them readable for the quick-surfer, and for the average Joe. IAF

• OK just keep it simple like HAL Tejas, instead of a "tatpurush compound of...". That its a tatpurush can be mentioned later. Indian Air Force (IAF)

this is nonsense. Practically every article on Sanskrit terms on Wikipedia gives a brief translation, and an analysis of the components if the term is a compound. See Yajurveda, Ashvamedha, or any other article you care to look at. And no, we will not dumb down articles towards your image of a "quick surfer average Joe", we have simple: for that sort of approach. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Nylon, Human, Aircraft and electricity, all of which either provide a separate mention on the etymology of the same in a section dedicated to explaining the same, or a very short and brief one (as in the electricity article).

Ashvamedha, and Yajurveda similarly need to be cleaned-up from this imagined stretch of yours that "we will not dumb down articles". Excuse me, this is a publicly viewable, highly accessible encyclopaedia meant for all. Thus, the more serious researcher would look at the tatpurusha compound blabber down in the history or etymology section, whereas the high-school student doing an assignment would be more than content with the info provided in the introduction. Indian_Air_Force.

what is your problem? If you don't want to know what a tatpurusha is, simply ignore it. We cannot taylor articles according to what you think people are looking for. You have some cleanup ahead of you if you want to see this through, buddy. I suggest you begin by removing the superfluous Devanagari from all India-related articles. Feel free to come back here once you have cleansed Category:Hindu deities of such redundancy of no interest to high-schoolers. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can easily slap your own argument back at you by saying what is your problem if the tatpurusha mumbo-jumbo is included somewhere later in the article. Till now, you have not given one valid reason why such technical terms need to be planted right at the top in the introduction, when it is very clear that most average readers, quick-surfers etc. are just looking for a definition, and a brief intro. That is the primary reason all encyclopaedic articles have an introduction in the first place.

Devanagiri scripts are not "technical terms". They are a translation and people understand that. You know the crux of my logic DBachmann, but are skillfully skirting the issue by bringing in the similar but unconvincing argument of Devanagiri scripts into the discussion. The tactic of "if this, so why not this" does not apply here. Devanagiri can remain, but tatpurusha compound etc does not. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Reorganization of the bibliography of editions

It is good that we are updating the editions. For editions that I cannot verify directly I am referring to Wendy Doniger's reiew which appears in her book cited in the article. I notice that some of the dates and titling she gives differ from those in the article. If any of the dates or edition details differ from what others may know, could you please add additional citations rather than removing what I give to Doniger? If we add multiple variants we can reconcile any differences over the next week. Buddhipriya 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Location

The first hymns of Rgveda were composed in Southern Afghanistan according to Dr Rajesh Kochar (The Vedic People, Orient Longman, 2000). His arguments based on relationship of Vedic Sanskrit with Avestan language, location of Ephedra plants (Soma), names of the rivers etc were very logical. As Indo-Aryans gradually movesd east towards Punjab bulk of Vedas were composed in that region.Kumarrao 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

mathematics

A few months ago a change to History of mathematics asserted that this work was relevant to the history, yet there is no mention of it on this article. Is there some truth to the anons edit? John Vandenberg 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopkins

In one of his ingenious if extravagant articles, Brunnhofer, writing to prove that the Rig-Veda was composed before the Aryans entered India, lays stress on the fact that the family-name of one of the Vedic seers means 'dog'; whence, as our author conclues, the poet must have been a 'dog-revering Iranian.'

This statement surely implies that there is something unusual in finding 'dog' as a man's name in the Rig-Veda, and shows that the author thinks the dog to have been despised in the Vedic period. But, in point of fact, in the Rig-Veda we find 'Dog's Tail' as a proper name, and in the Brahmanic period we learn that a good Brahman gave this canine name in three different forms to his three sons, so that Çunaḥpuccha, Çunaḥçepa and Çunolāńgūla (Ait. Br. vii. 15) all rise as witnesses against Brunnhofer; while later still, withal in the most Brahmanic period, we find Dog's Ear, Çunaskarṇa, handed down as a respectable name. Āçvalāyana's teacher was a Çāunaka. Even were the animal despised, the name, then, was unobjectionable; as actually happens in the parallel case of the jackal, which is found as a proper name, although the beast was contemptible. Brunnhofer, to be sure, relegates all jackal-names, for the same reason, to the Turanians; but this is rather absurd, in view of the fact that as late as the grammatical period we have a scholar called Jackal-son. Like Çunaka, Çāunaka, we find Kroṭuka, Krāuṣṭuki, both the name and the patronymic (kroṣṭar, common and proper name), and both good Hindu names.

