From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Vedas was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 30, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Hinduism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.



The reading notes of BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) have been moved to User:BalanceRestored/Notepad. dab (𒁳) 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

orthodox Hindu interpretation[edit]

At Page 18 it is written "According to the orthodox views of Indian Theologians", and it is not "orthodox hindu", are "Indian Theologists" and "orthodox hindus" same?BalanceRestored 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the "orthodox" is intended to weaken the claim. If we just say "in Hindu interpretation", we will allege that each and every Hindu subscribes to this, which would be much more in need of a citation than the weakened statement. dab (𒁳) 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not make it "According to orthodox Hindu interpretation the Vedas are apauruṣeya" to "The Vedas are apauruṣeya", the citations are already there. This one sounds more diplomatic. This does not include or exclude any particular section. So, there should be no problem.BalanceRestored 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Vedas are for everyone. BalanceRestored 09:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Sarveśāṃ cādhikāro vidyāyāṃ ca śreyah: kevalayā vidyāyā veti siddhaṃ" - Adi ShankaraBalanceRestored 09:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
DAB at one instance you say, we cannot have things of our own. Again you are trying to write something that's not cited the way it is said. You all taught me about WP:SOAP. BalanceRestored 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not "trying to write", I am graciously explaining an English sentence to you. I don't insist on the "orthodox". Any suggestion for a better phrasing? Just removing the "orthodox" is not an improvement, since it will just result in an even stronger statement. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit.BalanceRestored 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction needed[edit]

When you view this article Vedas, it has a doubling of two words in the text under the section 'Etymology and usage': The noun is from PIE *u̯eidos, cognate to Greek (ϝ)εἶδος "aspect, form". Not to be confused is the homonymous 1st and 3rd person singular perfect tense véda, cognate to cognate to Greek (ϝ)οἶδα (w)oida "I know". Root cognate are Greek ἰδέα, English wit, witness, German wissen, Latin video.

The doubling of the words 'cognate to' is doubled for unknown reason, but viewing the source of the text does not contain that doubling. Please correct that. 14:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. Abecedare 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas[edit]

There are 5 Vedas against the standard 4. There are evidences for the same. Some say, there where 4 divisions made and the 5th is the main Veda that is complete and the one which was divided into 4.

There are various texts that talk about the Vedas being 5 in number. Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas. Mahabharata said to be written by Vyasa, says that Vyasa taught one more Veda to his own son Shuka. Written at Mahabharata Shanti Parva 335-40

  • The Religious Authority of the Mahabharata: Vyasa and Brahma in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-401, Bruce M. Sullivan it quotes "Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas."
  • "Mysore State Gazetteer", Printed by the Director of Print., Stationery and Publications at the Govt. Press (1965), Page 220 says The Panchals are said to follow five Vedas (instead of the standard four), the fifth being the "Pranava Veda"
  • Pages indexed in google for the term "5 Veda" [1] 700+
  • Pages indexed in google for the term "fifth veda" 11,700. There are various assumptions for the same.
  • Skanda Purana the biggest among the Puranas clearly mentions the original people to whom the 5 Vedas belonged (Still to confirm this) The verses are as follows "RugVaid Manushchaiva, YajurVaid Mayasthata, Tvastrana SamaVaid, Cha Arthavarn Shilpi Kasthata || Vishwagnya Pranava Vaid Cha Pancha Vaidantu Brahamanaha"
  • "Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham" says "There are five Vedas if you reckon the Yajur Veda to be two with its Sukla and Krsna divisions." so they agree that there are 5 vedas, the sentence is very much "confused" looks like the sage knows there are 5 vedas. [2]
  • "Psychic Science April 1931 to January 1932", Stanley De Brath, Published 2004 Kessinger Publishing, New Age / Parapsychology, ISBN 1417978155. Says "The Newest Physics", "A remarkable little book a new astronomy and cosmic Physicology "merely to introduce the larger work" page 122. The author G. E. Sutcliffe claims that in is based on a method entirely new in Europe. This method is said to be contained in the Pranava Veda, A Sanskrit text from the East.
  • "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", Srimad-Bhagavata., Exact translation is Eka=One eva={{Used to put emphasis}} so[1]Pura=Complete Vedah=Veda Pranavah="Pranava Veda" sarva-vangmayah=all-vangmayah. Now people who read this line from Srimad-Bhagavata and still say , NO NO NO or write something else, which is 100% crystal clear, I think they need a doctor. My friends we all agree that Vyasa divided the 4 vedas from some big text (Veda) to simplify it. It was the pranava veda he did that from. Now, this is what people say and talk about. Truth needs to be found, this is what something that's commonly talked. Again.. there's something else also about Pranava Veda that sounds silly.. but I will keep that a secret. Ok, you all scholars, great editors, which TEXT VYASA DIVIDED to make that simple? IT WAS THE VEDA so which VEDA? does anyone know that?BalanceRestored 10:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A list of sacred texts where there are further notations of the 5th Veda.
    • MBH 1.57.74;
    • MBH 12.327.18;
    • RAM 1.1.77;
    • BP 1.4.20;
    • BP 3.12.39;
    • Skanda;

Source: Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, by Steven T. Katz, ISBN: 9780195097030, Page 204

Don't know which translation is the author talking about. I find some other lines at RAM 1.1.77;BalanceRestored 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the article Fifth Veda ? Abecedare 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"that is, of a text which lies outside than the four canonical Vedas", sorry I am trying to say something else. The first complete veda, "Pranava Veda". It is very known in Indian mythology that the Veda was very big and it had to be divided into 4 divisions. But, again not everything was covered in the 4 divisions, certain things were left out of the 4 divisions. It becomes but obvious when you read the following verses and currently the article Veda does not mention the same. "The incompleteness of the 4 Vedas" "Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah", the followin verses according to the Srimad-Bhagavata is said by Bhagawan Sri Krishna BalanceRestored 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be in the Vedas according to my understanding. Currently it's not at all seen.BalanceRestored 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Read Vedas#Puranas for a summary of a few origin stories for the Vedas, including the origin from the primeval veda (pranavah veda) i.e. the syllable Aum. You can read more about this in the cited reference Muir (1861) or in Holdredge (1996) who has a whole chapter on "Veda and Creation" (pages 29-129). Abecedare 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There are million errors here made by the authors when translating the Vedas, so it is clearly doubted. The authors have misinterpreted the vedas, See the following, So, how you want us hindus to go on their findings? It looks like they know to break the words but cannot understand the same when written down in a sentence.BalanceRestored 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I will take the first 2 lines and comment.
"I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice, The hotar, lavishest of wealth.", you mean this is the translation of
ॐ अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजम् । होतारं रत्नधातमम् ॥?????BalanceRestored 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
So, when they are not in a position to translate Sanskrit, then next are their findings about the same.BalanceRestored 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
When the translators basics are wrong, what should be their findings based on????BalanceRestored 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, you are going off-topic now. If you want to argue against, which is a convenient but hardly an authoritative resource (and not used as a reference for this article), wikipedia is not the place to do it. Please focus your comments on critique of this wikipedia article and cite reputable secondary sources to back up your opinion.
And if you want to find what the findings are based upon, please read the cited works as I have advised earlier. Cheers. Abecedare 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the point to focus on. I will find out, I am sure it will be already published.BalanceRestored 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, most of the findings here are based on Muir, I suppose as it looks like a standard to many. I am sure this one has lot of technical flaws. I will find the same. BalanceRestored 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
we are looking forward to your expert review. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is hilarious! BR, it was you who had insisted that we quote Muir (1861), not once, but twice; after which Dab had introduced the Puranas section and I had expanded it. Now you have gone from, "this is a good one which mentions the Sanskrit sources well" to being certain that, "this one has lot of technical flaws". I too look forward to your future reviews. :-) Abecedare 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


I think it is important to state what method is/was being used by the researchers to arrive at the dating. Currently that's not mentioned.

