Talk:Rigveda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Wrong 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)

You say "this article isn't the place to discuss Sanskrit grammar" but why you insist on giving a wrong etymology of Rgveda ? Either remove it totally or give a correct etymology : Rg+veda (or Rch+veda, because Rg- is merely a sandhi form of the verb Rch ; Rk+veda is nonsense. I refrain from editing your errors . -Vinay Jha 03:27, 10 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)

still no sources, then? dab (𒁳) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do anyone have sources for some aryan nomads of central asia invading / migrating India & converting language of almost all of vast Indian subcontinent. Stop being HYPOCRATE as usual. My only point is that when western dating of RigVeda is based on PURE theory ( which you are trying to assert like a fact ) is mentioned in Intro , then RigVeda 's traditional dating where it was composed i.e. India , should be placed in Intro. I oppose your rediculous assertion of keeping only western dating. WIN 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The present dating of Rgveda is based upon linguistic ideas of 19th century, but many discoveries of 20th century have made that approach totally untenable. It is wrong to hide the shortcomings in this conventional dating. I oppose DAB's approach of dubbing all opponents of this dating (cir. 1500 BCE) as obscurantists &c. If DAB &c do not create a mess, I would like to point out the defects in this dating with the help of reliable sources. Wiki editors should present both sides of a controversy and it is wrong to brush aside any one side without discussing it in a dictatorial manner. - Vinay Jha 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"totally untenable"? Based on the sources discussed and laughed out of court at Talk:Out of India theory, or did Rajaram organize another conference since the 2006 one? --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I had warned above, DAB started making fun of me instead of trying to discuss the issue. This attitude of poking fun at others is not healthy for an encyclopaedia. Vinay Jha 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating

In linguistics, glottochronology in the only reliable method for absolute dating of ancient texts, which is not applicable in this case because we have no definite records for different periods of IE prehistory. Hence, on account of linguistic affinities of the Rgveda with other IE languages, the average date of the bulk of RV was decided to be around 1200 BCE because the pastoral culture of Rgveda could be at par with a similar Greek culture only around this date which was hinted by Homeric poems. Max Müller stressed that this dating was proven on the basis of linguistics and phililogy, while the greatest Indo-Europeanist Karl Brugmann cited a historian A. Kaegi for this dating instead of providing any linguistic argument (vol-1,ch-1, Grundriss der ..., translated by Wright : 'A Comparative Grammar of Indo-European Languages", reprinted by Chowkhamba in 5 volumes, Varanasi). In the absence of better alternatives, this date of Rgveda was accepted by the majority. But in 1952, Michel Ventris deciphered Linear-B which proved that Mycenaean Greeks enjoyed urban civilisation upto "1450 BC" (Cf. Winfred P. Lehmann, p. 28-29 in Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 66 Janpath, New Delhi, Reprint 1976, original print in 1962). Hence, the pastoral predecessors of these Greeks must have existed around 2000 BCE (± few centuries). But around this date there were Harappans in the Indus Valley. Therefore, scientific reason asked that Rgveda ought to be placed well before the advent of an urban civilisation in the Indus Valley. This is unpalatable to those who do not want to accept that Rgveda could have preceded Greeks by such a huge gap. Hence, a large number of academics are neglecting the discoveries of M.Ventris and still stick to Max Müller's dating. Internal evidences from Vedic texts are also neglected. For instance, there is no linguistic evidence which can put Rgveda before Yajurveda or Sāmveda. Sāmveda has most of its mantras common with Rgveda. Moreover, all the Vedas mention each other. If we take Rgveda only, it does not mention any town, village or state of the Indus region, but there are hymns in the praise of states in eastern and middle Gangetic valley : Svarājya in first Mandala by Gotama Rahugana, who is mentioned by Shatpath Brāhmana to be the chief priest of first king of Videha (in North Bihar). Hence, the Rgvedic hymns by Gotama Rahugana in praise of Svarājya are certainly in praise of Videha State, but many experts say that Videha was Aryanised during the age of Shatpath Brāhamana and forget the evidence of Rgveda. Similarly, hymns in 10th Mandala are composed by the King of Kāshi 'Pratardana'. It shows that Videha (Mithilā) and Kāshi were territorial states during Rgvedic times. But the irrefutable internal evidences of Rgveda are neglected because these facts do not fit into the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory. No ancient text can prove seven major rivers in West India even if Sarasvati is included, but Mahabharata explicitly mention that the Sapta-Sindhu flowed to the East and the number of major Himalayan rivers in the Gangetic Valley is indeed seven includinf Sarasvati. Astronomical evidences are dubbed as 'debunked' not fit for discussion ! Archaeologists have failed to find any proof of a massive foreign invasion, hence now the theory of slow migration is being proposed. But one question remains unanswered : the Rgvedic peoples were capable of memorising all the Vedas with their archaic pronunciation for millenia without committing these texts to writing, but they forgot their foreign origin just after entering into India ! These problems become clear when one examines the inner linguistic mechanisms of Indo-Europeanists through which dating of Veda was deduced, for which I want the cooperation of neutral editors . Some persons have no interest in getting to the truth. Like the majority of humans, they cite the 'mainstream' as if this 'mainstream' has appointed them as a spokesman on Wiki , forgetting that in feilds pertaining to intellect, vote and crowd mentality is the last thing one ought to invoke. I have devoted 12 years on Rgvediv linguistics and I can take on the likes of Witzels and DABs on their own grounds, but they will not debate and take a recourse to either dubbing me as an obscurantist or a lunatic not fit for debate (such a language has been by DAB for others in this page), because they lack substance to support their arguments and talk of votes. Whatever evidences I have cited above are not my OR or POV but are solid facts from the books of mainstream linguists. Instead of presenting all facts and views in a balanced and neutral manner, some editors are misusing their administrative powers in a wrong way. Dating the Rgveda is a heated issue and a handful of editors cannot impose their POV upon the rest. Linguistics has no proof of the dating which this article is presently giving, it is a false propaganda of certain people in the name of linguistics going on for two centuries.

See the last lines under Wrong Etymology of Rgveda in Talk:Rgveda; here again DAB has refused to either respond or rectify his error. Still, he is giving a wrong etymology and yet poses as a great grammarian and gives lessons to other users. DAB can become a great editor and more than that if he learns some patience and neutrality, which I believe are the last things he will ever learn. -Vinay Jha 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

whatever are you talking about? rc vs. rk is merely a question of convention. I am just as happy to give "rc+veda" as "rk+veda", where is the problem?

I can believe you have studied Sanskrit for 12 years, and I am sure you are much more proficient than I am, but I am sorry to say, you come across as a confused nutter as soon as you are trying to explain your views, and if you can "take on the likes of Wiztels and DABs on their own ground" (...) you have so far shown little sign of it. If you want to participate in the Indigenous Aryan or Indo-Aryan migration articles, feel free, but you'll have to cite your sources like anybody else, and frankly I don't see much room for debate by now. We have really heard all the Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments about a hundred times now, and they simply don't hold any water. But be that as it may, this has no bearing on this article. Your arguments above are pure OR (where they can be made out to make any sense at all). We cite ample sources for the 1700-1200 range as wide consensus. There is really no reason at all (except blatant WP:ILIKEIT) to rape Occam's razor from behind and postulate a 3rd millennium date, as scholars are well aware. It is no coincidence that the "Harappan RV" proponents present a motley crew of autodidacts, cranks, mysticists and nationalists, while the academic mainstream view has been solid for a hundred years.

you once again ignore WP:ATT. I didn't invent WP policy. If you can present a dissenting academic, we will cite him. As long as we are just looking at fanatics, sectarians and confused self-publishers, you really have no case at all. Present your sources first, discuss after. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

REPLY by Vinay Jha: I am happy that DAB has rectified the wrong etymology of 'Rgveda', but I was driven to frustration earlier on account of his unwillingness to do so in spite of my repeated requests, and that is why I used some harsh words above, which otherwise I never would have used. DAB is an obstinate but inwardly a good person. Thanks to him for this correction. Generally he makes very few errors, but if he makes one he sticks to it. Forgive me if I sound harsh, my intent is improvement.

As for my statement "I can take on the likes of Witzels and DABs on their own ground", it was made on account of DAB's unwillingness to rectify the etymology of 'Rgveda'; I was frustrated with him. Actually, I can never take on DAB on his own ground, because I do not know what his ground is (nor he does mine, because he wrongly believes that I worked on Sanskrit for 12 years, I devoted 12 years to modern linguistics including the great grammatical compendiums of 19th century stalwarts, with special reference to Rgveda; before that,in university I studied science, history and then topped in English literature). I cannot take on Witzel as well, because Witzel will never give me such a chance (nor do I really wish it). DAB was infuriated with my language and answered with two abuses (silly, erratic) for me on Talk:Utpala just a few minutes after reading my message of 'taking on'. I never abused him or any other editor. But this is DAB's normal language, and he never feels sorry for his lashing tongue or pen. DAB is right in saying that I have shown little sign of taking on anyone, because whenever anyone reverted or changed my edits, I normally refrained from warring. It is not timidity. Most of these editors are half my age and call me garbage, silly, nonsense &c, and therefore I leave the field silently. I never entered into any edit war.

As for the real points about this article raised by me, DAB has deliberately refused to discuss any point in a straightforward manner. Hence I will again raise these points one by one later. I hope DAB will calm down and think over the points I am raising like a scholar and not like a wrestler. I am not interested in Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments and Harappan-RV is surely a bogus idea, but I am sorry that DAB is attributing these wrong ideas to me which I never raised, and on such fictious grounds calls my arguments to be pure OR, WP:ATT and WP:ILIKEIT ! He did the same type of behaviour in Surya Siddhanta, in which a blatantly OR is still being displayed in the name of Surya Siddhanta which I tried to rectify but was prevented before I could finish. DAB says that if I cite academics he will cite them. Read the message above in which I have cited some leading academics, but DAB deliberately refuses to answer a single point raised by me and invents fictious charges against me on the basis of statements I never made (such as Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments and Harappan-RV ). On my talk page, DAB has sent a message that I am interested in a Indigenous Aryans debate due to ideological points (Hindutva), which is utterly wrong. I had anticipated (see above) that DAB will call me an obscurantist because he will not like to answer my points. I had stated above that "Whatever evidences I have cited above are not my OR or POV but are solid facts from the books of mainstream linguists".

I still think DAB is a good and rational person, but he has not worked over this tricky issue in a proper way. Rgvedic Dating is one of the most problematic questions in world history and it is wrong to adopt a dogmatic stance and refuse to listern to others calling them OR, NOR, FRINGE, Minority, lunatics, fanatics, etc. I wish DAB should take a personal interest in this matter and find out the truth himself. If one's attitude is genuine and neutral, sources and references will automatically come to him. Aryans and non-Aryans did not originate either in India or in Europe : all humans originated in central Africa nearly 4 million years ago and it is not my POV but a scientifically established fact. Hence nationalism, racialism, etc have no role in this debate.

Linear-B evidence is itself enough for putting the pastoral ancestry of those Greeks around or before 2000 BCE. It has shaken the very premise of Rgvedic dating. Even before 4th millenium BCE, Vedic peoples and Greeks were living in India and Europe respectivrly, and any migration must be traced before that. It is wrong to denounce facts such as Linear-B and adopt dogmas. But dogmas of over a century will need another century to remove it. Till then, let DAB live with his dogma and his "mainstream". But I still request him to examine the very (linguistic) bases of these dogmas. --Vinay Jha 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

whatever. cite a peer-reviewed source and we'll talk about that. no peer-reviewed sources, no debate. I've never heard "Linear-B evidence has shaken the very premise of Rgvedic dating." I wouldn't know why. Greeks appear in Crete in the 15th c. BC, in perfect agreement with the Kurgan scenario. But if you have a peer-reviewed source saying this, we can quote it. If you have not, we cannot. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already cited classic textbooks above whom even Witzel recognises to be his peers but you do not recognise them because I have quoted them. If you wish you may read the following which are questions by another editor and my summarised answers.Vinay Jha 09:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

you have named lots of valid sources, which all agree with the mainstream consensus, but for some reason you choose to disagree. Would you care to cite a single source supporting your opinion? Please spare us another lengthy essay, just quote the source you would like to see incorporated in the article for more "balance", alright? dab (𒁳) 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vinay Jha completely. Dab is suitably forgetting that he is trying assert RigVeda dating based on AIT which is a THEORY and not FACT. He is just trying to prove theory as fact and hence started deleting neutral dating addition without any talk. So, he should be understanding that he is asserting dating based on a linguistic theory. When Max Muller who propogated AIT said afterwards that nobody on the earth can determine dating of RigVeda, but Dab forgets this suitably. This is controversial and there is nothing wrong writing it as controversial. Opposition is for assertive portrayal of linguistic dating. WIN 12:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you agree. The question is, can you cite a source? If you still cannot, what are you doing here? Wikipedia works like this. No source, no discussion. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions asked to Vinay Jha about Veda Dating

moved to User_talk:Vinay Jha. Please don't abuse article talkpages for private exchanges. Wikipedia is not an internet chat forum. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here was about the dating of Rgveda and not about any personal topic, which DAB wrongly removed from this talk page, because he did not want Wikipedians should know the problems and controversies in this field, so that a particular view could be presented as the only view . DAB has no right to delete active discussions related to improvement of the main article ; he is acting like a self-appointed monarch of Wikipedia. -Vinay Jha 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ANUKRAMANIKĀ

The Vedas were written down for the first time at the end of first millenium AD, when scholars anticipated a decrease in the willingness to preserve the Vedas as Shruti alone. But the content of all the Vedas had been exactly fixed during the Vedic period itself by means of ANUKRAMANIKĀ which listed all verses in proper order. ANUKRAMANIKĀ cannot be challenged as far as their authenticity is concerned; they are referenced in ancient texts. Hence if you have read somewhere that the "The Vedas are possibly changed", the author is certainly distorting facts so as to push some personal agenda or hypothesis.