But it is the implication that the dog was a despicable beast in the eyes of the Vedic Aryans that the strongest exception may

Composed versus recorded

Rather than just revert each other, could we please have discussion on this issue on the talk page? The back and forth edit wars are unproductive: [1]. It seems that this is another of the debates about dating? Please, can we try to get the discussion about which sources are to be used, and then focus on what those sources actually say? Buddhipriya 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well composed seems to be the POV of one user, conveniently discussing somewhere else. Books use recorded [2], and composed is used mainly in sentences like "The Vedas are composed of four segments: Rigveda, Yajurveda, etc."Bakaman 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baka, thanks for the background. It seems to me that the debate is really just a foil for the usual debate about dating. It may be cleaner to just deal with that directly if it is the issue. When I read the sentences in the article that are affected by this language it seems to me that the semantics are about whether or not the Vedas were "first written" (composed) at the time or "transferred from oral form to written form" (recorded). This obviously affects the age of the work, with "composed" suggesting a later date than "recorded". But other readers may react differently to the language. The issue of dating of the material is also undergoing debate at Vedas, and there we are seeing the removal of cited material in favor of some of the political materials. I looked at the use of the word "recorded" at [3] but I can't quite see that citation as being directly relevant (I actually am not sure what it means there). I would agree on your second point that "the Vedas are composed of ..." would make sense, but there the word is being used to mean "containing" as opposed to "being written". How about this as an intellectual challenge? What if each time the word was used, you needed to say it some other way, not using either of the trigger words? Would thinking of another term help? Another way out would be to actually give a quote to a specific WP:RS to make the points when they arise, using whatever language that WP:RS chose. That would help keep the focus on sourcing. In looking at the specific edits involved, some may also benefit from the addition of more citations to bring in additional material. I will add one additional citation now to the first case where there the term is being debated to see if that approach helps. Each case might need different citations.

After reading the article more closely, I decided not to add anything because I think the first step would be to move all of the material on dating out of the lead and into the section on dating. One of the problems with the article is that the dating discussion is scattered in multiple places. Would there be any objection to simply consolidating all of the existing material about dating in the dating section? Buddhipriya 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Baka, I have reproduced the content of the URL you provided for your reliable source immediately above.

Nowhere does the word "recorded" appear, as you stated, though "composed" appears in the very first sentence.

Best, JFD 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

this is splitting hairs, isn't it? "composed" is the verb commonly used, but there is really nothing attached to it. It is used because "written" is incorrect, since the hymns were committed to memory, not written down, in the early days. "Recorded" also implies some sort of material "record". There was a "mental record" of the text, of course, but that doesn't really sit comfortably with English usage (OED considers this usage obsolete, and cites as its last occurrence a date of 1656). This discussion is a red herring. The earliest bits date to maybe 1500-1200 BC, which is expressed by saying they were composed back then, amazingly, if you can believe it, without any evil colonialist agenda to slight Hindus. Bakaman's citation of a fragment of a paper discussing Vedic s-aorists is ludicrous (evidently; trust this user will turn a simple matter of stylistics into a vitriolic 'conflict') . dab (𒁳) 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your dating of the vedas is flawed. Comparative Education notes that "Vedas..antiquity may predate 4000 BC". Merriam-Webster lists a secondary meaning as "to state for or as if for the record". The records were passed down by oral tradition, in this way a record was formed. Leave it to dab to make outlandish assumptions and petty attacks.Bakaman 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, are you seriously proposing that a single sentence in an otherwise unrelated article in a journal devoted to an otherwise unrelated field completely overturns the prevailing view in the relevant academic community? JFD 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware dab was a spokesman for the academic community. The 4000 claim is widely known, therefore it does not fall under Redflag. The truth or current trend is irrelevant when we know the claim is widely known. It was known back in 1895 and its put forward now. It is widely known, covered by reliable media, and not out of character.Bakaman 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But in no way is it the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. And, within the relevant academic comunity, it's not even a tiny minority view, let alone a significant one. JFD 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again it is widely known, covered by reliable media and not out of character. This is a chicken and egg argument. Luckily, my argument came first on the relevant policy.Bakaman 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the 4000 claim is still "contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". And the only way to demonstrate "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" is to provide multiple reliable sources, not a single sentence in a completely unrelated article. (And I won't touch "Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them" for now.) JFD 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