  • Age is being arrived with the help of Carbon Dating etc has to be mentioned,

so that it is clearer for the current generations to know if the findings where based on appropriate methods.BalanceRestored 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this. Recent work done by Dr Toomas Kivisild of University of Cambridge has tremendous effect on the 19th and 20th century works by linguists and philologists. Please try to expand this section, particularly so that it does not sound weasel-y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Important point not mentioned[edit]

The authors are not conclusive about the dating those are mentioned at the main article, and what are mentioned are only probable dating. I've adjusted the text accordingly. Kindly read "The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism" Page 68 completely.BalanceRestored 10:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"only probable dating"? BR, it is universally known that the chronology of Ancient India is notoriously uncertain. We can be glad to have a date within a margin of error of one or two centuries. You seem to be interested in Indian studies. Why don't you go to some university and take some introductory lectures? Wikipedia is no replacement for education. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My friend you do fail to understand Internet. When writing at a place like wiki one need to be very hardworking and will need to explain in Details because it is uncertain who is probably reading the Veda. It could be read by a scholar like you, or a elementary person like me, or even by a young 15 year old student. So, when a young 15 year old reads it, he/she will take those as certain dates as it is not clearly mentioned. He or she will then propagate the same among all his friends and then it spreads to ...... (∞) then some critic will get a change to pull the legs of Hinduisms because the word is wrongly getting spread. I find these are necessary to mention. The authors too felt the same, so they took care and pains to mention about the same.BalanceRestored 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not blame any one here, I just felt it was necessary to have mentioned about the same. These were absent so just quoted those. BalanceRestored 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not "fail to understand Internet". You fail to understand Wikipedia. If you cannot be bothered to read a book, then please at least spend an hour or two reading WP:5P, and in particular WP:TALK: nobody here wants to listen to your general epistemological musings. You are just degrading the noise-to-signal ratio here. There is nothing wrong with 15 year olds coming to Wikipedia, reading referenced academic mainstream information, and "propagating" that among their friends. To the contrary, this is the entire point of the project. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I do wrong mentioning those?? Did I tell you anything for not quoting the things I quoted. I only quoted those and mentioned the changes at the talk pages. Did I violate any rules? :))BalanceRestored 11:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I never told you purposely left those unquoted. Please don't take it personally. Read WP:5PBalanceRestored 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this one are disruptive. You've been told how things work. You go ahead regardless. Your edit falsifies the reference quoted: where does Witzel (2003, p. 68) state that "How ever there is no perfect dating still arrived for any of the Vedas so far"? Read my lips: If you want to make a comment on the margin of error of these estimates, cite a source discussing this. There are sources for this. Find them. Cite them. Don't waste my time. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read line number 21. It clearly quotes "However, there still is no absolute dating for any Ved." Page 68. You can see this book along with page 68 right now online at [3]
I think you made an error reading all the lines properly. Cheers BalanceRestored 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Kindly do not give false warnings, you just wrote, Edits like this one are disruptive.. BalanceRestored 12:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you know to apologize for your error. Though I don't see it is necessary as you did that unknowingly. BalanceRestored 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, I think this is just an issue you are having with the English language. Instead of debating this in circles here, I suggest that you post a question on WP:RD/L quoting Witzel from "However, it is known from internal ... who quotes most of them" and ask if "Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 BCE and c. 500-400 BCE." is a misrepresentation. Abecedare 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

fair is fair, Witzel does say "there is still no absolute dating of any Vedic text", the still referring to the hints provided by the 14th c. Mitanni material. If you could summarize the gist of the paragraph correctly, that would be fine, but preferably we want to avoid converting this to gibberish like "How ever there is no perfect dating still arrived for any of the Vedas so far". Witzel gives 150 BC (Patanjali) as a terminus ante quem for all Vedas, and the life of Buddha (5th c. BC) for "almost" all Vedic texts. The introduction of iron around 1200 BC is given as a terminus post quem for the AV. The Mitanni material merely suggests that the early Rigveda is roughly contemporary with the 1450-1350 period, which is in fact a very satisfactory independent support of Müllers 1500 estimate. All this is perfectly mainstream, and if your skills of cognition and English allow you to summarize this correctly, the material is perfectly welcome. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Again are these numbers estimates or vice versa???BalanceRestored 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is everyone fine with the addition of "there is still no absolute dating of any Vedic text", since all the dating has arrived with things those were available with the authors when they did their research. Kindly cite valid reason if it is not to be mentioned. The editors who say it should not be mentioned should explain why the author Witzel has quoted the following too.BalanceRestored 11:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
did you understand what I say above? You cannot isolate literal quotes from their context. Either give a correct summary of the whole paragraph or leave it be. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. The article about Vedas#Dating looks perfect now. BalanceRestored 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


1st occasion noted by me where an unknown editor has removed text related to nastika that's currently involving names of 2 important religions. I am sure that sentence is going to be not liked by everyone. BalanceRestored 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have an article not much related to Vedas to be present at the second paragraph??? are we trying to build encyclopedia, or pin communities and religions??? BalanceRestored 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
the chronology of Vedic literature is "not much related" to the topic of Vedic literature, how? dab (𒁳) 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
what is chronology of Vedic literature to do with Nastika?BalanceRestored 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were referring to the 2nd paragraph, "Dating". The astika vs. nastika is directly related to the Vedas, of course, since the meaning of astika translates to "accepting the authority of the Vedas". dab (𒁳) 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
But Gautam Buddha on various occasion has quoted references from Vedas himself. So, how are you saying Buddhism is against "accepting the authority of the Vedas".???BalanceRestored 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Gautam Buddha was only against accepting the wrong principles, that is, Sacrificing animals, making differences on the basis of birth. He has openly said that differences are on the basis of ones deeds, and not on the basis of birth. Vedas and Gita does not teach anything different. So, if you can let me know how following the Correct principles followers of Gautam Buddha become nastika?BalanceRestored 06:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please check the references cited in this article as well as in nastika. If you find another academic source which lists Buddhism or Jainism as an astika faith, we can list that too. If you are suggesting we cite/quote Buddha himself, read WP:OR. Abecedare 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations from "Srimad Bhagavatam" [4]

tatah kalau sampravritte
sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-sutah
kikateshu bhavishyati


tatah -- thereafter; kalau -- the age of Kali; sampravritte -- having ensued; sammohaya -- for the purpose of deluding; sura -- the theists; dvisham -- those who are envious; buddhah -- Lord Buddha; namna -- of the name; anjana-sutah -- whose mother was Anjana; kikateshu -- in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavishyati -- will take place.


Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.BalanceRestored 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So, that makes Buddha a theists (astika) supporter, but the supporter of a true "theist"BalanceRestored 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It is also clearly written in the "Srimad Bhagavatam" that Gautam Buddha was incarnation of Lord Vishnu himself. BalanceRestored 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Again see WP:OR, particularly WP:PSTS. Unless you have a reliable secondary academic source to back up your views, it is better to move this discussion to your user-space. Abecedare 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is a book that you can use to refer the above.
  • Srimad-Bhagavatam, 18 Volume Set
  • ISBN: 0-89213-275-2
  • by Swami Prabhupada
BalanceRestored 07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The following is written by Swami Prabhupada "Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gaya (Bihar) as the son of Anjana, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him."
Please stop quoting scripture to argue your points. You may cite scripture to establish what it says, but not to establish facts. The Bhagavatam is completely irrelevant to this article. It is not a Vedic scripture. Swami Prabhupada is an authority on ISKCON. His comments on general Vedic matters are not reliable from a historical point of view because he presents traditional religious views. In any case, the point you are making seems completely irrelevant to this article. The references to atheists are irrelevant to the technical term nastika in the sense of not accepting the Vedas as scriptural authority. Buddhipriya 09:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1[edit]

Lord Vishnu is astika or nastika? Do you not mean to say GOD supports, teaches, and follows nastika??BalanceRestored 09:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Vishnu in his 9th birth taught Buddhism, (to follow nastika) right?BalanceRestored 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the Vedas? The only way in which it is connected is that nastika refers to not accepting the authority of the Vedas. Your personal commentary on whether Vishnu preached nastika since particular traditions regard Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu has no pertinence here. Wikipedia merely reports what is mentionedd in reliable sources. We don't deduce anything from them ourselves and write our own evaluations. That is Original research and is not allowed here. GizzaDiscuss © 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Should be there no attempts to ask editors to actually think logically? to build awareness about facts? Not everything that's researched could be right. I did try to show quotes from important personality too. Well if every editors thinks it is right to say Lord Vishnu preached nastika and asked his devotees to follow nastika, fine not a problem.BalanceRestored 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I believe that answers your question. Now may I ask you a question. What is your understanding of the phrase, verifiability, not truth? I think it is crucial that you get this right if you want edit prosperously at Wikipedia. Please answer this directly. Please don't ramble on something else. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
it is true that BR is (very obliquely) trying to introduce the viewpoints of Swami Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda, along the lines "the Vedas were written by magic space Aryans, and are aware of radio-astronomy, nuclear fusion, UFOs and what have you". It doesn't matter that it is obvious 19th century romanticist/mysticist/fundamentalist nonsense (in a nutshell: "theosophy"), this stuff is certainly notable, and these Swamis certainly deserve their own articles. The question is, how notable is this stuff to this article? The question is about WP:UNDUE, not WP:V ("Vedas: see Theosophy"?). I did offer BR he could introduce a new "Hindu reform movements" subsection and write a concise summary of all this. He quite apparently isn't prepare to actually document what he is talking about, but prefers to keep littering this talkpage with sibyllic comments. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 2[edit]

Who is A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada???? BalanceRestored 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A person who has been practicing Hinduism, just not preaching all his life is no one to comment???BalanceRestored 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I misunderstood what your question but to paraphrase it, you appear to be saying why Prabhupada can't have his opinions on Hinduism and "Nastika" mentioned as fact even though he has practised Hinduism all his life. If so, devotional views are welcomed here as long as enough context is provided and it is mentioned only to an extent. We have a Vedanta section on this page for this reason. GizzaDiscuss © 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Prabhupada is a guru of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and as such clearly falls in the category "Pauranic Hinduism". dab (𒁳) 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Vedas does not advice slaughtering[edit]

Atharva Veda I.16.4Atharva Veda I.16.4
Kill the killer of the cow with the bullet of lead.
Atharva Veda III.30.1
You should impart love to each other as the non-killable cow does for its calf.
RgVeda VII.56.17
Punish the killer of the cow and the man.
RgVeda VIII.101.15
Cow is pure, do not kill it.
RgVeda X.10.87.16
Those who kill the �Aghanya�, the cow which is not to be killed according to the Vedic edicts,
their heads should be chopped off.
Yajur Veda XIII.49
Do not kill the cow.
YajurVeda XXX.18
Award death sentence to the killer of the cow.
RgVeda VI.28.3 states
Enemy may not use any �astra� i.e. weapon on cows
RgVeda VI.28.4 states
Nobody should take them to butcher house to kill them
Mahabharata- Shantiparva 262.47
Cow is called �aghanya� and thus non-killable.
Kill the killer of the cow with the bullet of lead.
Atharva Veda III.30.1
You should impart love to each other as the non-killable cow does for its calf.
RgVeda VII.56.17
Punish the killer of the cow and the man.
RgVeda VIII.101.15
Cow is pure, do not kill it.
RgVeda X.10.87.16
Those who kill the �Aghanya�, the cow which is not to be killed according to the Vedic edicts, their heads should be chopped off.
Yajur Veda XIII.49
Do not kill the cow.
YajurVeda XXX.18
Award death sentence to the killer of the cow.
RgVeda VI.28.3 states
Enemy may not use any �astra� i.e. weapon on cows
RgVeda VI.28.4 states
Nobody should take them to butcher house to kill them
Mahabharata- Shantiparva 262.47
Cow is called �aghanya� and thus non-killable.

Can the following be mentioned at Vedas? BalanceRestored 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above content is relevant to the Sacred cow article and you may want to discuss it on that article's talk page. It is of little importance as far as this article is concerned. Abecedare 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The above content is a bunch of baloney. rudra 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There are misconception about Vedas, that it advices Cow slaughtering and certain authors have said the same. These verses are from Atharva Veda, RgVeda, YajurVeda. So it would be nice if they are mentioned at Veda. BalanceRestored 07:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Still it will be great if someone can help mention all these verses at Sacred cow. BalanceRestored 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN. The vedas are not a dietary handbook. There are parts that condemn the slaughter of milk cows, others directed against cow-killing demons, but yet others prescribing bull sacrifice. You have to live with the fact that history takes its own courses and does not fit anyone's ideal. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of poison is to kill. But poison containers do come with a warning. Well, some read the entire content before it is consumed. Some don't :)BalanceRestored 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Dab, is there any recommendation from wiki on what to mention about Veda and what not to mention? If you can direct me to a policy, it will be great. Thanks for your guidance so far.

BalanceRestored 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of Reliable Source is giving you trouble? Did you think your random copy-paste -- make that double copy-paste -- could qualify? (Never mind that RV.10.87.16 has already been specifically dealt with, and the treatment of the rest would be similar.) Actually, this farrago of "quotes" looks awfully familiar... ah yes, com/vedas/petition.html of course. rudra 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes you go right I picked that up from http://www.petitiononline. com/vedas/petition.html of course BalanceRestored 05:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is there a policy at wiki to decide what part of the vedas are to be discussed at wiki and what not to be discussed. BalanceRestored 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