I agree and respect the authenticity of the Vedas, as I too have read about the various levels of pandits and how everyone enhances with reciting the verses to the utmost quality.

But then why there are difference about many topics, Origin etc?BalanceRestored 10:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no appreciable "difference". Expert opinion is practically unanimous. There are always crackpots who like to know better than the experts, but they usually stand no chance in academic debate, and should be ignored for the purposes of Wikipedia by our WP:UNDUE policy. There are people who like to create the impression that there is a "controversy", but if you look around, they are unable to produce evidence that there is a controversy. Just saying "we disagree" isn't a controversy. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

as you can learn on our Anukramani article, opinion on inasmuch they are rooted in 'genuine tradition' is divided. They are clearly post-Vedic, but still date to before the Common Era (Mauryan period), and have to be taken seriously as ancient testimonies. Regardless of this, the consensus as to the authenticity of the samhitas is that they were indeed preserved perfectly since they were compiled in about the 9th to 8th century BC (that is, more than 500 years before the Anukramani). dab (𒁳) 10:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, I think I am too early in all this to really comment on things. There are various critics who speak different things, thus causing the doubt. Do you have any source that has explained in depth with regards to these discussions?BalanceRestored 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for dating estimates

The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies:

• Oberlies (p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100.

  this isn't Oberlies' own opinion, but his report on academic consensus. The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go, and is intended to include all reasonable opinions.

what are our sources for estimates incompatible with the mainstream?

• N. Kazanas, A new date for the Rgveda Philosophy and Chronology, (2000) ed. G C Pande & D Krishna, special issue of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (June, 2001) claims 3100 BC
  • Kazanas has been peer-reviewed has been allowed into JIES without peer-review (see Talk:Nicholas_Kazanas#Kazanas_in_JIES), which is why he cite him. The reviews were devastating, reviewers are unanimous that he has no case, and hence he is duly treated as fringe on Wikipedia.
• there are various Voice of India publications which have been discussed in scholarly literature, but not as academic contributions, but as part of the Hindutva phenomenon (e.g. Alan Sokal,"Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?" in: Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, Routledge 2006).
  • Shrikant Talageri doesn't state an estimate, but he makes it clear he considers 1500 BC too late. He hasn't been reviewed afaik, except (devastatingly) by Witzel (who had been attacked in the book)
  • N. S. Rajaram claims 4000 BC. favourably mentioned by Klaus Klostermaier in a seminar presentation at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) University of London on 21, January 1998[4]. Since 1998, Rajaram has been utterly discredited as a dishonest fraud.

That's it. The Voice of India crowd plus Kazanas. Not a single Sanskritist. Not a single Historian. Not a single Indo-Europeanist. JIES with Kazanas has gone out of its way to make clear in detail why this is rejected to anyone who cares to read it. Your best bet will be Klaus Klostermaier, who actually has a PhD (in philosophy). These are the only sources outside the Oberlies "mainstream range" I am aware of that are at all quotable, and for this reason we do quote them, as fringe views per WP:UNDUE. If you have other sources that have not been mentioned so far, please do add them. If you have no other sources, I would ask you to drop the topic until you do. It turns out that this whole "new date" discussion is an artefact of Hindu nationalist propaganda, initiated in 1997 by Frawley's and Rajaram's Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization. The discussion doesn't seem to stretch further back, and while it has made a stir in Hindutva circles, it remained restricted to nationalist literature. Academia didn't even react to this stuff, except for Witzel and Parpola, who debunked Talageri and Rajaram in 2000-2001. Kazanas was granted a platform in JIES 2002-2003, he failed to convinced anyone, and since 2003, the case has been closed. We can say that nationalist mysticist ideas were reviewed and rejected by academia 2000-2003, but that's as far as we can go. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions

In this article (Rgveda), it is mentioned in the beginning "the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700–1100 BCE" and the citation refers to Max Müller, which is wrong. Max Müller talked of 1200 BC for the date of bulk of Rgveda, and 1500 BC for a handful of most archaic elements in it. One editor says "The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies" (cf. DAB's talk above), but in the main article Max Müller is mentioned instead of Oberlies for this date. DAB admits "The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go" , yet he says it is "the mainstream estimate" based on "academic consensus" (cf. talk above). How an estimate can be "mainstream estimate" and "academic consensus" if it goes against the opinion of "most people" ? DAB is citing a WP:FRINGE theory in the name of mainstream. Since DAB deleted my well sourced contribution made to this article (about etymology), I do not want to engage in an edit war with him who makes it a prestige issue and abuses me. I simply ask him to rectify the error. Refer 1700 BC to Oberlies in the introduction, and 1500 BC or 1200 BC to earlier indologists. 1700 BC is referred to Oberlies later in the article, but there is serious error in the introduction. My real issue, however, is something more significant.

Mohenjodaro met a violent end around 1750 BC, but other cities were abandoned without any war. Earlier, Aryan Invasion was thought to be the cause, but now a majority of mainstream academics are favouring the idea of a gradual migration instead of a violent attack. Even Witzel supports this view. Some people have asumed that Harappan civilisation ended in 1900 BC, so that 1700 BC could be proposed for upper date of Rgveda (1900 BC is actually the lower limit of C-14 dating at certain sites, upper limit being around 2200 BC at most places, but very few layers have been carbon-dated and there are many layers below and above carbon-dated layers; hence 2450-1750 BC has been accepted as the period of hitherto excavated Indus culture on the basis of stratigraphic analyses by experts, and many layers lies submerged in groundwater which may push the upper date before 2450 BC). But mainstream archaeologists agree that the twin cities finally ended around 1750 BC. An upper date of 1700 BC for Rgveda implies that the Rgvedic Aryans entered India when Harappan towns were being destroyed or abandoned, which hints at Aryan Invasion Theory (my source for dating in this para is excavation report of Archaological Survey of India published by Srikrishna Ojha).

Oberlies and some others tried to give the RV an extension of two centuries due to the problems posed by Linear-B &c (e.g, Hittite) which I tried to explain. Oberlies &c are not mad, they have reason for extending the upper limit of Rgveda, but this extension conflicts with the accepted date for the end of Harappan cities. This is the biggest problem of Rgvedic dating. Difference between earlier dating (1500 BC) and recent dating (1700 BC) is itself a proof of the controversy I am pointing to, but some peole wrongly believe there is no controversy at all. Oberlies &c are hoping for a consensus by extending Rgvedic dating by 200 years, and we should be interested in learning the reasons which compel these Indologists to extend the date of Rgveda, after 150 years of consensus on 1500 BC ? Had there been no urban culture in the Indus Valley, modern linguists would have extended the upper limit of Rgveda to nearly 2200-2400 BC , so compelling are the reasons calling for an extension of Rgvedic dating. I do not want anyone to cite unreliable or wrong theories. I just want to put the facts straight and try to understand the problem more deeply : this deeper understanding need not be reflected in the articles in detail, but one may put it in summarised form so that readers get a more realistic account. I have a few suggestions.

(1)Cite Max Müller, (2) then cite Oberlies, and then discuss in brief the reasons behind this 200-year extension, and ask whether this extension has solved all anomalies or not ? If not, then give a brief list of principal anomalies and controversies which remain to be solved. This is all I want. I never called for giving alternatte dates. Besides citing two approaches to dating (Max Müller and Oberlies),there are two more approaches, which are currently not favoured by mainstream academics : (3) equating Harappans with Vedic culture on account of fire altars found in Kalibangan and other reasons, and (4) Vedic culture preceded Harappan culture (there are many types of views which fall in this category, none of which has succeded in gaining academic consensus). These minority views need not be mentioned in Wiki, but the anomalies which are left unexplained in mainstream theories ought to be outlined somewhere. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Omit fringe opinions, but do not suppress facts even if they do not fit into your theory. Give the main theory, give arguments and facts in its favour, and mention remaining problems to be solved. As for citations, there are many citations in sources already mentioned in this article on Rgveda. E.g., read Kazanas : he asks how the Rgvedic Aryans settled on the the banks of Sarasvati centuries after it had dried up? Some of ideas expressed by Kazanas may seem to be too removed from prevailing mood, but he has mentioned many well sourced facts which need to be explained, or at least acknowledged and mentioned. There is no hurry. Attemts to explain away fire-altars of Kalibangan as ovens are as ludicrous as Rajaram's horseplay. I can give a list of principal anomalies in present theory which are facts, not opinions. It is wrong to infer that I some some hidden agenda. Those who suppress facts have agenda. --Vinay Jha 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a site to look at. Citation machine. cite your sources. Also link to diffs is you believe there are discrepancies in the statemnts made by users.Bakaman 03:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bakasuprman! This Citation Machine is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I never needed such machines, I had better sources, but I wanted to avoid any type of conflict with anyone, as far as possible. But if needed, I will take a resort to approprate means, but my first aim is to not to create a dispute but to improve the article without a dispute with any editor. -Vinay Jha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

as long as you cite academic sources, not your own opinion, you will have no problem. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, Vinay, I asked you for sources besides Kazanas (who is already mentioned). You embark on another rambling post, and conclude with "E.g., read Kazanas". Wth? Why not simply state that you have no academic sources. Look, I am familiar with this debate. I know your position is not defensible in peer-reviewed literature. Kazanas is your best bet by far, because he was exceptionally waived peer-review, to forestall accusations of "dogma" or "censorship" that cranks always resort to once they are debunked and fail to rouse interest. That means, Kazanas was allowed to publish his stuff exceptionally, in spite of the fact that he wouldn't have passed peer-review. The reviews were instead held publicly, to make plain why the position is indefensible. Read JIES 2002. I know you have no sources. You know you have no sources. Why continue this discussion? If you can cite a mainstream "list of problems to be solved", everyone will be happy. Nobody claims we know everything. But as long as you keep referring to clowns like Kazanas & friends, it is clear that you are not interested in fair academic debate, and are simply trying to create the false appearance that such fringe views have a credibility that they simply do not have. I am sorry, but that's how things stand. We couldn't change this even if it was you who was satisfied with it, and me that was unhappy about it. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Study more and Cite accurately

In my talk above, I had said that Max Müller has been wrongly quoted in this article's introduction. All my requests to rectify the errors and remove a biased account of Rgvedic dating fell on deaf ears. Instead, I received only abuses and threats on my and others' talk pages. Talk pages are meant for discussing the main article with a view to improve it, but DAB uses talk pages for abusing those people whose civility is taken to be a sigh of weakness. Scholars do not behave in this way. In spite of clear messages about the errors, they were not rectified, which led me to believe that DAB has not properly studied the sources he quotes and is relying upon hearsay. It was, therefore, useless to ask an ill-educated and ill-mannered person to rectify the errors. Hence I have today replaced the wrong and false citation to Max Müller in the introduction with the correct citation. If this correct version is distorted, DAB will see the consequences of all his abuses to me ("insane, crackpot, silly", etc) in the shape of a libel suit in an appropriate court of law. I still request him to behave like a sane being, if he can. I fail to see what satisfaction DAB gets by distorting the Wiki articles in an improper way. Very humbly and meekly I request DAB to study more and cite accurately, or ask for help from more knowledgeable persons, otherwise he will see more signs of my humility and meekness in future. -Vinay Jha 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

you are a funny man. See WP:LEGAL. If you continue to threaten me with a "libel suit" you may be blocked from editing. You will still be free to sue me at whatever court that can bear listening to you, but you will not be able to press your charges and edit Wikipedia at the same time. I would also recommend that you work on your sarcasm, it somehow doesn't quite produce the desired effect. I take it you don't have a source for your "dating" argument then? Alright, to be fair, I happen to know that there is no source. I know this because I happen to have studied the question. You don't have to take my word for it, of course. But until you find one, you really have nothing to tell us.