4000 BC and similar dates (6000 BC...) are patently out of the picture and are paraded in political and sectarian contexts, completely outside anything resembling academic integrity. I tried to discuss this phenomenon under the title of "Hindutva and pseudoscience", but proponents managed to get this deleted (by very dubious incidencts, policy-wise) and prefer to keep their motivations in the dark. This is not an honest debate. This article can mention crackpot dates in the Neolithic, but will clearly mark them as the naive or chauvinist exploits they are. There is really no need to keep rehashing this. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Buddhipriya's suggestion above to move all of the material on dating out of the lead and into the section on dating.Sbhushan 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if Indologists like Max Muller were unaware of the religious scholar view that the Vedas are considered a revelation AND, dating of them is irrelevant, since the belief has been that the "Vedas existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time". Since this whole controversy started some 200 years ago when some highly speculative dates were suggested, and as linguistics based dating remains equally speculative today, I suggest we get rid of all dating altogether, except that there is agreement that they are the oldest religious scripture, and that ll suggested precise dates or date ranges are speculative:

in an introductory lecture on the origin of the Vedas to Europeans in 1865, the German Indologist Max Muller said, "In no country, I believe, has the theory of revelation been so minutely elaborated as in India. The name for revelation in Sanskrit is Sruti, which means hearing; and this title distinguished the Vedic hymns and, at a later time, the Brahmanas also, from all other works, which however sacred and authoritative to the Hindu mind, are admitted to have been composed by human authors. The Laws of Manu, for instance, are not revelation; they are not Sruti, but only Smriti, which means recollection of tradition. If these laws or any other work of authority can be proved on any point to be at variance with a single passage of the Veda, their authority is at once overruled. According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors. The whole Veda is in some way or the other the work of the Deity; and even those who saw it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable therefore to error in the reception of revealed truth. The views entertained by the orthodox theologians of India are far more minute and elaborate than those of the most extreme advocates of verbal inspiration in Europe. The human element, called paurusheyatva in Sanskrit, is driven out of every corner or hiding place, and as the Veda is held to have existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time..." For quotation see: "Chips from a German Workshop" by Max Muller, Oxford University Press, 1867 - Chapter 1: "Lecture on the Vedas or the Sacred Books of the Brahmans, Delivered at Leeds, 1865", pages 17-18.

Hulagu 00:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

yes, this is completely undisputed. This should be discussed in detail at Shruti. The date of the Rigveda is completely irrelevant for its religious significance. It is extremely important for its philological relevance. Because of this, it is difficult to understand why people who have a religious interest in the text keep intruding in a philological discussion in which they have no interest, and of which they have no understanding. As it is, the text of the Rigveda is of very minor significance to modern Hinduis. Texts like the Bhagavad Gita are immensely more important. The philological and linguistic relevance of the Rigveda, on the other hand, remains immense. This article has room for discussing both aspects, and they need not interfere with one another. Such interference happens when the philological debate is gate-crashed by religionists. This is similar to dating the Bible of course, where Biblical literalists with no idea of philology or Hebrew keep insisting the Pentateuch was written in 1800 BC or what. The problem is thus certainly not restricted to Hinduism, it is a division of religious zeal vs. academia, and not one of "East vs. West" as the zealots would often have you believe. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating information

