Talk:Historical Vedic religion

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Demystifiersf (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 7 January 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eurocentric bias

Almost all citations are from Western scholars. A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times. South Asia has plenty of modern day scholars, the article needs to cite them in equal measure if not more in order to bring reasonable neutrality and quality to the topic.

Jonathan Kerk & mass migrations

The intro to this quote is telling for the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the IAMt:

"There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan phase, about 1900 B.C. and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 B.C. (Kenoyer, M., 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. 174 Oxford: Oxford University Press.)"

It was introduced as:

"Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, an expert on the Indus Valley Civilization, however, disagrees with the notion of any migration into north-west India. According to him,"

This is not what the quote says. The quote speaks about "invasions or mass migrations". This is in line with IAMt, which says that those migrations involved small groups of ethnically/genetically diverse people. Opponents think that the IAMt is about an invasion of large groups of homogenous people. Do they ever read any serious source on it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like our statement misrepresented the source on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To understand the actual manipulation of the quote by the user Joshua Jonathan, @Sitush:, refer to the section "Migration Controversy, Article Neutrality and the Quote" below. JaguarEyes (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any worshipers in the modern world?

Is this a "dead" religion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why do you ask? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't clear in the article. It should be clearly stated whether there are Vedic worshippers or not. The adjective "historical" in the title implies there are none. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Vedic religion (aka Vedism) is a term of art for the Vedic religion as it was practiced around the second millennium BCE, ie the Vedic period. So by definition there is no modern "Historical Vedic Religion", although Hinduism as a whole in large part derives from it, and some Hindus may aim/claim to adhere to the ancient ("true") form of the religion more rigorously than others. Abecedare (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's informative; thanks. I'd suggest that you try to include this explanation in the lead of the article, to help people like me, with very little knowledge of the subject, to avoid becoming confused about this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati follows this Historical Vedic Religion. It believes Vedas to be the core source of all valid knowledge. It's main mottos are "Make the world Aryan- Noble" and "Back to Vedas". Even the Aurobindo Ashram followers are followers of this religion.14.97.69.149 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soma

Soma is actually god. It is the Moon goddess or the Mother Goddess. Father is the Sun. Soma is derived from saumya. Moonlight is soft and cool (saumya) in contrast to sunlight harsh. Whether Soma is a plant or drink no one knows. Sun and Moon are fundamental to religion. Sun is the father. Moon is the mother. Father the creator or provider, mother love. Dgdcw (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soma in the Rigveda is different from the Moon-god. It is in fact a drink, but it has also been deified. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brahminism VS Historic Vedic religion

Historic vedic religion is different from Brahminism. Historic vedic religion is the fore runner of modern Hinduism. But Brahminism is a practise within the Hindu religion. So both are different topic and the redirect needs to be removed. A seperate article on Brahminism should be created.We cant restrict the entire Hindu religion only to Brahmin caste. Hinduism existed before the Aryan invasion itself. But after Aryan Invasion the Character of Hinduism changed a lot due to the inter mixing of Aryans and Dravidians.So Brahminism or Aryanism is a different concept from Vedic religion/Hinduism. Brahminism is just a practise inside Hinduism.So redirect needs to be removed. --SanManuDharma (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Brahminism is a set of rituals or practises within Hinduism. Hinduism is not only belongs to Brahmins. So seperate article needs to be created for Brahminism. Brahminism means influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion.--DanielZinker (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fork has been started at Brahminsm. Is this fork warranted, and is that even a valid spelling for the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brahmanism developed out of the Vedic religion. To use it for contemporary Srautas is incorrect, I think, so the current developments at "Brahminsm" should not be encouraged. @Ms Sarah Welch and VictoriaGrayson: any thoughts here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @C.Fred:, @Joshua Jonathan: This is WP:POVFORK indeed. The title is spelled wrong, and it reads like a casual POV-y essay. Yes, there are sources that use the word Brahminism, but such sources can be readily summarized in sections of the appropriate Project:Hinduism articles, such as a section within the article Brahmin. I agree with @JJ, just delete this fork, or move into the sandbox of one of these new wiki accounts with a link to the discussion here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is no actual religion called "Brahminism." Scholars use the term to just to allude to what is described in Brahminincal texts. I have never seen a proper definition of it. The POVFORK is obviously all WP:OR. What is the procedure here? Does one have to AfD it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've prodded it for deletion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This person seems to have multiple accounts - DanielZinker, IrumudiChozhan, JohnPhilipsDM all seem to be the same person, someone needs to report them to the mods. Mywikicommons (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits

"and existed in northern India", cites Michaels, who talks about the creation of Vedic religion from 1750 - 500 BCE, rather than "existence". Witzel is not mentioning any end date of Vedic religion, nor other sources (that have cited 1750 BCE) as starting period,[1][2] they don't mention any end date, because there was no end. Sentence should be:- "and developed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE to 500 BCE" or "and existed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE."

"Main articles: Indo-Aryans, Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis and Vedic period" should be changed to "Further information: Vedic period, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis". None of these articles offer a bigger portion of Vedic religion, they include same or smaller part of this article. To make this change {{Main| needs to be changed to {{Further| Lorstaking (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion&oldid=758828018"