As it happens, if you have an opinion that isn't reflected in any academic source, you are out of luck: Wikipedia will not present it as a viable option. If it is notable, it may still be featured as "fringe scholarship", like for example the notorious Indigenous Aryans thing. Oh wait, that is your opinion. It appears we already have the article you wanted to write, great, isn't it?

if you're still unhappy, you are of course free to create your own website (it's free!), where you can write whatever crosses your mind. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a wrong statement in the introduction of this article attributing 1700-1100 BC to Max Müller's "India: What can it teach us?", which I had earlier replaced with the correct statement from that work. My well sourced contribution was replaced with an unsourced one. It is wrong to remove my well sourced contribution and then charge me that I make unsourced contributions(cf. above). Anyone can check from history tab of the main article who is in the right. I have again added the citation from Max Müller.

To DAB : If you want to give date in the introduction, you can do it, but it must be sourced properly. Why make a fuss at the beginning of the article ? Find the exact citation from Oberlies for his date, and then work out the reasons behind +200 change in the upper limit of Rgvedic dating. -Vinay Jha 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job Vinay Jha........just make sure to keep lurkers with half-baked knowhow out of here.

Now, for my original post that Dbachmann had resoundly and appalingly deleted with NO regard to wikipedia rules, and the rules of opinion-expression in general that all free entities like wikipedia adhere to :-

I think that Rigveda should be dated between 1500 to 2000 B.C. But I strongly insist that if Max Muller or some western scholar's POV is to written, then it must be explicitly mentioned that such-and-such person says so, and it is neither universally accepted nor proven to be true.

For example, if somebody wants to add Muller's opinion that RV dates to 23 A.D. So you write it as, "according to a 19th century western scholar called Max Muller, the RV can probably be dated back to 23 A.D.". But if someone wants to add Indian opinion, then make it sound authentic like, "..but most estimates suggest that the RV definitely dates back to atleast 1700 B.C.".

The point is that keep western scholarship distinctly disjoint from the RV. Just acknowledge their remote presence.Indian_Air_Force.

To IAF : I understand your resentment at deletion of your post by DAB; he deleted my post at talk page too, which is against Wiki policiy. Help create a better environment in Wiki. DAB advised BalanceRestored at his talk page that the proper way to study Hinduism and Rgveda is to study these topics through Western scholars only, and also said that Vinay Jha is the last person in the world to be consulted over Hinduism. I had tried to avoid edit war with DAB because I knew he is intolerant of anything which he has not studied. I have taken a decision to improve this article according to rules. There are many ways to resolve disputes, and if the whole world goes against Truth, Satyameva Jayate ('it is only the Truth which prevails' ; fools have translated it as "Let Truth prevail", but truth does not need the permission of fools and evil-doers to prevail upon them, head to toe). Wrong translations has distorted the meaning of ancient texts, and sometimes these errors are deliberate, e.g. in the case of Rgveda. Rgveda is a difficult text and it should be handles with care. Present article has errors in almost all passages and it will take a long time to correct them with proper referencing. --Vinay Jha 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While in real life a dedication to truth is admirable, on wikipedia the standard by which we judge material is verifiability, not truth. I realise this may be shocking, but it is true. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Manuscripts and sources

Well sourced Dating of Rgveda needs time, and it is an ongoing issue. In the meantime I want to add a full list of all extant manuscripts of Rgveda in the Manuscript Section of this article, and if required well sourced short notes on each manuscript. I hope it will not be reverted. -Vinay Jha 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

if you can do that, you will finally do something worthwhile. You are most welcome to this project, as long as you can please try to keep the rambling, lecturing and sulking to a minimum. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Even a welcome is qualified with repelling words "rambling, lecturing and sulking". What does this fellow mean ? To expel every other contributor ? Vinay Jha 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay: you will win respect on Wikipedia by doing serious work (such as a fully referenced list of Rigveda manuscripts, I endorse this project), and by willingness to collaborate with other editors within policy. Constant bickering and filibustering doesn't win you respect. Believe it or not, this is friendly advice, given in spite of your attitude. You had a bad start, and people will watch you with suspicion now. But there is still time for you to win respect by doing valuable work. Take your good time to read WP:WELCOME. Wikipedia:Community Portal has tasks for you if you have a desire to be useful. I have long ceased to take these things personally. As soon as you behave properly and do useful work, I will be happy to collaborate with you. If you refuse to respect the project, you'll just run into reverts and blocks again and again. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The offensive language DAB is needlessly using here makes me fear I will never be able to write about manuscripts or about anything else ("bickering and filibustering, behave properly"). If this is friendliness, I fear DAB uses some special dictionary of his own making. - Vinay Jha 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

VJ, please stop this and read the message that I've posted on your talk page. I will revert any more comments on these lines that are not relevant to the topic. Sarvagnya 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now since I am back after being banned for 96 hours, I too want to post on these very lines, because I have been subject to DBachman's nonsense and corrupt behaviour.

DBachmann, you will win tolerance on wikipedia if you follow these instructions :-

1) If you do NOT delete other people's posts and do not merge sections of talk-pages in order to dilute a discussion. This is childish behaviour and I'm sure that you are at least of voting age.

2) Accept your mistakes wherever and whenever applicable, instead of stubbornly adhering to them. It will only cause you further embarassment, if you don't.

3) Do not mouth abuses when others point out your lack of knowledge. Patiently accept your mistakes and try to reach for a compromise.

4) Do not be stubborn and bicker over small issues. In short, be temperamental. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Rch / ṛch . versus . Rchā ṛchā

On Talk:Abecedare , DAB has said that I (wrongly) claim ṛchā for verse, while Monier-Williams gives ṛc . DAB is right, MW certainly forgot to mention ṛcha, but it is mentioned 13 times in Rgveda : 1.164.39 ; 2.3.7 ; 5.6.5 ; 5.27.4 ; 5.64.1 ; 5.64.4 ; 6.16.47 ; 8.27.1 ; 8.27.5 ; 9.73.5 ; 10.105.8 ; 10.165.5 ; 10.71.11 (the last being ṛchām). In comparison, ṛch in its all its variations occurs only 9 times. I may cite many secondary sources too, in which ṛchā has been translated . MW accomplished a great work, but if there are some lapses I should not be blamed for not knowing the Vedas.

I have answered DAB's question. Now will he please inform me why two forms ṛch and ṛchā were used in the Rgveda, instead of one, and what is the difference in meanings ? This question is pertinent to the present article, in which correct grammatical forms of ṛchā / ṛch and their correct meanings ought to be mentioned. - Vinay Jha 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

VJ, I begin to doubt you know any Sanskrit at all. Fist of all, the IAST is ṛc (ऋच्), not *ṛch (*ऋछ्). Second, MW does, in fact, have ṛca (ऋच), but this occurs only in compounds. Your ṛcā is an inflected form, viz., the instrumental. Now, please, I appreciate that this was a well-meant contribution of yours, but please don't waste my time with stuff like this. Consult a grammar of Vedic Sanskrit. This is eminently offtopic. The term for 'verse' is ṛc, plural ṛcas. If you are unfamiliar with Vedic grammar, I advise you to refrain from WP:SYN based on the original text, and consult concordances and translations instead. Forms of ṛc occur 20 times in the RV, viz., as ṛgbhís, ṛcas, ṛcam, ṛcā, and ṛcām (home exercise: identify them). --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had deliberately not mentioned that not only MW, but native lexicographers also do not regard *ṛcā (Indians habitually write ch for च् , and chh for छ् ) as a separate word. I had indicated above that these grammatical forms belong to the same word ṛcā / ṛc , oneness was indicated by slash, yet DAB says now I do not know any Sanskrit at all. I had real doubts upon DAB's knowledge of Sanskrit grammar which was evident in wrong etymology of Rgveda (because he was not correcting it in spite of requests, cf. above), and that is why I wanted him to take interest in grammar (I politely invited him to semantics, not to tease him, cf. his talk page, but he again starts oblique remarks). Some Wikipedians have a policy of biting newcomers [5] . DAB certainly possesses some grammatical book, but his habit of quoting from dubious secondary or tertiary sources will not go : He says ṛgbhís, ṛcas, ṛcam, ṛcā, and ṛcām occur in RV, but ṛgbhís does not occur in RV even once, the other forms occur not 20 but 22 times as I had said above (13+9), including two special forms which were derived from the same root and which I leave as a homework for DAB, because his "mainstream scholars" mentioned only 20. This discussion is really not useful for this article and I leave it, because Abecedare has asked me not to stretch any discussion towards technicalities irrelevant for an encyclopedia (I did not begin this discussion). -Vinay Jha 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

you make me laugh. you started this discussion because you insisted on inserting a wrong form. And now you pretend you knew stuff all along. Rgbhis occurs in 2.35.12d (but maybe you are using some mystical secret recension, of course. or perhaps need to learn about visarga and allophony). First you waste my time by blathering about unsourced speculation. Then you prance around with legal threats. Then you waste my time because you are unable to cite forms properly. And I haven't heard a word of apology yet. VJ, your wikistatistics so far: constructive contribution to Wikipedia: zero. disruptive impact: astounding. dab (𒁳) 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, I've placed a request on your page and dab, I also request you to please tone down and stop responding in kind. Its getting tiring for the rest of us. Both should stop peppering otherwise educated and illuminating talk with barbs against each other. For all VJ's faults, please consider that he is only a month old here. Regardless of how confused he may come across as, we should tread cautiously and patiently with him. Sarvagnya 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not retort to taunts. There is difference in traditional and Western method of interpreting the Vedas. I generally use padapātha indexes for counting which break Rgbhis as rk- and not as rc- . Forms based on rkk- occur 19 times in Rgveda, and pose semantic problems in some cases, often accentuated by differences in various manuscripts (e.g, ṛkk-bhis given as vimimāna in some and mīyamāna in others by Sāyana once). Vedic scholars, therefore, class every single instance separately, and two words are classed separately even if a slighest difference in accent is marked, because these differences often cause changes in meanings. Structure is more important than semantic similarity. If it is neglected, total forms will double, but traditional classification of Vedic words does not follow this pattern. Full Stop. -Vinay Jha 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

that makes sense if your aim is to memorize the text without interest in its meaning. Which is respectable of course; without this fixation on form over meaning, the text could not have been preserved orally. It's still hilarious to claim MW "forgot" to list the instrumental form of rc. Look, in your brighter moments, I don't doubt you could make useful contributions to vyakarana, if you can wrap your head around Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You know where to find the necessary information, you've been pointed there often enough, all you now need to do is get down from the high horse and show a willingness to learn (which is something that never stood anyone in bad stead). dab (𒁳) 07:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not divert discussion to technicalities not needed in this article. I do not memorize the Vedas (although I remember a lot of verses due to perusal), I studied solely for understanding. Sāyana and other native commentators are far better guides for the Vedas than Western commentators , because Sāyana gave all possible meanings available to him while Western commentators prefer what they like. Slightest difference in structure often causes difference in meaning (cf. Indraśatru : shift in accent caused total reversal of meaning). I study Western commentators too, I was their blind follower during my early college years, but when I compared them with native commentators and tried to judge independently on the basis of historical and descriptive linguistics, semantics, &c, I found native commentators had a broader and more reliable background due to their deep roots in Vedic tradition which even Western commentators respected. "MW forgot" is a test for DAB and an invitation to study grammar, which he did, and I appreciate it cordially. I had pointed to finer aspects of Vedic semantics above (e.g, ṛkk-bhis given as vimimāna in some and mīyamāna in others by Sāyana once) which DAB could not grasp due to reliance on lopsided Western commentaries (if he has read any, I do not know, I am not taunting), and charged me of having no "interest in its meaning". I do not want to retort in the language of personal attacks as DAB is doing. I had initially hoped DAB will help me in the article on Rgvedic manuscripts because I can provide a good deal of but not every bit of needed information and references. But DAB's behaviour compels me to drop this idea of Mss article. Any discussion with DAB is counter productive because instead of improving Wiki articles it results in abuses and taunts. If I get involved in Mss article, I will be forced to absorb a few hundred new abuses. Stop, please. Have you no other task ? This discussion is now not helpful to present article. I am not retorting to your abuses and taunts, does it not satisfy you now ? If you want to abuse me more, use email and spare this page. - Vinay Jha 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

whatever. if you want to cite Sayana, cite Sayana, no problem. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

It seems clear to this uneducated outsider that both users Vinay Jha and Dbachmann/dab...

• ...are knowledgeable about this subject and have much to contribute that is of value;
• ...are intelligent and capable of reason;
• ...are contributing in good faith. Note that I am not merely assuming good faith here; I have seen evidence of it.