This recent set of changes has removed key information and sources (yes I know about the dating section, it depended on sources that were in the intro). Besides this loss of key sources, I feel that it is important to mention the dating information in the introduction, as the age of this work is of more global importance than its religious importance to some. It's approach 2am here so I cant tackle this right now. John Vandenberg 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No other page on a religious text has the dating section in the beginning section. For you, perhaps the dating is more important, but that is hardly a majority opinion. As for the sources, we can emrely move them to another section.Bakaman 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually those references are in the dating section.Bakaman 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct; the mention of "India: What Can It Teach Us" and "Mallory" do not exist in the version you reverted to (repeatedly); also it removed mention of "Avesta". Yes, we could move the sources into a section or sub-article, but I expect that serious contributors who think the content should be repositioned ensure that the sourcing is moved rather than reverting to sub-standard version. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. the dating is crucial, and I daresay it isn't only the infidel Westerners that keep harping on how very ancient the Vedas are. If you expand this article with so much good information that a separate Dating of the Rigveda (paralleling Dating of the Bible) becomes an option, that's a wholly different issue. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is crucial. That's why there is a section on dating. But don't take the word of a heathen Hindoo, here's a link. No other religious text has a large clunky out-of-place "dating" tidbit in the beginning, there's little logic in adding one here. But Hinduism (in the words of your immortal friend) is problematic, eh?Bakaman 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to use an argument of the sort Bible:Christianity::Rigveda:Hinduism and concluding that dating information should not be mentioned in the lead. Hinduism is not centered on any particular book(s) like Christianity or Islam might be. The article on Daozang does mention dating in lead, so does Analects and Pali Canon. Dating information of Rigveda is extremely important because of its several firsts (e.g. among the oldest text in any Indo-European language). deeptrivia (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it is important to note that most other religious works are not true to their historical roots. For example, the Bible (Christianity) contains the Torah (Judaism) which is a melting pot of written works (see Documentary hypothesis). The article on the Oral Torah includes dating information in the first sentence, to the level of accuracy that is possible. Codex Cairensis and Dead sea scrolls, being an actual manuscripts, also do. I am open to discussion on the placement, and there are probably sub-articles that can be written on this topic; my main concern was the removal of sources pertinent to the dating of this literary work. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman is well known for this type of trolling. But if there are any serious suggestions for reasonably re-arranging the lead, we can by all means discuss them, of course. The Rigveda is a rather marginal text in the huge body scripture of modern Hinduism (the Baghavad Gita is orders of magnitude more relevant), its main notability is due to its being the most ancient of them all. The intro has been very carefully optimized by WP:LEAD, and drive-by trolling will not be sufficient grounds for changing it. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda and Jacobi

I am here quoting from a Wiki article 'Indian Astronomy' :

"Jacobi (1909) has argued that in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda the sun was in Phalguni, and in the Sankhayana and Gobhila Grhyasutra the Full moon was in Bhadrapada during the summer solstice, which would have occurred at 4500-2500 BCE.[44] Jacobi and Tilak have both noted that the terms of the naksatras Mula (root), Vicrtau (dividers) and Jyestha (oldest) suggest that these names originated from a time when Mula marked the beginning of the year, i.e. about 4500-2500 BCE.[45] Tilak has also noted that the two week long pitrs period after the full moon in Bhadrapada occurred at the beginning of the pitryana, which would have been true at about 4500-2500 BCE.[46]."

The article 'Rgveda says :

"Some writers have traced astronomical references[2] in the Rigveda dating it to as early as 4000 BC[14], a date well within the Indian Neolithic. Claims of such evidence remain controversial. [15] but are a key factor in the development of the Proto-Vedic Continuity theory."

Jacobi should be mentioned in this passage, because Jacobi was the first to mention this date and provided some argument as well, while Balakrishnan has no argument and yet his view is cited, just because he has managed to put it on a website ! -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, that's fine. Just make sure that you cite the entire book, not just "see Jacobi". The truth is that such "evidence" does not "remain controversial", but is completely debunked. Any date in the 4th millennium or earlier may be religious mysticism, raving lunacy, or political ideology, but in any case has nothing to do with history. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no faith in Jacobi's or Tilak's or Max Müller's or modern Shankarāchāryas' methods of dating because these are all based on narrow datasets which are mostly interpreted rather subjectively, but what you have expressed above is also 'modern lunacy' or 'modern political ideology' or 'modern scientific mysticism'. I wasted 12 years on learning and dating the Rgveda, esp. upon Karl Brugmann's neogrammar 'Gründriss der...", and I decided to keep away from this controversy, because I found that objective method requires a lifelong devotion which no one was ready to afford. I have enough proofs against all existing views about this dating problem, but I also know that it will be a wastage of time to go into it : everybody has a preconceived set of ideas. TIME will debunk everyone; let us wait and watch and not be a party to this futile debate. -Vinay Jha 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Rgveda'

You have done well to trim the boring grammatical detail at the beginning of this article which must have repulsed most of general readers, as user:IAF had earlier remarked. I had a purpose in expanding this boring introduction which has been missed by you : the term 'ṛgveda' ऋग्वेद is not a compound of ṛik+veda as this article wrongly informs , but of ṛg+veda (cf. sanskrit-English Dictionary of Monier-Williams ).