this is the main article on Vedic literature as a whole. It links to lots of sub-articles. The early religion described in the Samhitas is treated at historical Vedic religion. Later Vedic mysticism is treated at Vedanta. Historical Vedic scholarship is treated at Shakha and Vedanga. Classical recitation of the Samhitas is covered at Patha. Surviving schools of Vedic ritualism are treated at Shrauta. 19th to 20th century gurus and ideologists trying to "reclaim the Vedas" are treated at Hindu reform movements. dab (𒁳) 08:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, where does these lines on Ahimsa from Vedas fit in? I've already added few lines at Ahimsa yesterday but that's not directly linked from Vedas. Should we add a link to Ahimsa at See Also then?
we can't link back to every article that links here from "see also". We have "what links here" for that. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason for not allowing Ahimsa an important part of Hinduism? which stand's on base of the Vedas? Does everyone agree with DABs view that Vedas article need not include any information on Ahimsa? There are many important verses from Vedas those talks about it. BalanceRestored 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you realized yet that this is not the Hinduism article? The earliest mention of ahimsa is in the Chandogya Up.; if you can dig up that citation, and write a coherent paragraph about it at Chandogya Upanishad, I'll agree we can mention the fact here as well. Learn to discuss topics at the articles actually dedicated to them. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean??? The first para reads The Vedas (Sanskrit véda वेद "knowledge") are a large corpus of texts originating in Ancient India. They form the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature[1] and the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism.. The column on the right reads Part of a series on Hindu scriptures, and you say this is not about Hinduism?BalanceRestored 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a great suggestion that the details be mentioned at Chandogya Upanishad, but when the Vedas themselves are clearly mentioning the details about Ahimsa, why not mention those? I can get you citations from an eminent author Swami Dayanand Saraswati. BalanceRestored 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with you? The Vedas are part of Hindu scripture. What part of "part" is difficult to understand? Your "eminent Swami Dayanand Saraswati" is part of the Hindu reform movement and is completely unaware of the historical Vedic period. At the very most, we can add a short "Hindu reform movement" subsection to "The Vedas in post-Vedic literature". It's offtopic, ok? Work on Hindu reform movement or Vegetarianism if you have knowledge on these topics, but stop spamming this article. dab (𒁳) 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have not read "The study of Sanskrit being almost non-existent in Europe, German scholars like Professor Max Muller, who have read a little Sanskrit may have come to be regarded as the highest authorities in Germany, but compared with India the number of Sanskrit scholars in that country is very small. We came to know from a letter of the President of a German University that even learned enough to interpret a Sanskrit letter are rare in Germany. We have also made it plain from the study of Max". He knows what Max Muller has written and what's the history all about. Source (Chapter 11, Satyarth Prakash). So, kindly take some time before you really comment or actually suggest. BalanceRestored 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Page 333 (Chapter 11, Satyarth Prakash) says "Muller's History of Sanskrit Literature and his commentary on some Mantras of the Vedas that the Professor has been able to scribble out something by the help of the so-called Tikaas or paraphrases of the Vedas current in India, for instance, he translates the word Bradhnam into a horse in the vedic verse which runs as:- Yunjanti bradhanam arusham charanti�." Even Sanyanacharya's rendering of it unto the sun is much better, but its real meaning is the All-Pervading Spirit.* This will suffice to show how much Sanskrit learning Professor Max Muller and other Germans possess." BalanceRestored 07:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
BR, please stop using this page as a soapbox to air the latest discoveries you make on petition-online or some other non-reliable POV websites. You have already posted more comments on this page in the past six weeks as all other editors combined in the last 3+ years! If you continuing along these lines, we will consider a topic-ban to prevent you from spamming this article page and treating it as a discussion forum. Abecedare 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am so sorry I did not mention the book, I assumed you all knew
Light of truth, or, An English translation of the Satyarth prakash: The well-known work of Swami Dayanand Saraswati
Dayananda Sarasvati
Language: English
BalanceRestored 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Details at Amazon [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BalanceRestored (talkcontribs) 07:23, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Vegetarianism recommended in the Vedas[edit]

  • As per Rig-veda (10.87.16), “One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.”
  • Yajur Veda 12.32.90 says "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever".
  • Atharva Veda 10/1/29 says "Oh violent man, It is the most heinous sin, To kill the innocent creatures,

Kill not our cows, Our horses and our men."BalanceRestored 08:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

can you please stop spamming this talkpage now? You want to edit sacred cow, ahimsa, and History_of_Vegetarianism#Historical_Vedic_religion_and_Hinduism. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the above religious lecture is completely irrelevant to this article. I ask again that this editor stop quoting scripture in these ways, and stop violating WP:SOAP. If this religious lecturing continues, I would support an RfC regarding the matter. Buddhipriya 08:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing to get excited about. I just recommended a content. If you all think it is not good to be mentioned fine. Cheers :). BalanceRestored 09:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
History_of_Vegetarianism#Historical_Vedic_religion_and_Hinduism could be a good place. Thanks DAB. BalanceRestored 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Rig Veda, Book 3, Hymn XI, verse 7: By offering sacred food to him the mortal worshiper obtains a home from him whose light makes pure.

Yajur Veda (Taittiriya Sanhita) Kanda II, Prapathaka 1, verses ii.1.4, verses 3-7: [3]. The gods reflected, 'Yama here has become what we are.' They had recourse to Prajapati. Prajapati from his body fashioned out the bull and the cow; the gods offered a cow to Visnu and to Varuna, a bull to Indra; they caused him to be seized by Varuna and by Visnu, the sacrifice, they drove him away; his power they appropriated by means of that for Indra. He who has foes should in strife offer to Visnu and Varuna a cow [4], to Indra a bull; verily causing his foe to be seized by Varuna, by Visnu, the sacrifice, he drives him away, he appropriates his power by means of that for Indra, he prospers, his foe is defeated. Indra slew Vrtra; him Vrtra slain bound with sixteen coils; from the head of Vrtra came out cows, they were (cows) of Videha; behind them came the bull. It Indra [5] perceived; he reflected, 'He who shall offer him shall be freed from this evil'; he offered to Agni one with a black neck, to Indra a bull. Agni, being approached with his own share, burned into sixteen pieces the coils of Vrtra, and by (the offering) to Indra he bestowed power on himself. He who is seized by evil should offer (a beast) with a black neck to Agni, and a bull to Indra; verily Agni, being approached with his own share [6], burns away his evil, and by (the offering) to Indra he bestows power on himself, he is freed from the evil, he prospers. He who is long in exile should offer a cow to sky and earth; for he is not established in them; verily also he who is long in exile has recourse to sky and earth with their own share; verily they establish them; he is established. It is one which is long in labour, for Iong in labour as it were is the kingdom of him who is long in exile; (verily it serves) for prosperity. To Vayu [7] he should offer a calf; Vayu is their calf; these worlds are barren for him, the people are barren; verily also he who is long in exile has recourse to Vayu with his own share; verily Vayu causes these worlds and the people to give to him; these worlds drop milk for him; the people wait upon him in service.