What is not clear is why the two of you are apparently unable to discuss this article without resorting to incivility and personal attacks aimed at one another. I would like the two of you to please consider, and acknowledge, that the points I have raised above apply to each of you. Vinay Jha, I feel that the wikipedia project will benefit enormously from your contributions; please take the time to familiarise yourself with its principles and guidelines because this will help us all to work together. And dab, while Vinay Jha is learning how wikipedia works, please be patient and polite towards him. Thank you both for your efforts. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Sarvagnya 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse these comments. Buddhipriya 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, excepting the "capable of reason". VJ has shown abundant evidence that he is not, at least not in a sense of "reason" established since the 17th century. It is interesting to meet a scholar steeped in a medieval mindset online, but I believe I cannot be expected to give random people a crash course in three centuries of intellectual history. If you can be bothered to read the "Rch / ṛch . versus . Rchā ṛchā" section above attentively, you will recognize that VJ buries a staggering amount of dishonesty in his loquacious statements. I did point VJ to Wikipedia policy, in a patient and friendly manner. He chose not to respect it. At this point, I do not feel WP:BITE still applies. And after VJ's indulgence in legal threats and demonstrably false accusations against me, I do not feel too disposed towards WP:EQ anymore, either. In my book, editors who show renitence, bad faith and unwillingness to collaborate of the scale exhibited by VJ belong banned, period, no hard feelings. An editor who cannot wrap his mind around the simple concept of WP:NOR has no place here, it's as simple as that. I won't campaign for such a ban, though. Still, I would ask you to recognize that I have been far more lenient than could reasonably expected of me[6], but I am not willing to waste more time on this user. If he makes valid edits, so much the better. If makes flawed edits, I will revert them. Discussion with this editor is futile. If you have time to spend, by all means, do mentor him, and maybe you will get him to contribute constructively in half a year or so. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As for WP:NOR, I have tangible proofs of it in DAB's edits which also shows his preference of pseudoscience (cf. Talk:Hinduism, Clarification by Vinay Jha), although he falsely claims to be a champion of reason (unfortunately, he does not know that he supported OR and pseudoscience because he is totally ignorant of Surya Siddhanta , yet showing him off as an expert). He declares to apply WP:BITE to me (so as to make me leave Wiki) and he has now carried this campaign of abusing to Edit Summary of Hinduism, where I corrected a wrong citation (yama); I added the explanation in Talk there (DAB does not read a source and quotes wrongly). I had wrongly hoped I will be able to calm him down by tolerating his abuses. I do not care his threats of WP:BITE and abuses, but I will not follow his example by abusing : such persons are not my model. If he reverts my wrong edit I will thank him, but he has today demonstrated a lack of intellectual capability needed for good editing in Hinduism which is explained in Talk there (yama). Had he spared me from this useless abusing campaign, I would have devoted my time to editing and surveying (and learning) Wiki. -Vinay Jha 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Devatā  : neither deity nor god

The article Rgveda mentions "hymns dedicated to the gods". All the hymns of Rgveda are dedicated to some "devatā", and not a single hymn is dedicated to any deva or devi. Devatā is the feminine form of Daivata (masc., neut.), but in modern Hindi, devatā is used for all genders. Daivata is purely a Sanskrit word, not used in Hindi. MW translates devatā as godhead, divinity (abstract and concrete) (but idol in post-Vedic literature). Later Vedic texts used devatā for sense organs as well (MW cites ŚBr; Yājñvalkya in BrU gives a detailed account of 33 devatās which included the senses too, among other things). Keeping reliable sources in view, "hymns dedicated to the abstract and concrete godheads/divinities" is preferable to "hymns dedicated to the gods" (DAB's version) and "hymns dedicated to the deities" (IAF's version). I think editors will not object to this suggestion. -Vinay_Jha 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

what is this? we have a full article on Rigvedic deities, which is linked, where such details can be addressed. Rigvedic hymns are addressed both to individual gods or goddesses and to groups of gods (Vishvedevas). You apparently fail to understand the English term "god" if you think it means anything other than "godhead, divinity (abstract and concrete)", see god (word) for details. look, this is a matter of stylistics, not content. "hymns dedicated to the deities" isn't wrong, but it is sylistically inferior. "hymns dedicated to the gods" is perfectly fine. I know we are only discussing this because IAF is trying to make the WP:POINT that the Rigveda is pantheistic or monotheistic, which is simply not the case. If you want to make such a point, make it up front, putting your references on the table, and not by oblique revert-wars. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to note DAB's comment "dear baby Ganesha" used for me in his edit summary. Even my well intentions edits are returned by abuses, although he is not using terms like shitholes presently which is his scholarly trademark reserved for Indians. I tried to stop, in good faith and without taking sides, the edit war between DAB and IAF, and as a result received DAB's fire. I am not an idolator, but I must say that DAB is unable to hide his hatred for Hinhuism and Hindus, and not only overgrown Hindus like me but even Hindu gods are babies for him. I had not anticipated such a response, which is actually a result of his ignorance of the actual meaning of devatā . Since he has again started using insulting me, there is no point in discussing anything.

I was adapting an idiom. But feel free to play the race card and send in the PC police to hang me by my guts. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Previously, DAB had remarked that rcā is instrumental case, but instrumental form is actually rcena. Hindi rcā has been derived from Sanskrit rcāḥ. I did not humiliate DAB by pointing to his lack of elementary knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, just because I wanted him to learn more. But now I am convinced that DAB is too arrogant and ignorant to learn Sanskrit and behave in a civilised manner (which is another meaning of sanskrit). I was not interested in what point IAF was making, I was just trying to stop the edit war. Go on fighting, I will not intervene. DAB is too incivil to be rectified by mere requests. Let him have his way in the main article, I am not going to waste my time over arguing with an uncivilised person. -Vinay_Jha 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ṛcena, huh. "derived from ṛcāḥ". Man, you wouldn't pass a "Sanskrit 101" beginners' course. This wouldn't matter if you could refrain from passing yourself off as an expert whose students are "heads of department". This is really sad. I do hope these are hardware store departments. I am glad you feel " no point in discussing anything", how about you go back to writing articles on various gotras, then. If you really cannot bear your contributions being scrutinised and debunked, go get your own blog. It's free. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for failing me, esp in a less rude manner this time. I am here citing two verses(there are other examples too) from Rgveda in your favour : 10.15.8 and 10.165.5, in which Wilson rightly translated rcā as "by our hymns"(instr.). I was really suspicious of your knowledge because you are sitting silently for five days upon Buddhipriya's substitution of my correct version with a wrong version (cf. 'Brahmin:etymology' in Talk:Brahmin), (Buddhipriya wrongly believes that first and last both syllables in "Brahamana" were accented at the same time). Neither you nor Buddhipriya answered to my post there, and the wrong version remains in the main article. Moreover, Buddhipriya charged me of WP:OR and dishonesty (citing falsely ). If you are really interested in accuracy, why was I wrongly elbowed out of that article, with wrong charges ? You can check from Rgvedic index. But no, these pages are properties of the chosen few, and I must chant gotra-names, sell hardware or go to blogs (i.e., leave Wikipedia). Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

trying to weasel our way out again are we. I thought you believed that "instrumental form is actually rcena"? Whatever, I'm tired of your games, do what you must. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Had I given a wrong etymology of "Brāhamana", you must have reverted it, but a superior soul made this mistake, hence you are shirking away. Nobody else in Wiki, as far as I know, is going to correct this error. OK, over and all. -Vinay_Jha 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this article, and...

I was looking for information on CLAMP's manga and anime RG Veda, which is a retelling by a group of women mangaka of a Japanese version of the Rigveda.

And what I get is a group of petulant complaints and nonsense written by egotists who each want to be The Boss. I know almost nothing about Sanskrit or the Rigveda, but I sure didn't learn anything from you people. I assure you that I do NOT care about your mutual accusations and hatreds except when they interfere, as they certainly do, with the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide information to people like me.

This article is not your property nor your playground. Now stop the insults and do something useful.

For example, I have read -- I forgot where, so I'm looking for it -- that CLAMP's Rg Veda was based on Japanese folktale versions of the original. Do any of you know enough about the Rigveda to help answer that question? I truly and genuinely find the kind of insults and antagonisms you people display to be useless, counter-productive, and thoroughly unnecessary. So stop the insults. You all sound like angry children.

The bottom line is that there are other people out here, and we don't care how much you hate each other. We want information, not useless noise.

Timothy Perper 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Note added by TP later.

After I deleted the comment above, another editor asked me to put it back. He convinced me, so here it is. That lets me add another observation.

There are editors of Wikipedia who treat Wiki as a free-form blog, a place to pout, posture, gesticulate, and yell about their beliefs. It's all **seriously** counterproductive. I do not care what God or gods you believe in -- you can believe anything you want. But when religion, egotism, arrogance, call it whatever you want to call it, start revert and edit wars, then you have gone too far. Take those discussions somewhere else -- a blog, a listserve, wherever, but NOT HERE.

And remember -- I am looking for information about the Rig Veda. I know next to nothing about the subject. And that is why you are here, or, more accurately, why you should be here: to provide information -- not insults and hatred.

Timothy Perper 07:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

I've moved some stuff around towards a possible refactoring. The first step was ToC changes to bring stuff together and move some into subsection level. Inter alia,

• The Brahmana/Aranyaka sections should probably be summarized. Right now, they're just lifted from EB1911 (presumably from a time when they had a "filler" role).
• Hindu tradition et al section needs more.
• Dating and historical reconstruction is most in need of refactoring.
• The text section also needs some work. E.g. the "Rishis" subsection looks like it's lifted straight from Talageri, and actually has a baloney factor to it. Talageri assigned many rishis to his canonical "ten families" on unsourced grounds. (Actually, much of his own OR is unattributed lifting from Rahurkar, whom Talageri dismisses in his book somewhat peremptorily: the hidden story there is that Rahurkar relied heavily on post-Vedic texts such as the Puranas for his own identifications.) rudra (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

excellent work, rudra. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Long way to go, yet. So far I've resisted my deletionist urges and tried to wrestle everything into some semblance of coherence.

• I'll be revamping the "Rishis" section soon. Done, for now.
• I don't know what to do with the prolix section on the Brahamanas and Aranyakas (all EB1911 stuff, actually). We may need to look at other related articles on that branch of the Vedic literature to get a proper balance distributed across several articles.
• The Dating section still needs more work. rudra (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Before anybody brings it back, explain what it was doing in the lead. Lead is meant to be a summary of the most important things that follow in the article. Linguistic and 'cultural' affinities to Avesta are not explained anywhere else in the article and the presence of the same in the lead is perplexing. Also explain, why we have to bend over backwards to squeeze in the bit about Andronovo. If it is the consensus that PII is/was associated with andronovo, then there is no need to qualify it. If it isnt, then we need to present both/all views. either way, andronovo in the lead is superfluous.. Sarvagnya 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD again. Your assumption, that a lead is only a summary, is false. It also functions as an introduction, such as establishing a context. The Rgveda is a philologically important text beyond its place in Hinduism (see the second section above this one), which means that its relevance to Indo-European issues needs to be mentioned. ("The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.") The material is adumbrated in the "Dating" section but, as also noted (this time immediately above), this is the section most in need of an overhaul. You are welcome to contribute constructively, rather than divagating with requests for references and waiting for them to be provided before deleting the passage you objected to, effectively taking it upon yourself to decide that others' time was yours to waste. rudra (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that I had a problem with the lead functioning as an introduction to establish context while at the same time providing a summary of the article? If anything, that is precisely what I've been asking for and I said so clearly on your talk page. That the Rigveda has a philological importance beyond its place in Hinduism isnt news to me.. and the article in its present state leaves no room for any such illusions. That however, is all the more reason to explain the context in which the avesta and andronovo finds itself in the lead. If it has to do with dating, then say so. The dating section (a whole section) doesnt so much as make a passing mention of the avesta. And in any case, the lead does mention that the dating is based on philological and linguistic evidence (which is where Avesta/andronovo and all that comes into the picture anyway, i suppose)... look.. I am not averse to dumping the couple of sentences I removed into the dating section.. but what good would it do? They will still keep sticking out. And my apologies for using the {cn}} tag last time when I should perhaps have used {clarify}}.. but I thought my message on your talk page clarified that. In any case, I cant imagine that I have wasted too much of your precious time considering that "utterly and completely uncontroversial" statements shouldnt be hard to source at all. Sarvagnya 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it belongs in the lead is that the linguistic and cultural similarities between the Yasna and the Rgveda strongly suggest that the Rgveda was composed in a time when the cultures which composed them were still fairly close, perhaps even in contact, and which was not particularly long after the Indo-Iranian period. This has implications not just for the dating of the Rgveda, but also for our understanding of the cultural and geographic milieu in which the Rgveda was composed - not to mention wider questions regarding the origin and evolution of the Indo-European languages and the culture associated with their speakers. Look, I agree that at some stage we need an appropriate section dealing with all this, but given the importance of the Rgveda to Hinduism and Indian culture more generally, these topics often raise sensitivies which aren't easily dealt with, making writing a detailed section a somewhat unappealing proces - the section would have to discuss, amongst other things, the "Origins of the Vedic people" controversy which causes no end of grief here. But surely it's better to have a couple of sentences in the lead even if we don't have a detailed section - because as I've tried to explain above the information does belong in the lead? If it's just a question of rewording it to give more context, that should be achievable, particularly if you have any suggestions. -- Arvind (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the bit Sarvagnya removed are perfectly mainstream, undisputed, and highly relevant. "Sensitivities" have nothing to do with it (or I invite you to go over to Talk:Muhammad and plead for the removal of the infamous images because they "raise sensitivities"...). If you have suggestions for rephrasing within WP:LEAD, you are most welcome to propose them. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, dab... if you actually read what I was saying, I was trying to explain to Sarvagnya (1) why the information belongs in the lead and (2) why the information is only in the lead and not in a detailed section in the article (that would require a degree of refactoring which is nearly impossible to achieve given the atmosphere on this article, unless someone is willing to spend several weeks doing little else) -- Arvind (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, wait, I don't see a problem to expand on the information in the article body. The sentence in the lead is very concise, appropriate for the introduction:

"There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta,deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo culture of ca. 2000 BCE."