Moreover ṛk- or ṛg- are not separable forms which could form a tatpurusha sāmasa, but are sandhi forms of 'ṛch-' ; hence ṛgveda is a tatpurusha samāsa of ṛch+veda.The form 'ṛch-' becomes ṛk- when followed by a non-vocalised syllable, and becomes ṛg- when followed by a vocalised syllable such as 've-' in this case.

The verb 'ṛch' is the root of 'archanā' which means prayer ; ṛcā is a special form of archanā, distinguished by special rules of prununciation laid down in Ṛk-prātishākhya. If these rules are not followed and Ṛgvedic hymns are pronounced as normal sanskrit, the ṛchās will not be called ṛchās but archanā. Many mantras are common to different Vedas, with no difference in spelling, but in ṛgveda a mantra is called ṛcā and in Yajurveda the same mantra will be called a yajus and in Sāmaveda that very mantra will become a sāman. 'Mantra' is the common term for all these. 'Mantra', moreover, may be used in non-Vedic contexts too.

Such boring details are unsuitable at the beginning, but ought to be put somewhere either in this article or in some linked article, because most people do not have a proper understanding of these definitions. There is no need to cite additional authorities because whatever I have mentioned is explicitly mentioned by Sir Monier-Williams in SED. -Vinay Jha 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

this is all perfectly true, but this article isn't the place to discuss Sanskrit grammar. Consider contributing to sandhi or Sanskrit grammar. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating of RigVeda in Introduction

Instead of Western dating of an Indian text which don't consider Indian Hindu view , I modified so as to accomodate both sided dating, but Dab is deleting it for which he is being criticized even by other admins. Dab stop being Supremist in this controversial subject. I am being neutral to accomodate western & Indian dating. And, as an admin I expect the same from you. Please note that we are dealing with Indian subject , so Indian view also require addition in the same way you are trying to impose western dating. WIN 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC. There is no "western" vs. "Hindu" view. There are academic estimates vs. pop culture myths. Actual Hindu tradition does not date the Vedas at all, since they are eternal (shruti, apaurusheyatva). Some Hindu texts (Vishnu Purana) "date" the three Vedas by saying they were derived from a single Original Veda in the Treta Yuga, which according to some other{{fact}} sources would translate to some 2 million years ago. This may be discussed at Vedas, but it has nothing to do with the Rigveda in particular. You are not excused from citing reliable academic sources for a claimed "view" just because it is "Indian". dab (𒁳) 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic estimates are solely based on AIT which itself is a linguistic theory and not a fact. AIT is either totally opposed or considered as highly dubious by archeeologists and totally not favoured by anthropologists. When solid science is debunking or not relying on it then a theory based on linguistic sky palace is on a shaky ground. So, your assertion is improper.

Troy was also a popular cultural myth. But, it's found on Turkey now. So, popular cultural beliefs are on more solid ground than some theory mainly fabricated by linguist on shaky parameters & with one way thinking. And, hence I oppose addition of only western dating in Intro ( based on a theory ) but sounding like a fact. WIN 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting -- you could write a dissertation about it. Once you publish it, we can mention your opinion as a minority view. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For your kind of thinking I sincerely recommend to read book on Indian Mathematics http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/index.html . If you can understand Mathematics then you may appreciate inventions of Indians and it's total discredit in Western Acedamics. So, what your western acedamics are upto should be clear as same thing is done for language by linguists and the fabricated Aryan Invasion theory. So, stop being hypocrate & eurocentric. WIN 11:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

stop trolling, present academic sources and seek consensus for your revision. I would never deny the great contribution of Indian mathematics. But what sort of argument is "India has great mathematicians, therefore my changes to the Rigveda article must be correct"? That's not even a fallacy, it's just idle rambling. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's given not for your rediculous & wrong deduction but to point out your Eurocentric nature in the subject in tune with Western historians on mathematics. Eurocentric notion has produced your ramblings. WIN 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)