Yajur Veda (Taittiriya Sanhita): Kanda 1, Prapathaka 3, verse 1.3.1: (The victim for Agni and Soma): a. On the impulse of the god Savity, with the arms of the Acvins, with the hands of Pusan, I take thee; thou art spade, thou art the woman. b. the Raksas is encompassed, the evil spirits are encompassed, here do I cut off the neck of the Raksas. c. He who hates us and whom we hate, here do I cut off his neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenadesea (talkcontribs) 23:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Teachings of Vedas[edit]

Well, I don't see anything that's talking about teachings of the Vedas. What exactly does it teach is not much covered. It will be great if someone starts a section here on the same. I've see that the currently article does not highlight anything about the Vedas teachings. BalanceRestored 05:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently there's hardly anything that's written at Etymology and usage.BalanceRestored 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe only the most important (meaning it is the major aspect of) teaching should be covered. My reason is that a article should only include facts, and the most important teaching will cover roughly what it is. Overly noting the teachings in the article may violate WP:OR or WP:NPOV, since it could use some point of views. Any thoughts or criticisms are welcome. --Hirohisat Talk 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

how to deal with spam, SOAP, UNENC and/or cluelessness[edit]

Further information: WP:TALK
I would support the suggestion to request either a topic ban or a more general sanction, since all efforts to explain WP:SOAP have failed to change the behavior patterns. Buddhipriya 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have left a message on User:Vassyana's talk page. Once we here back from him, we can proceed to WP:AN or WP:CSN. I think this has gone far enough. Abecedare 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to just remove offtopic posts per WP:TALK instead. It has become plain that BR has no inkling about this topic. At least it has now transpired where he is coming from: Swami Dayanand, Arya Samaj. These people have already performed dauntless feats of cluelessness over at Talk:Ashvamedha. I suppose BR is a perfect illustration for the sort of people who fall for this stuff. I am not opposed to having a section on Hindu reformist movements on this page, but it should preferably be written by an editor who has the remotest clue of the context, and the most sketchy grasp of WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab, the reason why I think that some official sanction is needed is that in the absence of any clear community ruling on this, simply ignoring an editor (which is my interpretation of what you have suggested above) could be considered to be a violation of WP:CON on my part. As I understand Wikipedia policy, I have a duty to engage in good-faith dialog with any editor who comes forward unless some community process has validated that the editor's views can be dismissed without prejudice to me. I also fear that some of your comments above may be perceived by BR as simply rude, rather than constructive, and thus may simply lead to escalation of conflict rather than removal of it. Can you comment on the issue of duty to participate in good-faith dialog until such time as an editor has been sactioned? I ask this question because I have not participated in many sanction cases until now, and thus may be incorrect in my understanding of processes. Buddhipriya 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no wikipedia policy forces us to prance around with editors who show no interest in being constructive, making coherent suggestions, or citing sources. We are urged to WP:AGF as far as possible. But at some point, it simply doesn't matter if a user is unwilling or unable to make sense. We are bound by policy to react to coherent suggestions backed up by reliable sources. Nothing in BR's protracted spamming campaign merits this description. I urge you to WP:UCS and feel free to remove pointless comments per {{notaforum}}. Arya Samaj and Vegetarianism are valid topics in their own right, but there is no reason to condone BR's automatic writing about these topics on this page. I am sorry if I come across as rude sometimes, but I believe in speaking plainly, but without intent to insult. I feel it is a much greater insult to assume the rules do not apply to you, or that you somehow know better than established academic experts. Hinduism articles get a lot of this, and I simply don't have any patience left with these "Hindu expatriate angry young tech students". There is nothing wrong with being interested in a topic without first getting a university degree. Most of Wikipedia is written by such people, and they are doing well. But there is no excuse for refusing to be educated, and assuming you know better than the boring bookish experts simply because you have read a few flashy blogs. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations from Puranas and other Hindu Scriptures to understand Vedas[edit]

Can comments about Veda from 20 accepted Puranas, and other important writings from spiritual leaders in Sanskrit, Tamil and other Indian language those comply ISO standards have any problem including in Vedas???? At multiple occasions, I have been asked not to use Scriptures. All the Vedas and Puranas do not hold any copyrights as they are very old. They are already openly available and have proper ISBN code and are currently in Sanskrit (ISO Standard Language) for each of those. The translations for all of the same are present. BalanceRestored 09:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, it is very simple: The Vedic texts date to ca. 1500-500 BC, and are discussed at Vedas. The Puranas date to ca. 300-900 AD, and are discussed at Puranas. Both are scripture, both are vernerable, both should be discussed in all detail on Wikipedia.
What you are trying to do is discuss the Puranas at the Vedas articles. That's as if somebody insisted hook and crook to discuss Troilus and Criseyde at the Vergil article. Alright? We have a "Puranas" section (presently 8.2), where we can briefly summarize the Puranic take on the Vedas. But the {{main}} article for that is Puranas. Do you finally understand that now? dab (𒁳) 09:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all could be in the 4 Vedas[edit]

"Anantah vai Vedah", the Vedas are endless, "Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" says the following "We cannot claim that all the Vedas have been revealed to the seers. Only about a thousand sakhas or recensions belonging to the four Vedas have been revealed to them." from the book "Hindu Dharma"

And this means what exactly? It might be intended to mean nothing more than that all knowledge is not contained in the texts we call Vedas. Paul B 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji" is Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Feel free to discuss his views in detail on his own article. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the sixty eighth Shankaracharya's views at his article. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No Shankaracharya?[edit]

Dear Editors, the views from Shankaracharya's are highly regarded in India. A seer in India is only titled Shankaracharya after a very great discussion among all the Indian Vedic Schools. According to "At the Eleventh Hour: The Biography of Swami Rama By Rajmani Tigunait", Page 174, ISBN 0893892122, "In Hindu society the Shankaracharya is comparable to the Pope in Christianity". Currently the article Veda is importantly lacking views from the Shankaracharya's. Comments from the Shankaracharya's on the Vedas are considered very important. It is requested to present important discussions from the Shankaracharya's on Vedas be present at this very article. BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • BR, how is it possible that you still don't understand that this isn't the general Hinduism article? Shankaracharya is extremely important to Hinduism. On this article, he would feel rather lost, somewhat like a detailed discussion of Silvester II would on the Pentateuch article. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You sound to ask me, how's Pope related to Bible? and what's Bible to do with Christianity?? :) BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Shankaracharya's noted commentaries on the "Vedas" pertain more to the Upanishads than the Samhita. That is why his name frequently appears on the Upanishads page compared to this article. GizzaDiscuss © 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

are we talking about the "68th Shankaracharya" Saraswati Swamigal here, or about Adi Shankara himself? Either way, present the quote, and we can discuss whether it has any pertinence to this article. --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, we are still discussing the notion that "the Vedas are infinite", aren't we. That would belong under the "Vedanta" heading I suppose, where Saraswati Swamigal's statement would make for an excellent illustration that the notion of "Vedas" in current (and classical) Hinduism is completely severed from the texts themselves. "Veda" is a mystic catch-all term thrown about without the least reference to anything that is actually in the texts known as the Vedas. Indeed, since the "Vedas are infinite", these texts can only be an infinitesimal fraction of the actual "Veda", and can therefore be ignored as irrelevant. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rig Veda Dating looks wrong[edit]

I got this nice text [6] that states 3000 BC and 2000 BC could be the date when Sarasvati River disappeared. Saraswati is the most celebrated river in the Rig Veda and it's being mentioned in nine of the ten Mandalas!!!