That's about as compact as it gets. Details on this should go to the "Dating and historical reconstruction" section. It is also correct that the references should be cited in the body, not in the lead. I have made an edit to this effect. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Bryant, whose work I think is spot on as far as the Vedic-Avestan relationship goes. -- Arvind (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The artcle could have referred to an authoritative review book: "The Vedic People" by Rajesh Kochar, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1999, in which he supported the Afghanisan location for Rig Veda and the strong affinities with Avesta. Also see: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

things to consider

According to " Traditions and Encounters A global Perspective of the Past" the Rigveda was written from 1400 to 900 bce. they also refer to it as Rig Veda.

69.105.108.158 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Zaniar Moradian, September 25, 2008

sounds reasonable? This is pretty much what we are saying in this article too? --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent prancing around with the date

re this edit, I fail to see which part of the terminus ad quem article is supposed to justify the fiddling with the date range given. Your change to "2000–1500 BCE" is unjustified, and unjustifiable. Witzel is perfectly correct, the 14th century is a terminus ad quem. This is what we had all along, the 14th century lies squat in the mainstream range of "1500 to 1000". You aren't contributing anything here. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

wait, you were confusing ante and ad? Try to get a grasp of what your source is saying before lecturing about things, ok? Saves everyone time. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to have been redacted by 1200 BCE.­ Kris (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

no, it "was supposed" to have been composed by 1100 BC (or 1200, if you insist). That's not the redaction. The redaction into the current arrangement is much younger, and dates to the 1st millennium (about 800 BC). People too often throw around statements like "the Rigveda (1700 BC)". This is wrong. The Rigveda-as-we-know-it was compiled around 800 BC. "1700 BC" is only the oldest reasonable estimate for the oldest bits and pieces contained in the compilation. These floated around as individual hyms in priestly tradition for several centuries before the Iron Age shakhas compiled them into a fixed collection. Saying "the Rigveda (1700 BC)" is much like saying "the Iliad (1300 BC)". --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The date (1400 BC) and the location as provided by Rajesh Kochar are the most reasonable. See the reference: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't Kochar's original idea. This has been the general consensus for about 150 years. The RV wasn't compiled in one year, or one century, ok? It reflects half a millennium of history, roughly speaking, say, from Kabul in 1500 BC to Delhi in 1000 BC. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arya Samaj & Dayananda

Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs) keeps re-introducing claims of "controversy" in spite of being reverted, and without any attempt to build a case, or cite a reference. Random websites aren't "references" for the purposes of Wikipedia, see WP:RS.

Concerning the alleged Hindi translation of the Rigveda by Dayananda, I seem to be able to confirm that a commentary on Sayana's commentary by Dayananda was published posthumously, as Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā, in 1920. Pending actual citation of references or publication details on the part of the pov-pusher I will assume that is what they are intending to refer to.

I would advise Arya Samaj adherents to focus on cleaning up our article on Arya Samaj topics, including the Dayananda Sarasvati article itself, which unlike this article on the Rigveda tend to be in appalling states of disrepair. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann (talk · contribs) who claimed that Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā was published in 1920 is wrong. It was published in 1878 by Lajrath Press. Another claim by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) that Dayananda just wrote a commentary on Rigveda is also wrong. He has given a word-to-word translation of the Sanskrit text to Hindi, and then followed by a commentary. I am doubtful if Dbachmann (talk · contribs) can read Hindi or Sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)

I was making no "claim", I was charitably trying to second-guess what you were trying to say. Now please do impart your "knowledge for all" with proper references from now on, or consider spreading it elsewhere. As for "Lazarus Press",

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Google hasn't heard of it. Not very promising in terms of WP:RS. The most commonly available edition appears to be a 1981 reprint by Meharchand Lachhmandas. If you are so great at Sanskrit, no doubt you can give me a translation of the title "Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā". Hint, it does not involve "translation". --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the first was a typo. And mentioned "Lazarus Press" was a publishing house in Benaras, India, and it is not the same as [7].

i've reverted Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs)'s edit as the preexisting content appears broadly in line with what i read in Davi Smith's Hindism and Modernity and furthermore, Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs)'s changes are unsupported by reliable sources. incidentally, according to David Smith, "Dayananda’s first detailed examination of the Veda was via Müller’s translation." Smith cites this statement to Jordens, J. T. F. 1997: Dayananda Sarasvati: His Life and Ideas. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Doldrums (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

David Smith seems to be rather confused. Müller never translated the Rigveda, and if he had it would have been into a European language, which would have been of no use to Dayananda. Dayananda owned a copy of Müller's Sanskrit edition of the RV. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the amount of bad scholarship surrounding Hindu revivalism boggles the mind. It might almost be part of the definition of Hindu revivalism (incidentially offering a parallel between Hindu revivalism and Neopaganism in the west, which are probably much more closely related than usually noted, vide Theosophy and similar stuff surrounding their emergence). --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the book, History of Modern India, the author Hukam Chand writes that Dayanada Saraswati died in 1863 [8], but most of the books and records state that the year for his death was 1883. Can we believe all publications? I have found typos in books published by Oxford, IEEE, Wiley, etc.

The source of Dayananda's knowledge of Vedas wasn't Mueller or anyone else. He learned Sanskrit grammar and proceeded with Vedic studies under Swami Virjananda [9].

Why is Dbachmann (talk · contribs) reverting what I state? There is nothing wrong in it and why not the world should know it? As a researcher I feel that what I have mentioned is perfectly correct and makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)

as should be duly discussed at Dayananda Saraswati. It is beyond me how people are unable to grasp that whatever bee they have in their bonnet isn't the main focus of interest at any old article that can be argued to bear some tenuous relation to the subject rather than the actual dedicated article discussing it. You want to edit Dayananda Saraswati. Thank you. Also, if you are a "researcher", I am a bleeding edge space-drive engineer. Perhaps you can get a research grant for your quest towards figuring out how to sign Wikipedia talkpage contributions in the next semester or so. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added referenced content about Dayanand's views and writings on the Vedas and other scholar's opinion of them. But I completely agree that all this content really belongs in Dayananda Saraswati, rather than here. There, when placed in context of his exemplary work as a social reformer fighting orthodoxy, his interpretation of the Vedas is perfectly understandable. Here, placed in context of historical and literary scholarship, they just end up appearing loony. More the pity. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

similar to Devaneya Pavanar whose work may have had the effect of uplifting Tamil self-esteem, but is at the same time utter nonsense in terms of scholarship, Dayananda should be treated as the founder of a new religious movement, and as a social reformer if that's what he was, but certaily not as a philologist. Scholarship doesn't equal charisma or popularity. Charismatic authors are primary sources, scholarly ones are secondary sources. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are you Dbachmann to say that Dayananda's translation is not a good work? Do you know ancient Sanskrit? Have you seen Dayananda's word-to-word translation and the justification he has done in tracing each and every word of the Sanskrit text to its root? I am sure that space research doesn't use ancient Sanskrit as a medium of explanation or usage, then on what basis are you bouncing your head over your heels and vice-versa? Dayananda spent a large part of his life studying the Vedas and translating them. His translation of the Rigveda fits in almost 3000 A4 size pages. Such an eminent work cannot be neglected. I have read read Griffith's translation, and Dayananda's translation too, and after consulting about 12 professors of Sanskrit, I state with assurance that Dayananda's work is far more superior linguistically and spiritually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)

3000 pages equals an "eminent work"? Then Dayananda is dwarfed by any tabloid paper. But if your dozen professors have published their opinion in academic literature, as professors usually tend to do, you are perfectly free to just quote the relevant references. --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who writes about physics? A physicist; not a carpenter! In the same way about Hinduism, Hindus should write, others can have an opinion but it is not the definition. How can linguists like Griffith or Max Muller understand the true spiritual meaning of the Rig Veda, when their approach was merely lingual, and of course, biased (this is what I have discerned). Why the people of India don't have the right to write their own history? Are Indians writing the French or English or German history? NO! You people are writing the WRONG history of India and providing FALSE REFERENCES for the future scholars. Dayanada Saraswati needs no introduction and his mastery of ancient Sanskrit is well-known. There are thousands of DAV (Dayananda Anglo-Vedic) institutions in India. Does this scholar need an introduction? Any why his translation and commentary on the Rigveda (Sanskrit to Hindi), which is available for free online [10], can't be considered in the Wikipedia section on Rigveda? His meaning of Sanskrit words agrees with the authoritative Nirukta-Nighantu.

nothing good has ever come from your approach on Wikipedia. And you aren't the first to try. What you want to do is write a blog. Nobody is censoring you, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia. You are welcome to vent spleen, free of charge even for hosting costs, at blogspot. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Untitled

there are many conspicuous things, or we can also say folk tales about rigveda . Rof and Bernof when tried to translate Rugved for the very first time in English, they died and the work was continued by Max Mueller, he was originally German, but came to England, and East India company financed him , for missinterpreting the translation of rugveda, It is also heared that he made Two sopis of rugved , one was the original, and the other was to miss guide Indians, many people also say that the deccan college is having some letters written by East India company to Maxmuller regarding the payments made towards him, for the work, and the answeres given by maxmuller to those letters, guyes if anybody is having any sort of fulll prooof information regarding this please add on this weiki............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.151.104 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Date, once again

It seems that author/approver of this article is not aware of Indian Vedic History especially regarding dating of the writings of the Rigveda. In this article on many places it is written that Rigveda was not written down before 1200 BC. There are numerous references which verifies that Rigveda was written at least before 1200 BC or for that matter even before 2500 BC including. The oldest surviving manuscript may be a matter of investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk • contribs)

the date of the oldest MS is, indeed, a matter of investigation. The result of the investigation is: 11th century CE. You do not appear to be aware of the history of writing in India. The Rigveda was not "written" prior to the Common Era. It was transmitted orally. There is no evidence whatsoever that would place the composition of the earliest origins of the earliest hymns before the mid 2nd millennium BC. The late hymns, the bulk of books 1 and 10, cannot be shown to predate 1200 BC. The redaction of the various collections of hymns into the ten books we have today dates to the 1st millennium BC. This is all properly explained and referenced in the article. You should read it. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I must revise that statement. The oldest Vedic manuscript appears to date to the 11th century, preserved in Nepal. But it happens to be of the Yajurveda, not the Rigveda. The oldest Rigvedic manuscript apparently dates to the 14th century. I believe the oldest complete text dates to the 15th century. Discussion of the age of the manuscripts is irrelevant to the discussion of the age of the text itself. It is undisputed that the text is some 2000 years older than the oldest surviving manuscript. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are not aware of even world history and/or influenced my Max Muller who is considered to be on of the most biased historian, but still wikipedia is siting his reference, which make wikipedia itself biased. Can you go through the book [11] (Indo-Aryan Controversy By Edwin Bryant) before saying 2nd millennium BC as the earliest possible date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is well aware of Bryant's book. You want to read Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration. The 2nd millennium date of the Rigveda isn't affected by any of this. If you disagree, I look forward to your concrete citation of relevant peer-reviewed literature. Not even Talageri, whose only claim to academic impact are utterly condemning reviews, and who uses the Rigveda for far out claims about the Indo-European homeland and what not, doesn't go as far as proposing a date before 2000 BC (although he does indulge in tongue-in-cheek innuendo that he would love to favour an Early Bronze Age date[12]). This is Voice of India chauvinism, not philology. Much less is there any scholarly literature suggesting a date before 2000 BC. This is a non-starter. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us suppose that the oldest surviving manuscript of Rigveda is from 11th century CE. Then how does it implies that it was the oldest written manuscript. It might be possible that other older manuscript might have been destroyed by invadors like Alexandar or Muslims. Or, it might be also destroyed due to other reasons that we don't know. Before going ahead we want to make it clear that the point of dicsussion is not the oldest surviving manuscript which have been written rather ' The oldest possible date during which Rigveda was written.' Now come to the following point what is the basis of your following statement "The Rigveda was not "written" prior to the Common Era. It was transmitted orally" where is the proper reference. Where is the basis of your following entry in [13] "Writing appears in India around the 3rd century BC in the form of the Brahmi script, but texts of the length of the Rigveda were likely not written down until much later,

the oldest surviving Rigvedic manuscript dating to the 14th century"

This alongwith other statements on this Wiki page conflicts with the following wiki entry and should be removed.

[14] As your wikipedia entry says that Ramayana was written around 4th century BC.

