Jump to content

Talk:Hinduism

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kanchanamala (talk | contribs) at 22:34, 22 January 2015 (→‎Levant = Mitanni?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleHinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 29, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 26, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
December 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Levant = Mitanni?

@Joshua Jonathan: This revert [3] seems ill-thought out to me. We are not going to start the New Year with an edit war, are we? You didn't answer my question, are the "Vedic people" that went to the Levant the same as Mitanni or not? If not, who were they? Secondly, this is not a "direct quote," as you claim. Beckwith mentions three groups, one that went to Levant, one to India and one to China (with some doubt). Only two groups are mentioned here. But the first group, as far as I understand, was already mentioned in the paragraph. Double counting it is confusing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ:
  • I don't know what your plans are; mine are to edit in a constructive way.
  • "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India." is a quote, like it or not.
  • What makes you think of "the "Vedic people" that went to the Levant"? The wiki-text says "One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria".
I've got no time now to check the source; New Year's Party is about to start, with the first guest coming in. Happy New Year! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to you too! We can continue discussion after you have got time to check the source. Meanwhile, I am putting back my version because I am convinced that the people that went to Levant (in Beckwith's terminology) are the Mitanni, who have been already mentioned in the text. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The party-gang has started to make a jigsaw-puzzle (bunch of friendly intellectuals together...), so I'm peeping out for a short while.
With this edit, and the edit-summary "Isn't the Levant group already covered as Mitanni?", you changed
"The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India.(Beckwith 200, p.34)"
into
"The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across Iran into India.(Beckwith 200, p.34)"
I thought you'd removed the middle part; you removed the start, so the citation is not corrupted.
I agree that the sentence looks strange; it's a long way from the Levant to India... I "borrowed" (took over) Beckwith's "Empires of the Silk Road" from my father, so let's see. But indeed, the full sentence is indeed what Beckwith writes. He also writes, at page 35:
Old Indic [...] is attested first in upper Mesopotamia and the Levant, and later in India."
And at page 33 he writes that the Mitanni-group also belonged to the second wave. This is what I (re)read so far; I'll have a closer look later, for this "split". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence is "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India, and perhaps across Eastern Central Asia into China." The sentence says that one group was "pursued" to the Levant, the other group to India (and perhaps a third group to China). I've cnahed the paragraph into
"The Indo-Aryans split-off around 1800-1600 BCE from the Iranians,[181] where-after they were defeated and split into two groups by the Iranians,[182] who dominated the Central Eurasian steppe zone[183] and "chased them to the extermities of Central Eurasia."[183] One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria;[179] (ca.1500-1300 BCE) and the other group were the Vedic people,[184] The two groups were pursued by the Iranians respectively "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India, and perhaps across Eastern Central Asia into China."[185]"
I hope it's clearer now. And, to answer you question: the Mittani and the Vedic people were both Indo-Aryan peoples. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I love your commitment! Say Happy New Year to all your partymen and women for me.
I think your change looks fine. There is a story here that you might enjoy. The asuras (Iranians) and the suras (Indic people) churned the ocean (the Caspian?) to get amrita but the asuras were trying to steal it all for themselves. Then Vishnu supposedly came and helped out the suras in the form of Mohini and robbed the asuras of their share of amrita. Apparently, the history is telling us that this was all a hoax, and the asuras did get all the amrita for themselves! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, may be the suras did get their share of amrita after all. That is how they survived the rout and ended up in India, the land of Vishnu. But the "asuras" did come back to get them, and destroyed the Vishnu Hari temple in Ayodhya, and we have been fighting over it ever since. The older tradition says that the suras and asuras keep fighting for ever. They are step-brothers, apparently all male. So, now you know! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, I don't necessarily want to call the Mitanni "Vedic people". I thought that was the terminology being used. But you call them Indo-Aryans, which is fine. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice story! This is from Asura:

"In early Vedic texts, both suras and asuras were deities who constantly competed with each other, some bearing both designations at the same time. In late-Vedic and post-Vedic literature the Vedic asuras became lesser beings while in the Avesta, the Persian counterpart of the Vedas, the devas began to be considered lesser beings."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone really know what Vedic text is all about? Is it not still mostly obscure? What do the words sura and a-sura mean? Does ārya refer to some ethnic people? Think about it. Quoting from some published book is not good enough. A lot has been published about India and its ancient literature by pseudo-scholars. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Authentic" Hinduism?

@ArjunKrishna90: Not sure why you needed to add these links: [4]. Self-designations like "authentic" Hinduism and "true" history smack of heavey POV-pushing. They have no place on Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]