So how's that the dating of Rig Veda is given much later around 1700 BC here? If the river was exiting when Vedas were written it should be lot earlier anywhere beyond 3000 BC. How's the dating derived by the authors? BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

read Rigveda. The Bronze Age dates concern the oldest core of hymns exclusively, anyway, the actual redaction into the samhita dates to safely within the Iron Age. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolute garbage. This erroneous dating of the Vedas in general and specifically the Rg Veda to 1700/1500BCE reflects the gross bias and eurocentricity of the so-called scholars such as Max Muller, Jones etc. Although the article vaguely hints at the hymns being composed around 3000 BCE, its predominant emphasis that the Rg Veda was "composed" and written in and around 1500 BCE stands out like a sore thumb. As BR above has stated, a 'book', in this case the Rg Veda, that refers to a geographical territory somewhat specifically (Saraswati River) cannot be ignored. If the river had disappeared around 3000 BCE, the Rg Veda must have been 'composed', or discovered (revealed?), much earlier than that. Michael Witzel is a philologist first, not a historian or an archeologist. Therefore, his tall tale about the dating of the Vedas is purely erroneous and should definitely be removed from the article.:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

you cleary have no idea what you are talking about. The Rigveda date isn't Witzel's idea, but has been well established in scholarship for more than a century. The 3000 BCE date is pure myhology, deriving from astrological calculations made in the 6th century AD. If you insist on accepting 6th century results without scrutiny over the results of modern academia indebted to the critical method, you will have to take more serious consequences than rejecting the age of some text. First of all, you shouldn't be using a computer, and you should certainly not be on Wikipedia, which is a project to 100% dedicated to the critical method. I can respect the mythical worldview, but if you decide this is how you want to see the world, you should have the decency not to interfere with approaches that are dedicated to modernity unambiguously and above the board. If you fail to make that distinction, you are guilty of the intellectual dshonesty known as pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Our scriptures say that Vedas are sanatana and apourusheyas. i.e Vedas are above the time-dimension and there are no authors to Vedas. Vedas are above the ordinary logic and intellect of humans. Hence, please stop trying to date the Vedas with your small intellect and mention that the vedas are eternal. ----26 April 2012

Sikh status[edit]

In the first bit, couldn't Sikhs be combined with Buddhists and Jains as nastika? Why are they mentioned separately, if they also do not accept the Vedas? (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy of vedas[edit]

The Vedas and any Vedic literature that have been preserved by school of thoughts and by teaching traditions in India actually bears no connotation to Hinduism as such, as the word Hindu does not even come among the thousands of verse. The word Hindu is the etiquette that Mughals gave to people residing in the territory of India and Pakistan of yore whereas the Vedas does not make any discrimination, it is pure spirituality and it would be a gross exaggeration to even consider it as part of a so call religion as the message is strictly universal. Throughout the ages this has been confined to high caste men in India, violating the ancient tradition of transmitting the knowledge of the Vedas, hence it being considered as the property of a few.The first major revival came with Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, hundred and eighty years back, which brought a revolution in the spiritual, political and religious landscape of India. He prone spirituality, and reaffirmed the role of religion as that to lead to spirituality by eradicating many flaws where falsehood and false practices were among the major ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veesham (talkcontribs) 08:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vedas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

  • Insufficient references. The following content is a sample of information that needs more references:
    • " Yajurveda" section
    • " Brahmanas" section
    • " Vedanta" section

There are also a number of "citation needed" tags, which should be addressed before this article is renominated. Gary King (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Sri Aurobindo's Secret of the Veda[6] at the introduction is not justified and will need elaboration. The Vedas , need to projected like a formation and thus will need heavy introductory citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I would like to add this external link referring to a site which has significant unique contents on Vedas

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add this link to the bottom of the page: This site is one of the largest if not the largest Repository online of Vedic Literature in Sanskrit.--Uncreated (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

unnecessary promotion of Maharishi. These texts are all found on GRETIL and other academic sites. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the GRETIL site and there seems to be alot of texts there...but I wonder if you even looked at the MUM vedic reserve site. At the GRETIL site i could only find 7 of the 18 Smriti and none of the 18 upasmriti. I think its hardly promotional to have a site linked that has a comprehensive repository of vedic literature. There are a number of texts on the MUM site that have been transcribed from microfiche of Palmleaves and are not found anywhere else on the internet or in print. --Uncreated (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

External link to is suggested as it contains sources to texts. Kpmiyapuram (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

look, your link may be arguable -- it's not blatant spam. But you certainly seem to be suggesting it out of a WP:COI and not because of its objective usefulness. Mum's upasmriti is irrelevant to this article, which deals with Vedic literature. It may be useful to the smriti article though. That said, I am impressed with the number of texts they have. It's just that they are less than useful because they are (a) encoded in devanagari only, which makes it a pain to find anything in them, and (b) you have to dig through layers of pseudoscientific babble before they give you the actual text (Layer I of the cerebral cortex — the plexiform˜layer — does not send projections outside˜itself, and it receives projections from all˜other layers. It is self-referral wholeness,˜corresponding to Rk Veda Pratishakhya. I ask you.) I suggest we use these links for articles on really obscure texts where we don't have a viable alternative. E.g. we could link this file (the pdf) from the Pratishakhya article, without linking to this page. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be disagreeable but how do I have a COI? I think this site is useful to have linked because there are many Vedic texts there not available in other places...these texts are not littered with commentary and they are in Sanskrit and not a translation. How is that not Objective?

Of course that sounds like a good link directly to the PDF. Its not just the Smriti's but there are many vedic texts available there that do not appear in the two links provided. For instance i don't see any of the Aranyaks or Vedangas is an index of all available texts:

I would like to point out though that the Site which this information appears on is an academic Site being the website of an accredited university in America. The two links provided at the bottom of the Veda Wiki seem to have limited texts available on them. Of course they are in English and these are not...but surely any Vedic scholar would only be interested in reading from the orignal text not some translation.

Also thousands of Vedic Pundits in India (associated with Maharishi or not associated) use these particular the Rg , Sama, Yajur and Atharva Veda texts available from this site.--Uncreated (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • All about the Veda This is my effort to share what I learn about the Vedas from the various books that I read. The goal (view) is non-colonial, non-Marxist, non-Sayana (materialist-animist-nature worship). You may include it if you think it is useful. ~~satyask

non-Marxist, eh? Well done. Damn all those Marxist editions of Vedic texts. The hammer-and-sickle motif they use to separate chapters is particularly annoying. And the preposterous footnotes identifying tapas as class-struggle. I ask you. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One may like to visit, which i write --- collecting info from wherever I get. Virendra 09 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas[edit]

I found the following description of the Buddhist and Jain view of the Vedas in the introduction: "human expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge." That is not true. The Buddhist view is that the Vedas are not expositions of the sphere of higher spiritual knowledge. I do not know the Jain stance but it is no doubt the same. I have included a reference on the Buddha's stance. Mitsube (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, but describing them as "heterodox" is like describing islam as a "heterodox" christianity. It is not, its an independent religion. Buddhism and Jainism is not hinduism, they're independent religions. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Islam was in fact seen as a Christian heresy for centuries. It's an excellent example of how you can't just draw a line between "independent religions". It is a matter of definition, and often also of opinion. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bible and dating[edit]

I know of no evidence that Biblical literalism has played any significant role in the dating of the Vedas. It certainly does not with modern scholars. Evidence need to be cited to reliable sources. Thomas Trautmann's Aryans and British India, and his later writings discuss the histories of these ideas in detail, as does Arvidsson's Aryan Idols. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

we should also discuss these ideas in detail, but not here of course. Hindu revivalism may be a good place to start. This article could then sport a brief summary in an "in Hindu revivalism" section. I think this is mostly connected to Arya Samaj, so maybe proper to discuss it there. Somebody would need to do it of course, and unfortunately it isn't very common to see editors of the ilk of Santhangopal (talk · contribs) sit down and compile an honest encyclopedic discussion of the history of their own ideologies even after they are pointed to the relevant literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

anonymous "improvements"[edit]

The "Vedic" articles will always get editors without the first clue who still take it upon themselves to "correct" them. Well, many technical articles get this, even in physics topics etc., but for some reason this effect is a couple of orders of magnitude more severe in Indian topics than on average. This may be cultural, in some cultures it is more important to assert knowledge than to fiddle with technical details. I presume this is what Amartya Sen calls The Argumentative Indian.