Your wikipedia entry also says that Baudhayana's Shulba Sutras were written around 800 BCE to 600 BCE. [15] so is the case with the Mahabharatha dating. Even the above Datings are themselves may not be earliest. Then the argument is how it is possible that Vedic rishi's or philosopher had written Shulba Sutras, Ramayana, Mahabharata (before circa 500 BC) to name a few but they had not written Rigveda which was the most important and authoritative text. Where is the consistency of wikipedia. There is no surviving written manuscript of Euclid's element which dates back before common era. But still your Wiki [16] frequently says that Euclid's element was written by Euclid circa 300 BC. Apart from that go through the following references (Book: Indian Philosophy Vol. one BY S. Radhakrishnan) [17] (Book: Secret of Veda By Aurobindo) [18] (Book: The Cosmology of Rigveda By H.W. Wallis) [19] (Book: Rigvedic India By Abinav Chandra Das) [20] (Book: The Philosophy of Ancient India By Richard Garbe) [21] (Book: The religion of the veda the ancient religion of india By Maurice Bloomfield) [22]

These are the text which has been written by some of the independent historians but non of the above references supports your theory. Go through these text then think in a rational manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have read the article carefully. It is undisputed that the Rigveda is the oldest surviving Indic text, much older than the Ramayana, the Sutras, etc. Only, all of these texts weren't written until a long time after their original composition. To compose a text isn't the same as writing down a text. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Publication, Philology

• Hettrich, Heinrich: Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rigveda, Würzburg, 2007. http://www.vergl-sprachwissenschaft.phil1.uni-wuerzburg.de/materialien/Materialien%20-%20Lokativ+Dativ.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.82.14 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Objection to removal of lead sentence from 'Dating and historical context' section

I object to the removal of the lead sentence 'The dating of Rigveda has been a center of controversies; there is a strong disagreement among scholars.' from the 'Dating and historical context' section of the article.

The explanation given in the edit is 'supported by nothing in the following text' but I find that statement unconvincing as the following text contains contradictory statements. Specifically 'It is certain that the (Rigvedic) hymns post-date ... 2000 BC' contradicts 'An author, N. Kazanas ... suggests a date as early as 3100 BC' and 'Some writers based on astronomical calculations even claim dates as early as 4000 BC'.

Furthermore I consider the removal of the lead sentence to violate Wikipedia:NPOV

I'm not necessarily requesting that the lead sentence be put back in. An alternative would be to soften the 'It is certain that' text, maybe to something like 'Historically the consensus of the indologist community is that'.

Then add a reference to Bryant who is a mainstream indologist with a different view (as mentioned in the recent Sanskrit discussion).

Then have the non-indologist and non-mainstream scholars views.

There's also an issue with the last paragraph regarding animals. It discusses animals mentioned in the text but draws no useful conclusion regarding the dating of the text. I suggest that either it should be revised or (re)moved.

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement because it was mistaken. It is incorrect that "there is a strong disagreement among scholars" regarding the date and historical context of the Rigveda. There is hardly any disagreement at all, and we can easily cite half a dozen academic publications that give the communis opinio as simple fact, without any qualifiers of uncertainty. It is not a "violation of WP:NPOV" to remove unsourced, non-factual claims. The burden would lie on you to establish scholarly controversy. The political controversies in the Republic of India during the 1990s and early 2000s are to be treated as unrelated to this. Bryant does in no way dispute the mainstream assessment. Kazanas is not an Indologist, he is a Yoga teacher touted by the online Hindutva brigade. This is a non-issue, and Wikipedia has fully accounted even for this non-issue, for fully three years now (see Indigenous Aryans and Out of India). --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kazanas and related material is now put in proper context, of course fully referenced. I do ask you to review the Out of India article in detail at this point. This has all been discussed in great detail and with great care, and exhaustively, back in 2006 to 2007. If you want to maintain your "I respect the goal of Wikipedia to create an online encyclopedia and want to contribute in a helpful and polite way" you should now review the content and history of that article and react to the coverage we already have, instead of pretending that Bryant and Kazanas are being brought up for the first time by you. Once you do review the existing coverage, you will need to agree that Wikipedia has done a great job in absorbing the concerted attacks of politically motivated submissions of pseudo-scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the recent edits don't address my concerns.

My primary concern is that the article contains the statement 'It is certain that the hymns post-date Indo-Iranian separation of ca. 2000 BC', I believe this statement doesn't reflect mainstream opinion, and it's made without any supporting citation. I would like that statement to be removed from the article.

I believe Bryant is a mainstream source and I think his views should be present. Regarding certainty, 'Ultimately, all that can be authoritatively established about the chronology of the Vedic corpus.... is that it preceded the Buddhist literature that refers to it.' so it's older than 400BC, but we don't know exactly how old.

Regarding the Mitanni treaty and 1500-1400BC date 'the parallels between the Mitanni documents and that of the Veda ... do no necessarily demonstrate simultaneity'. pg 249.

I believe Bryant wrote the Indo-Aryan migration debate book because the dating of the texts is not well understood, it's still controversial/debatable. In his words 'In my view, the Indo-Aryan invasion/migration theory, at least in its present forms, as well as the dating of the Vedic texts, remain unresolved issues that invite unbiased fresh scrutiny'.

Regarding Kazanas he's not necessarily an Out of India (or Indigenous Aryans) supporter. He is against a migration date of 1500BC, but he doesn't rule out a migration earlier than 3000BC. So perhaps his work is most relevant to Indo-Aryan migration. But I'm not sure, he does seem to focus on the Rigveda, especially the dating of it.

Regarding absorbing attacks, I'm not sure what to say, I can see it is a real problem. Well done, to the wikipedia community, in surviving. IMO Wikipedia has proven better than any other online community that 'SoftSecurity is not weak security'.

I'll try to have another look at the Out of India, Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration articles. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them and learned a lot.

Thanks for editing the non-mainstream text, and adding some references.

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 'It is certain...' statement I see a quote from Bryant page 266 'reasonably secures the date of the Rgveda to after 1900 BCE. However, here we also need to eliminate the possibility that...' So I'm ok with replacing 'certain' with 'reasonably secure' and providing Bryant as a source.

There's a bias that needs to be addressed. It should be made explicit that the first paragraph refers to the views of Western scholars. I'd also like to move the first paragraph below the current 2&3 paragraphs.

Then after that have another paragraph that includes the views of Indian scholars. Something like 'Some scholars have argued the dates assigned to the Vedic texts are late and arbitrary' (Cite Bryant I think 244 'An exceedingly prominent area of contention....'). Then continue with 'A great antiquity for RgVeda and other Vedic text has been claimed based on astronomical observations in the texts. While numerous Indian scholars have argued for over 100 years that this method is valid, the astronomical debate is clearly not settled' (Cite Bryant 252).

And then another paragraph stating that 'What has been authoritatively established is that the Vedic corpus pre-dates 400BC, as by this date Buddhist literature exists that refers to it.'

Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it turns out that you are here to push the same old Hindutva propaganda. Not a single item you bring up has not been discussed to death three years ago. I do not have the patience to repeat that discussion for your personal benefit, as I do not think you are editing in good faith. Please stop adding this stuff to the article, it's not scholarship, it's the kind of propaganda fed to teenage nationalist on internet fora. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been acting in good faith and attempting to address your concerns. The text I've added regarding the Rig Veda dating has been well referenced with a reliable secondary source (Bryant,2001). I'm genuinely puzzled why you are adamant that the dating section can't include evidence that supports a position of the Rig Veda being composed before 2000 BC. However my main concern with the dating section is the claim that 'It is certain that the hymns post-date Indo-Iranian separation of ca. 2000 BC', I believe that statement is both false and doesn't reflect the mainstream view. It's disappointing that you have simply reverted my contributions rather than continuing to try to reach a consensus, I'm trying to be patient and reasonable. Please restore my contribution and try to work towards a consensus. Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have come to doubt your good faith, sorry. Why? As I have said several times now, this is a very old discussion and you're neither adding anything new, nor do you show any readiness to familiarize yourself with the sources cited. You just bring up exactly those hand-picked "references" that you will be fed on a Hindutva internet forum. Are you being fed your sources on a Hindutva internet forum? Or how else do you explain why you stick to the handful of soundbites you base your "argument" on?

I can assure you that the article as it stands does correspond to the mainstream academic view very closely. There is no "evidence that supports a position of the Rig Veda being composed before 2000 BC". Literally none, this is just fantasy. You can't build a "consensus" on that. Your position is that of Voice of India, which is an outfit of nationalist revisionism and has nothing whatsoever to do with bona fide scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation required for claim - 'It is certain that the hymns post-date Indo-Iranian separation of ca. 2000 BC'

I request a citation for this exceptional claim. I've tried to find a reliable reference for the claim, but haven't been able to. The best information I have been able to find regarding a limit on the oldest plausible age of the Rig Veda is based on Anatolian rather than Indo-Iranian, specifically, Bryant|2001|pp=266 "If Anatolian is considered an older language than Vedic, and was the first to peel off from the proto-language, and if Anatolian is attested in documents at circa 1900 BCE how can the later Vedic language be older than this date? This, too, is a chronological anchor that reasonably secures the date of the Rgveda to after 1900BCE. However, here we also need to eliminate the possibility that the Anatolian languages might have been much older than the date when they emerge in dateable records, and that they preserved certain archaic features from a hoarier antiquity". Please notice this quote doesn't say the limit is 'certain' just 'reasonably secure'. Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how the claim is "exceptional". It's just a terminus post quem. It is also unexceptional to state that the hymns post-date 200,000 BC. Nobbody claims that the hymns come anywhere near 2000 BC, it's just a date stated to be on the safe side. On the other end, we have 400 BC, it is absolutely certain that the hymns are earlier than that. Any "controversy", such as it is, concerns the question on how exactly you want to place the hymns in between 2000 to 400 BC. Most people (next to all scholars) will place the hymns in between 1500 to 1000 BC. Adding 500 years of "saftey margin" on either side gives you a time span that should comprise 100% of academic opinion.

Also, please stop citing Bryant. Start reading the other references cited in this article, in particular Thieme and Witzel, if you are really interested in the topic and want to get an understanding of the scholarly questions involved.

Let's see. Do you want a reference supporting the fact that the Rigveda post-dates IIr separation, or one that establishes that this separation is dated to ca. 2000 BC? Both is very easy to supply. If you want tertiary sources that summarize academic mainstream rather than presenting the view of one particular scholar, you should consult the EIEC. Mallory (1989), cited at Indo-Iranians, should also be a solid tertiary account (but the EIEC article is directly based on that, so it shold be enough if you just read that). Please actually consult these references before taking this any further. That the Rigveda postdates IIr. unity is almost too trivial to mention, because the Rigveda is ostensibly composed in an Indo-Aryan, not an Iranian language. Case in point, there is no /z/ phoneme in the Rigveda. If you want to dispute that the Rigveda is Indo-Aryan this discussion probably isn't going anywhere anyway. As an experiment, go to Talk:Homer and ask for a reference that the works of Homer are later than Proto-Greek and see where people will tell you to stuff your "controversy". --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to provide a reliable secondary source (with page number please) showing a definite terminus a quo for an IIr separation of 2001BC. (BTW I don't consider glottochronology to produce definite i.e. certain results). Bryant|2001|pg249 (it is his theory that's why I quote him) suggests that the IIr separation could have occurred before 2000BC, the Rigveda composed shortly after this and the dialects remain unchanged until, say 1500-1200BC, or whatever the date of the comparative IIr text is. You can say this is very unlikely to have happened, as Ivan Štambuk did on my talk page, but I don't see how you can be certain. Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the text and improving it. I made another 2 edits to the paragraph which are hopefully considered minor, and OK. If so then my primary concern with the article will be addressed. Personally the text 'making it one of the few examples with an unbroken tradition' doesn't make sense to me, maybe it means making it one of the few examples of texts with an unbroken tradition of being used in ceremonies since the Bronze Age. But I'm not sure, and I don't consider this very important. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Links

:

Found this translation which seems to be more accurate and captures the intended meaning better than others currently in External links section:

http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rv1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

this is apparently a translation "based on Sayana and Wilson". The Sanskrit is in some weird private format. The translation isn't useless, but it isn't clear whose translation it is (just Wilson's?) --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The first external link is full of errors. Should we put this in a comment, or just remove the link? You can check this independent of any other source: Already in Sukta 1, verse 1, the ISTA text has two differences between the Devanagari and the transliteration. [23]. If you look more into it, you’ll find that certain letter combinations are always wrong (like the transliterated "gh" instead of "g" in the first and second line), so it looks like some conversion software generated all the errors. Geke (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Importance of the Dating issue and non-Neutrality of Information in the Rigveda wiki

(there are two links in this page that provide external links, which I thought would be more relevant within the article rather than external references; however wikipedia allows me to add weblinks separately on the reference page only- if interested in the links, please copy paste them)

There has been significant discord on the dating issue over the years and the number of objections raised on this page itself is proof of that. Some of the objections raised in this talk page itself, and pertinently, is about how that wikipedia is supposed to present neutral information.

