Jump to content

Talk:Hindu texts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 116.203.116.241 (talk) at 08:28, 6 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

The article confuses the Vedas as sruthi at the beginning of the article and then as smriti (mistyped as shruthi) later in the article. So, are the Vedas sruthis or smritis?

that's shruti. You are right, the "Vedas" section was broken, I've fixed it. Now you can check it

Mahabharata, Bhagavadgita and Puranas

... as "vedic" is sheer unmitigated nonsense. If someone is good enough to "cite" Radhakrishnan and Moore, the least they could do is to read that book first. It's all laid out in the "General Introduction", starting on p.xvii. rudra (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Hindu religious scriptures being presented as if they are primarily literature rather than religious texts. Is this not a discriminatory attempt to trivialize and to change the identity and perception of Hindu religious texts. It seems that the assumtion of good faith is being taken advantage of in order to comparatively increase the importance of other religious texts and religions. First there was the attempt to brand all non Abrahamic religions as mythology and now this attempt to relegate non Abrahamic religious scriptures to the status of "literature". Surely we are getting more civilized.117.198.51.90 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence fragment?

The subsection entitled The Vedas appears to have a sentence fragment or incomplete thought. The sentence does not end with a period. It currently reads:

the Āraṇyakas (आरण्यक), which conclude the Brahmanas, are written along a blurry line between

Can someone please look into this? A "blurry line between" what and what? EricP (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Serious Expansion Needed

This article does not even match the series sidebar. It needs several more sections, and greater elaboration in general.

It is missing major sections, and has sections that are comparatively minor.

The sections are also incoherent and the writing is haphazard.

NittyG (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Agamas

Add the Agamas! CO2Northeast (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why all peoples not worship when a new baby born in the house