The solution, in my opinion, is semiprotection, not appeasement by streamlining the article in an attempt to make ill-advised "improvements" as unlikely as possible. Experience shows that once a technical article is well-developed, chances of anonymous editors making an edit that actually improves the article rapidly falls to zero. "Edit this article right now" is Wikipedia's secret of success for starting out coverage on badly documented topics, but the same principle becomes an impediment from the moment an article reaches a certain level of sophistication. We have long-term semiprotection exactly to account for this, and there is no shame in using the tool wherever it benefits the project. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Vedic scripture the oldest known written scripture? ?[edit]

In the Hinduism page it say's that Hinduism is the oldest known religion I think. So if the Vedas are the oldest known then well then here scripture in Hinduism, does that make the Vedas the oldest known scripture's? Or maybe the oldest known religious scriptures? (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

no they aren't, as they were not written, as explained in this article they were handed down by guru-shishya tradition for a millennium before first written down. There is far older religious scripture, if you want to call it that, from Ancient Near Eastern religions. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pranava Veda[edit]

  • This article has been shying WRT Pranava Veda, but there are more citations now found. "All vedas are derived from basic one veda called Pranava" ref Title Vaasthu Shastra, Author Alahar vijay, Publisher, Sura Books, 2005 ISBN 8174784292, 9788174784292" Page Number 22 [7].
  • "At the top of all, there is one more thing brought to be scholarly notice, that is, the existence of Veda called Pranava Veda" Ref: Page 73, Building architecture of Sthāpatya Veda" Author V. Ganapathi Publisher, Published by Dakshinaa Pub. House, 2001 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized May 20, 2009 Length 431 pages Subjects, Architecture, Domestic Architecture, Hindu Hindu architecture House construction Vāstu. Book Preview [8]
  • More References can be found now. 796 Hits on Google Books. [9] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Several points:
  • Neither of the two sources you cite are close to reliable on the subject of Vedas.
  • On top of that, you excised the quote from Vaastu Shastra, which actually says, "All vedas are derived from basic one veda called Pranava Veda, according to Shilpa Shastra" (emphasis added) Please don't misquote sources here again.
  • The whole issue of the so-called Pranava Veda and its status as the primary/fifth veda was discussed to death back in 2007, including in a section above, and the situation has been explained at Pranava Veda and the pages it links to.
As has been explained before, the idea of an "original" single Veda is common in post-Vedic literature and is already discussed in the section on the Puranas in the article. If you find a specific reliable reference for which Śilpa Śāstra has something to say on the topic, we can add that to the post-Vedic discussion, but I hope we won't need to go through a whole new round of "I didn't hear that" and tendentious editing. To avoid further disruption I'd highly recommend that you propose and gain consensus for any further changes to the article along these lines. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I did not revert your changes for the same reason, and will wait until more consensus towards the topic is reached. Some time before we saw there was hardly any information available, now there are more details along with healthy citations that cannot be easily ignored. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Abecedare that the material should have been removed. We have covered this sort of issue at great length before. Please be sure to build agreement on the talk page before adding similar material again. Thank you for your interest in the article. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, you people are better to judge that me, I have collected the necessary citations. There are enough creditable references now. I only wish someone adds them now.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If anything is to said about Pranava Veda it should be done on one of the articles about that subject, not here. This article covers specific texts dating from a different time period than the much-later theories you are discussing. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
indeed. the first line of the page points to Veda (disambiguation), which in turn duly lists Pranava Veda. If people cannot even take note of the very first line of an article before complaining on talk, thre is little we can do (use giant red letters? blink tags?) --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I did my duty of putting light on something that was not covered and providing additional references those which were not available before, if you think they are still not enough, you can wait until the milk is spilled over.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Dab, thank you for all you do to keep the quality of articles high. It is said that speech is the Brahmin’s weapon (Manu 11.34), but it is unwise to strike a friend for doing something you do not agree with. One who speaks with authority should use soft words unless hard ones become necessary. (Cf. Manu 2.161 and Wikipedia:Civility) Buddhipriya (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Error or not time will tell. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ganeshji, forgive the word "error", I have amended it. Buddhipriya (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I do not make a point of following advice in the Manusmriti, but perhaps this is to my detriment, who knows. Ganesh J. Acharya, we have an article entitled Fifth Veda. We also have articles on Vastu Shastra, on Mamuni Mayan and on V. Ganapati Sthapati. If you feel you have additional material that may usefully be added there, you are most welcome to do so. This article deals with the texts written in Vedic Sanskrit, predating Panini. Unfortunately, your references to not seem to establish where this "Pranava Veda" was first mentioned. Apparently in Vastu Shastra literature (but in which text?) -- this would be for you to establish. Please do help us pinpoint where this concept originates. But take the matter to Vastu Shastra, as these texts are medieval and do not fall within the scope of this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Age of the Vedas[edit]

kuzutsu (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Debayan Gupta

1. The age of the vedas given here seems to be based on the premise of the Aryan Invasion theory, which is heavily disputed by scholars[10], and recent evidence seems to prove it wrong beyond doubt .[11]

2. Dating the vedas using astronomical events leads to an age of around 6000 BCE [12]

3. The date of the drying up of the Saraswati river, and consequent migration of the Saraswati Valley Civilization to Harappa and Mohenjodaro puts the vedas at an age of at least 3300 - 4000 BCE.[13]

4. Other evidence, such the the ancient flint mines in the Rohri Hills [14], the discoveries made in south eastern Baluchistan [15] also provide dates far older than 1500BCE.

Given the fact that current research seems to indicate that the dates provided here may be erroneous, should we not put up newer estimates, or, at least, a caveat that the values currently provided may not be correct ?

PS. On the matter of the "cow" (and other mistranslations) - Translating the vedas comes with one obvious requirement: knowledge of Sanskrit. Unfortunately, many translators seem to have forgotten this basic fact.

All words in the Sanskrit language are made up of smaller words, which describe the object that the word is lined to - there are no nouns, as such. These pieces each have multiple meanings, depending on context (position, location of vowels, etc.).

For example, the word for "heart" is "hridayam". Separating the characters (using the Devnagri script) we get "hra + dah + yam". Expanding these "sub-words", it becomes "harati + dadati + yam", which, in English translates to "takes + gives + circulates".

Now, the word "Gau", in any Sanskrit dictionary, means "Earth", then "Cow" (other meanings include movement, knowledge, etc.)

One of the Riks in the Rgveda speaks of "the distance between heaven and earth", putting it at 1000 gaus, one on top of the other - what they mean is 1000 times the diameter of the Earth - this Rik is translated as "1000 cows stacked on top of each other" in almost every English translation of the Vedas available.

Thus, instead of astronomical distances, we end up with a profusion of cows.

The name[edit]

The article should be titled 'Veda' rather than the English plural form, according to Wikipedia naming conventions. This has been proposed twice before, but not followed through. Imc (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Previous proposals are at [16] and [17]; limited discussion but it is mostly in favour of the singular name as correct in itself, and in terms of the Wikipedia NC.

why is this a Hindu scripture rather than an Indian scripture.?