Most of the information presented in the page is quite non-neutral. The dating issue should be the primary one, because it is the entire cause of the large amount of misinformation in this article, which stems mostly from Western ignorance of the Vedas, and lack of understanding of Sanskrit and its cultural context. (and is the main cause why most of this fabricated history continues to be taught, not only in the Western World but also Indian textbooks, though this is gradually changing.)

The primary cause of this misinformation is one Max Mueller who is single handedly responsible for distorting the understanding of the Vedas in the nineteenth century, which continues to this day because of Mueller's immense reputation as a scholar. There never was any concrete evidence to its dating between 2000-1500BC, except Mueller's own claim. This claim was largely fabricated. Mueller wished to enforce the Christian calendar's date of the beginning of the world. He also saw it necessary to assert Western Cultural superiority over the East in order to reinforce Western colonial rule. The only way to do this was to invent the Aryan Invasion theory and that the invaders brought the Vedas with them. The main reason this was so well accepted at the time was the linguistic relationships of the Indo-European languages. A simple linguistic link is not sufficient for this theory to hold, as more evidence(discussed later in this entry) has destroyed all credibility of the Aryan Invasion theory, and provides evidence that if anything, a migration happened outwards.

There has been significant discord with Mueller's opinion amongst Indians since the early 20th century, who pointed out its inconsistencies, but lacking command of English, did so in their own languages, which is why it rarely ever reached Western scholars(till in the last twenty-thirty years, as they are being translated). When it did, these claims were dismissed because Western scholars of the time saw their own 'scientific' judgments as superior. One of the luminaries to point out an inconsistency was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who pointed out certain astronomical phenomena in the Rigveda that were 6000-7000 years old. Sri Aurobindo in his Secret of the Vedas(in English!) also points out certain problems, though his tone, like a true yogi's, is modest. Indians who made their voices heard were in a better position to understand their own linguistic heritage, and its cultural contexts. Mueller misinterprets the Vedas as a mythical story about tribals and nature-gods and about 'Light versus Dark'- a completely christian interpretation; the duality of Light versus Dark is never given too much importance in Hinduism. (think of troy, which was considered mythical till its discovery)

David Frawley, an American, addresses most of the issues in the dating of the Rigveda and the validity of the Aryan Invasion theory in his articles(available at www.vedanet.com). The primary need for this kind of academic revision is because a linguistic link is simply not credible, because it never addresses the issue which way the migration happened. Recent evidence gathered from satellites show that the Saraswati River bed went dry much earlier than 3000BC. In the Rigveda, Saraswati is hailed with immense praise and described as the primary river, not the Ganges which is mentioned only once as a minor river. The Rigveda describes the Saraswati basin as seven times wider than what its dry riverbed is observed by us now. This means that the Rigveda was written much before 3000BC. Much before any of the Egyptian, Mayan, Sumerian or Mesopotamian civilizations. (I hereby am adding a link, to an extremely insightful analysis of the Vedas done by an Indian as early as 1904.)

http://phoenicia.org/rigveda.html

The Indus Valley Civilization was discovered and excavated in the 1920's. Archaeological excavations found no convincing evidence of an invasion driving the indigenous people away(there have been some peculiarities in the topmost layer of this archaeological dig(the least technologically advanced)- like certain corpse groups found dead with hands folded in prayer, and an extremely high radioactive count in the area, possibly a remnant of an ancient radioactive explosion. Pre- 1945, some of the descriptions in other Indian texts were dismissed as gibberish by Western Scholars. Only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the connections seen) Joykrit (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On the topics you mention, please read our articles at Indigenous Aryans and Out of India. This is a topic of political propaganda within the Republic of India, and not of scholarship. This article does have a section on such propagandistic use of the authority of the Rigveda, under the section "Indigenous Aryans debate". No really, please read it.

As for "non-neutrality", you want to read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia by "neutrality" means a neutral stance between scholarly hypotheses of equal standing, not 'neutrality' between items that are incommensurable, such as critical scholarship vs. nationalist or religious propaganda.

Incidentially, presenting some random url as an "extremely insightful analysis of the Vedas" to a crackpot theory that the Phoenicians in fact came from India does not really do anything to help your case. --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I made this rather unnecessarily long rant after reading all the wiki pages cited above. As for labeling it as "political propaganda", I could have easily written the entire thing in a more neutral light, but it is this "political propaganda" that is the cause of such elaborate misinformation doing the rounds on the internet and consequently mass psyche. And before labeling the link, as "random" and non-scholarly, you should read the whole thing if you doubt its scholarship. (Some of the cultural references cited are probably unknown to Western readers) The article in the above link was originally written in Bengali. It has only been translated into English in recent times. It is also quite neutral- it makes no outright criticism of Mueller because in 1904, Mueller was considered the utmost authority, primarily because of his Western heritage, and also because linguistic theories dominated Indo-European studies.

And I have already mentioned David Frawley above (In Search of the Cradle of Civilization. His wiki page contains the following link which presents the matter in a less politically colored light as mine, but says the same thing:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

Frawley has written significantly on this subject. They are scholarly books and articles, and Frawley is widely recognized amongst Indian Vedic scholars as an authority on the subject. But I saw the following sentence on Frawley's wiki page also: "Edwin Bryant writes that Frawley's work is more successful in the popular arena, to which it is directed and where its impact "is by no means insignificant", rather than in academic study."

I suppose wikipedia defines "scholarly" as something that is published by Western publishing houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.131.25 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Publishing houses to the west of what? Just as long as they are academic and peer-reviewed. And preferebly, for the purposes of English Wikipedia, sources in English. If you have good Russian language sources, perhaps you want to try ru:Риг-веда. Frawley is a non-starter, he isn't even a scholar, not even a sub-par one. Of course, the concept of an encyclopedia is European, developed in 18th century France. Yes, we are dedicated to building a database along the lines envisaged by Denis Diderot, that's the premise here. If you don't subscribe to the general idea, perhaps you would fare best by simply ignoring the project altogether. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I could cite Klaus Klostermaier too, but you would just call him "not even a sub-par one" as well I bet. For the record,as it says on Frawley's wikipedia page, "Frawley is one of the few Westerners to be recognized by a major Hindu sect in India as a Vedacharya or teacher of the ancient wisdom." Dishonest intellectuals like Michael Witzel are openly ridiculed in India.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

by "in India" you mean, of course, "in Hindutva propaganda". This is fair enough, I suppose, as Witzel is also fond of "openly ridiculing" Hindutva pseudo-scholarship.

Look, we have been over all this in 2005. If you have some new development to add, please bring it up already. As long as you just keep harping on the same old Frawley-Rajaram-VoI propaganda stunts of the BJP years, you are just wasting everyone's time. If you can cite a relevant peer-reviewed publication by Klostermaier we can include it within WP:DUE, no problem.

Please. If Frawley is such a great expert on Jyotisha and Ayurveda, why doesn't somebody discuss his work in these fields for a change? --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Indigenous Aryans" debate

Regarding this issue I still believe a mention of the alleged archaeoastrology references in the text warrant a mention. If it doesn't merit inclusion on the basis of being a scholarly topic, then maybe it can still be included on the basis of being a popular opinion held in India. I suggest something like 'Many Hindus believe that the Vedas including the RigVeda pre-date 3102 BC, the date they consider Krishna to have died. Writers outside the mainstream have claimed since the late 19th Century that this date is supported by astronomical observations in the Vedas, and other evidence.' ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

you have got it upside down, and I take it you still are fed your information from Hindutva blogs instead of actual literature.

• The 3102 BC date for the Kurukshetra war is due to Aryabhata, it is not a matter of "many Hindus believe", since Aryabhata's calculation is not a matter of religious belief but of early medieval scholarship. You can as well claim that "many Christians believe that the universe turns around itself once a day" because you find this opinion in Isidore of Seville. The encyclopedic point would be (a) that this was the opinion of a notable 7th century Christian scholar and (b) that astoundingly, many redneck Christians in the more forlorn regions of the Midwest still adhere to this belief (citation needed). While point (a) may receive brief mention at astronomy (under a "medieval" section), point (b) will hardly be relevant to the astronomy article but at best to the Christian fundamentalism one. The 3102 date concerns the Mahabharata war, not the Rigveda, and should be discussed there or in Aryabhata's article.
• the archaeoastronomical stuff from "witers outside the mainstream" is already covered in the article, within WP:DUE. You should perhaps condescend to reading the article you are criticizing at this point. Just as a gesture of basic courtesy. You will then find that the article goes beyond your fuzzy notions of "many Hindus" or "some writers" and accurately attributes the claim to Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1893).

I really hope that you are beginning to appreciate that a lot of effort has already gone into making this article extremely accurate, and that all points you have raised so far have been fully addressed since at least 2007. You will actually learn much about the Rigveda just by reading this article. I know this is surprising considering Wikipedia's average article quality, but you may come to realize that some Wikipedia articles are actually well-developed and fact-checked. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think in your opinion,the scholars which prefer 1500bce date for rigveda are real scholar,and who favours 3000bce are religious one and may not be called scholars.Let me explain you one thing dab,According to hindus as well as references in puran,Rigveda was composed just after creation of this universe by brahma.so according to religious beliefs rigveda was composed during 100000000000000Bce or more.But now some scholars from india and few from westwards have begun to challenge both myth created by religious group as well as by early 19th century indologists.They also give their arguments.

But if these scholars who favours 3000bce date are continuously Ignored,then no truth can be come.No one can tell how much year old the rigveda is?,we have not a time machine.Whatever we have are some theories given by scholars.You can see debate between Witzel and kazanas to verify dates of rigveda.In this discussion kazanas have overruled all claims raised by witzel.--Bankelal (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Aryabhata is a real scholar, but he is a real scholar from the 6th century. He simply did not have the evidence available than we do today. This is no slight on Aryabhata. It is not Aryabhata who is stupid, it is those who unthinkingly embrace his calculations as religious truth today. Constructing a "controversy" between Aryabhata's date and Witzel is like claiming a "controversy" between Aristotle and Richard Feynman. The 3102 BC date is Aryabhata's not Kazanas'. If Aryabhata is Aristotle and Witzel is Feynman, Kazanas would be somebody like Gene Ray. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain you one thing that why 3000bce date for mahabharata war is famous in Indigenous circle

• 1)Offcourse Due to Aryabhata of 6th centuary,but he was born in 6th centuary,it is also not a fact,its only a theory of some historiens that he was born in 6 centuary.
• 2)Aihole inscription of pulekeshi of 500ad also tell that mahabharata war was fought on about 3000bce
• 3)Astronomical dates given in mahabharata also indicate 3000bce
• 4)One most important factor Archaeology also support this,In mahabharata sarasvati river is mentioned many times along with drishdavati river,their path is also described in detail,both river was dried up by 3000bce or more certainly 2000bce,so it can be said that mahabharata war would have take place during period 2000-3000bce
• 5)All Budhdist and jain lierature prior to 600bce know mahabharata charactors,chandogaya upnishad which is dated around 800-600bce also know mahabharata charactors
• 6)In gujarat near bay of cambay 7500bce old civilisation has been discovered under water,which may indicate krisna dwarka.But i accept this is only a assumption.
• 7)Greek Ambassador megnethese also told about herakles (which is identified with krishna),herakles was about 156 generation before chandragupta morya of 300bce,so this also fit to 3000bce claim,he also told that herakles belong to sourseni tribe in methora.

Now we all know that rigveda is prior to mahabharata,if mahabharata war was fought on 3000bce,then rigveda will certainly predate 3000bce as claimed by kazanas.

Thank you.--Bankelal (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing the Indigenous Aryans "debate" is non-germane to the article. We're talking about the oldest extant religious scriptures in the world, and to include the "debate" of political fringe politicians who are in no way experts in the field seems a disservice and diminishes the importance of these texts. It should be completely removed from the article. As a Hindu living in India, I would like the same uncompromising level of scholarship applied to texts which I hold sacred as that applied to, say, the Bible. Imagine a sub-heading in the Bible article entitled "Importance in the Christian Identity doctrine." We would correctly reject legitimizing such ethnocentrism and bigotry, so what place does its analogue have in the Rigveda article? Neverignorant (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

you have a point. The main reason we have this section is that editors would keep adding these authors as "scholars" unless they were already covered. It is better to have a section that gives a realistic perspecitve on this than perpetual attempts at misrepresentation.

Your comparison with the Bible article is reasonable. Or perhaps "Rigveda" would correspond best to Torah in Abrahamic terms. The material pushed by Kak and the VoI crowd perhaps corresponds to the topic of Bible codes, and the "fundamentalist" interpretations of Dayananda et al. would correspond to Biblical literalism.

Now, there is a brief allusion to Biblical literalism and pseudoarchaeology, under Bible#Archaeological_and_historical_research, but nothing like a dedicated section. In this sense, I think it would be justified to export the discussion of the "Indigenous Aryans debate" under WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE and leave behind just a brief mention. But it may be worth considering whether within Hinduism, Hindutva notions of Indigenous Aryans might not carry a weight more significant than bible-thumping crackpottery within Christianity as a whole. This is difficult to estimate. I don't know this, we need tertiary literature on the question. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.92.63.156, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} speaks about Aryans and their enemies Dasas. Incorrect. see "The Historiography of the Concept of 'Aryan' by Romila Thapar in the Book 'India : Historical Beginnings & the Concept of the Aryan'- Publisher - National Book Trust, India. 59.92.63.156 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About date of Rig Veda and religious importance of "to be ancients" for Indians.

Many citations in wikipedia regarding the antiquity of India do not follow the scientific historical method and often the dates are pure speculations. I refer to books written with the heart and not with the brain of many Indian historians, especially when commenting their sacred texts, and western romantic authors of the XIX century. To suppose antiquity of the Vedas of 6000 -9000 years the BCE is a nonsense for history that use document written. In this case Vedas became more more ancient than a probable archeologic proto-arian culture. Before of divergence between Greek-Ittiti-Iran-Vedic language. It is a speculation like the existence of Atlantis to see Critias in Plato. Or the thesis that it sees Sphinx like pre-glacial civilisation manufact. On the same “non-historical” bases is possible to affirme that Athens existed during Atlantis empire that it was destroyed by the end of the Ice Age with the increase of sea level Critias mentions the date of 9.000 years before 400 BCE that coincide with the end of Ice Age. And it is possible find tons of modern book that sustain these thesis. But is this history ? No

The historical evidence that the Vedas are ancient almost 1800-1200 bce is the fact that in them, for analogy there is an arian pantheon (as Greeks, Germans and Ittits and Mitanni, ecc). The first written texts about of arian Pantheon we had in linear B texts in greek, written about 1400 bce and especially in texts of Hittits and Mitanni (2000-1500bce). (The greek linear B and Hittits an Mitanni written systems are decoded only in XX century linear B in 1950) so the autors of XIX century couldn’t have these informations. [Now Out of India theory is illogic and untenable more more probable is an Anatolian origin or Balkan-Russia nomades origin see history of Vinca culture,this it explains migration to the nord and nordic arian religion ) Andronovo culture is much recent, contemporary Hittits that were arians and more sophisticated ('''' ]. So in the Rig Veda it exists a pantheon that at least ancient as others pantheons. (1800-1200 bce). A similar Rig Veda war exist also in North Europe mythology between Æsir–Vanir War. Rig Veda as North myths remained open to oral interpolations while in the written cultures the pantheon became closed. In Rig Veda as in greek Theogony (written and fixed in VII BCE from Hesiod but the pantheon existed a bit different in linear B XIVc bce) the gods are super-humans, they use the humans. they argue, they are vindicative ecc. They need of Soma or Ambrosia. The crystallized greek gods remain simples and anacronistics, the greeks themself not believed them prefering rational philosophy in contrast in the oral Indian religion without written text the gods could evolve in more complex and contradictories figures and with Upanishads philosophy integrated them. The languages evolved also in different terms. Greek for written analysis (verbs irregularities, short compound word, infinite and very specific words continually created or absorbed from other languages as English today) Vedic sanskit but particularly Classic sanskrit for oral analysis and memoring. (sound, long compound words, modular words to indicate new concepts, rational and simple grammar) (About Rig Veda pantheon analysis I can cite the introduction of history of Indian philosophy of S. Radhakrishnan, the Rig Veda chapitre and comparative conclusion) He knew very well both the classical Western culture and Indian culture.

The Harappa culture is another problem, there is element of these culture in Rig Veda ? Surely they hadn’t arian pantheon and arian language infact the written system at moment isn’t decoded. If they spoke similar sanskrit language now we could understand the written system. But is probable that elements of Harappa culture entered in Vedas. Surely the legends of a great civilisation that despared remained in the indigenous immaginary. And Arians found that one. As the Roman Empire myth in the dark medieval Europe overwhelmed by the imposing ruins. An advanced civilisation (the myth of Babyl tower) destroyed by religious fanaticism and human fear. The same ghosts that still exist today....in the globalized world (see Bamyan Buddhas) (and also in wikipedia).

I don’t want write on the article i am not specialist and i not english speaker, but I want sustained about origin of Rig Veda that nobody born alone. And that isn’t important be ancient but to be true. And the true and agape had lot of roads. (Plutarcs, Dao etc) But history has only the science road.

Malipiero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.76.2 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry, it isn't clear what you want. You seem to be just stating your broad agreement with what is already in the article, and your disagreement with various things that are not. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is good, one of the best in wikipedia on "Indian culture". There aren’t "superlative" and "hyperbolic" adjectives. In this article the dates are handled with logic.

Example in other wikipedia articles about India philosophies and religions often is possible to find : 1 "X is the oldest human religion" 2 “X religion has prehistoric origins dating before 3000 BC... before Indo-Aryan ecc 3 “the wisdom of mathematics came in Egypt and Mesopotamia from India, etc. ". 4 “the presocratics philosophers are gone in India to know “the light of knowledge” 5 “the earliest references to the concept of Y date back to ancient India in (precise date of oral fact), appearing first “in the world” in X religion. All with citations of pseudo-historian texts written from “guru” or XIX century romantic autors, or out of context citations.

I don’t understand because for lot of Indian peoples is so important ““to be the ancient of the world””. Often the wikipedia forums are much interesting as the article. I see that there are same cultural problem in this forum so I just wanted to post on this forum to respond to some who confuses the mythical origins with the historical origins.

Only this. I finish here, greetings and good work.

Malipiero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.58.66 (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, there is a cultural problem. Apparently, in India it is socially acceptabe to pile up random hyperbole about your own group and present it as "encyclopedic". I would be greatly interested in a study that explains this phenomenon. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rig Veda written and imported into India

It seems India has adopted and absorbed many foreign attributes, a process which is even going on now, (English, clothes, Central Asian meat/cuisine, Hindi/Urdu etc...) It is safe to say that the origins of Hinduism are also foreign and were adopted into a local Indian version that we see today.  But as the original lands from where this texts adopted newer or alternative faiths, the last remaining adherents to what would become the Hindu faith, would be the version found in India.  For this reason, many modern historians now claim that Hinduism itself may not necessarily be a native religion of India, but rather a hybrid of a foreign faith that was brought into India and mixed up into the pagan polytheism that was prevalent in parts of South Asia.  The article should bring attention and mention this very important facet of hinduism as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC) 

>>>>Delete this comment above or keep mine as well. This person doesn't understand what India is: before independence, after independence or the Bharatvarsa that Vedic/Hindu religion talks about?. Rigveda belongs more to Hinduism than India, Indian borders can change tomorrow, but Hinduism is the religion which started based on RigVeda (in past/history), unless we can wipe out history somehow, that association remains. Further, irrespective of how mush archaic RigVeda language is, it is still Sanskrit a language of Hinduism/North India and nothing else. Pointing out relationships is ok, but respect degree of difference and accuracy of what you are suggesting.

Non-Neutrality of the Dating Issue

The original text I added on this issue (available below) sounded like full blown propaganda, so I am restating the problem in neutral terms. This is about Wikipedia's NPOV.

A non-neutral article should be journalistic, that is it should contain both sides of a debated issue. The Rig Veda dating does not.

For example the sentence "the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC" should include the other side of the argument also by adding "this is a topic of dispute in current scholarship" Such a harmless sentence exists on other wikipedia pages without the need for references.

That said, the arguments I have presented in my previous addition to this page about the Sarasvati river and such, which are used to counter 'historically accepted' datings of the Rig Veda are all presented in a legitimate reference:

PDF on Wichmark

The important part is in Page 14 of the pdf document.

I am assuming that anything showing up on Google scholar is a legitimate reference according to Western Scholarship, since anything published outside Western Publishing houses is not given credence, though there is enough written about this issue there also.

To make things easier, let me lift David Frawley's actual text to make my point.

"The Sarasvati is lauded as the main river in the Rig Veda and is the most frequently mentioned river in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in size, the greatest and most central river of the region of the seven rivers.(*11) Sarasvati is said to be "pure in her course from the mountains to the sea."(*12) The Vedic people were well acquainted with this river along its entire course and regarded it as their immemorial homeland. The Sarasvati, as modern land studies now reveals, was indeed one of the largest rivers in India in ancient times (before 1900 BC) and was perhaps the largest river in India (before 3000 BC). In early ancient and pre-historic times, it drained the Sutlej and Yamuna, whose courses were much different than they are today.(*13) However, the Sarasvati river went dry by the end of the Harappan culture and well before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up some centuries before they arrived? Indeed the Sarasvati as described in the Rig Veda as a green and fertile region appears to more accurately show the river as it was prior to the Harappan culture as in the Harappan era it was already in decline. In the Brahmanas and Mahabharata the Sarasvati is said to flow in a desert and in the latter does not even reach the sea. The Sarasvati as a river is later replaced by the Ganges and is almost forgotten in Puranic literature. The stages of the drying up of the river can be traced in Vedic literature showing the Vedic people did not merely come at the last phase of the river's life."

I have emboldened the relevant parts of the text. In this vein, the original Rigveda article should at least mention, from a neutral viewpoint, the alternate date proposed, in this case long before 3000BC, as the above citation explains.

Google Books allows the access of another David Frawley Book- Gods, Sages and Kings(link below) which has a similar argument about dating on Page 15 :

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DM58BhuR2KwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=David+Frawley&ots=CB-4NlmKut&sig=dFCWHKUODOD_XlHOQEffzNsXCA4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Part of the page has the following words- "The Vedic people had a calendar based upon astronomical sightings based on the equinoctial positions going back from 2000BC to at least 6000BC."

Since the oldest Vedic is the Rig Veda, it is quite obvious that this refers to no other book. Furthermore, the notable phrase in the above quote is "at least" since it makes clear that there are much older astronomical references.

Joykrit (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another side of veiw should also be given in the article to satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV

• Once we recognise that Harappan archaeology belongs to the closing centuries of the Vedic age, the mystery vanishes. The late Vedic literature includes mathematical texts known as the Sulba-sutras which contain detailed instruction for the building of sacrificial altars. After a monumental study spanning more than 20 years, the distinguished American mathematician and historian of science, Abraham Seidenberg showed that the Sulba-sutras are the source of both Egyptian and old Babylonian mathematics. The Egyptian texts based on the Sulba-sutras go back to before 2,000 BCE. This provides independent comfirmation that Indian mathematical knowledge existed long before that date, ie, during the height of the Harappan era. For further mathematical evidence and quotations please see: Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge.
• It is well known that in the Rig Veda, the greatest and the holiest of rivers was not the Ganga, but the now dry Saraswati. The Ganga is mentioned only once while the Saraswati is mentioned some 50 tomes. There is a whole hymn devoted to her. Extensive research by the late Dr. Wakankar has shown that the Saraswati changed her course several times, going completely dry around 1900 BCE,The protohistoric people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3,000 BCE. But satellite 'photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great Saraswati that flowed "from the mountain to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3,000 BCE. This means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3,000 BCE. This is further supported by the fact that the Drishadvati river, also described in the Rig Veda, had itself gone dry long before 3,000 BCE. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have been in existence no later than 3,500 BCE. There is other evidence from metallurgy and astronomy that lend further support for this date.--Myth&Truth (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the last one. But no matter what information is added on this page, it won't make a difference. Dates won't be changed and history will be presented in a distorted manner. Primarily because the Internet like everything else, is under Illuminati control. I only keep adding these relevant points even though I know nothing will be achieved. I think what scares the Illuminati most of all is the possibility of the world realizing something that Will Durant said- "India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.” If that were to happen, things would go reeling out of their control as people would turn to the Rig Veda. But I suppose they would easily start making up bad things about Will Durant too, and find ways to make him look like a "sub-par" scholar too. Joykrit (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The above quote is, of course, not the original opinion of User:Myth&Truth (as is obvious already from the correct English). It is, rather, a copy-paste job from an article apprantely printed in The Hindustan Times, written by N.S. Rajaram. Now, Rajaram is a rabid nationaist and a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot. Frawley's confused mysticism is positively sane by comparison. There is WP:SNOW no way this article will cite anything by him with a straight face. It is a common misconception, but WP:NPOV does not mean "quote any old nonsense posted on the internet, no matter what".

Will Durant is a popular writer, addressing the American general reader, no more and no less. He is essentially the early 20th century version of "world history for dummies". If you like to read his stuff, it's better than sitting in front of the television, but his writings certainly aren't "scholarship" in the narrow sense. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

External Link addition

Regards......Sathya Venkatraman 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)I would like to add the following external link to a site which has significant unique contents on Vedas

• Vedavichara.com A systematic Study of Vedas. Has basic lessons on concepts behind Vedas, Vedanta and also audio mp3 recordings of all 4 Vedas in South Indian style chanting for around 200 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathya venkat (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding your personal website, see WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)