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to move. Taelus (Talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

VedasVeda — Relisted. harej 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As detailed in the section above. Imc (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • oppose. This isn't about just any number of Vedas, it is about the four Vedas. This is different from keeping an article about hammers at Hammer, or an article about sonnets at Sonnet, which examples illustrate the meaningful application of the "singular" naming guideline. --dab (𒁳) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Then it should be 'The four Vedas', or 'The Vedas', or something specific which at least implies more precision. Keeping it at 'Vedas' does not at all say that it is about only the four primary ones, it might even imply that it is about all of them. Imc (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a "wide" and a "narrow" usage of the term "Veda" which occasionally leads to some mild confusion, even in the best of sources. Following the "wide" usage, "Vedas" refers to four kinds of literature, viz. Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishad. The auxilliary literature (e.g. the Vedangas, the Upavedas, and possibly the Puranas and Ithihasas) are occasionally (though erroneously, IMO) included in the "wide" usage. Following the "narrow" usage, "Vedas" refers to the Samhita portions only (hence the occasional contrast made between "the Vedas" and, for example, "the Brahmanas"), of which there are four, viz. Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva.

Samhita is currently a disambiguation page. If the topic is to be limited to "the four Vedas" (narrow usage), Veda Samhitas would be appropriate. If the topic is to be kept as it is, i.e. including discussion of the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads etc. (wide usage), Vedic literature (currently a redirect to Vedas) would be appropriate.

This may entail specifying some article titles, e.g. renaming Rig Veda to Rig Veda Samhita. Or it may entail a slight reshaping of some of the relevant articles. For example, treating Rig Veda as referring to the entire set of Rig Vedic texts (i.e. Samhitas, Brahamanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads) instead of as referring to the Samhita portion only while treating the Rig Veda Brahmanas, Rig Veda Aranyakas and Rig Veda Upanishads as "ancillary texts" (as the article currently does).

In any event, it seems the current mode of organization considers "Veda" as being synonymous with "Samhita" (an inference drawn from the fact that Rig Veda has no section entitled "Rig Veda Samhita", but sections on "Rig Veda Brahmanas" and "Rig Veda Aranyakas"). If this is applied consistently throughout the encyclopedia, then Vedas would naturally treat the Samhita portion only (or at least predominantly, with the ancillary text groups treated in an entirely analogous fashion in the same article). It seems that, though minor tweaks could be made to help make this clearer, the principle of organization which has been adopted thus far is being applied consistently, and no significant change is needed - though, as noted above, the title "Vedic literature" would probably help to clarify the problem noted by the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

no, the current mode of organization does not consider "Veda" as being synonymous with "Samhita". If you read the articles, you will note that the current mode explains the differences in terminology. Especially, this article, it discusses the term "Veda", then the Samhitas, then the other Vedic texts. I think this is perfectly satisfactory and I see no reason to move things around. --dab (𒁳) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article is about some or all Vedas collectively, not about individual interchangeable units. — AjaxSmack 01:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bona-fide Comments[edit]

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirms that all Vedic literatures, including the Upanishads, Brahma-sutra and others, whether sruti, smriti or nyaya, must be understood according to their original statements. To describe the direct meaning of the Vedic literatures is glorious, but to describe them in one's own way, using imperfect senses and imperfect knowledge, is a disastrous blunder." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add the following external link refering to a site which has significant contents on Vedas

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the chanting files are interesting, but perhaps more on topic at Vedic chant. As a source on the Vedas, this website is rather dubious, and full of subjective eulogies and dodgy claims ("The earliest records of the availability of the palm manuscript's date back to 800CE (Before Christ)") I suppose it wouldn't be a disaster if we linked to it, but there are hundreds of websites like that, and if we link one, what is going to stop people from linking all? --dab (𒁳) 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have found the Vedic chant article already. You should be content with that, your website is linked from Wikipedia, no need to add it to a half dozen further articles. --dab (𒁳) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Atharvaveda as Atharvanaveda[edit]

In the Atharvaveda section, the second paragraph starts with "Atharvanaveda". Is this another name or is it a mistake? Brijesh Krishnan 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. Sometimes Atharva Veda is referred to as Atharvana Veda, as Atharvan is said to be its principle rishi.Beecher70 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The order of the vedas is wrong in the summary[edit]

The Rigveda, containing hymns to be recited by the hotṛ; The Yajurveda, containing formulas to be recited by the adhvaryu or officiating priest; The Samaveda, containing formulas to be sung by the udgātṛ. The fourth is the Atharvaveda, a collection of spells and incantations, apotropaic charms and speculative hymns.[3]

The Yajurveda is the 3rd of the Vedas, and the Sama Veda is second. This is misconcieving, please change the order (flip Yajurveda and Samaveda) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of series[edit]

Please develop the template to the Part of series on Vedas . And i request the wikipedians to develop/improve the articles related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talkcontribs) 09:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012[edit]

As per the details of texts like Surya Siddhanta and traditions throughout India, Vedas are supposed to around 1.97 billion years old. Scholars have debates over whether this period refers to time of origin of earth or humans and it remains a topic of research. However in India, whenever a Yajna happens, people call out in detail the time since origin in units of Manvantar, Yuga and Year. This calculation is same across all parts of India. Naveenarya (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
There is some information here → Hindu_Time_Cycles#Time along with the reference "cf. Burgess".CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012[edit]

Please change The one who annihilates the sings in himself to The one who annihilates the sins in himself (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - with this edit. Thank you for pointing this out. Begoontalk 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012[edit]

Hindu is an Arabic word taken from the root word Hind, which means 1) Herd of Camels (noun) 2) Female Deer (noun) 3) Back side (Adjective) later it was included in English referring the adjective form of Arabic. Mostly Arab Travel for business and religious purpose towards East as Syria, Jordan, Lebnan, Palestine and Egypt. But rarely travel Back Side for citrus and sour fruit Tamarind (Arabic Tamer Al-Hind fruit from backside) and Coconut (Arabic Jawaz Al-Hind Bride from backside, because of hairy head nature of girl)

And they use to call the land Backside as Hind and the tradition continues, and the name Hind and the river Sind dominated and was used worldwide.

And the British came and modified the name Hind to Ind or India..... (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That was not a request. Rivertorch (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit Name[edit]

The name of the Veda as listed here is वेदाः, but the as I've always known it, and as the Sanskrit article has it named, it is वेदः. I'm not sure if both are correct, or even which of the two above are. DerekWinters (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013[edit]

Please change the word "Vedas" or "Veda" to "Ved". Veda or Vedas are incorrect - it is created for a easy to remember and speak... The word(s) Veda and/or Vedas were created by English. Hindu scriptures and literature calls them Ved or Veds. Just as Indians do not call Michael to Mikal (because it is easy to write, remember and speak), so call "English Scholars" should have same respect towards other languages. Richiphoto (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

you are misinformed. in sanskrutam words end w/ a vowel. in hindi (and other modern north indian derivatives) the words end w/ a consonant. it is in fact Veda, not ved. in sanskrutam ved would have no meaning.

i encourage you to go to and look at the differences in pronunciation between hindi alphabet and sanskrutam alphabet, though they may use the say alphabet, the pronunciation is different.

that is why modern day north indians have names like ram, seet,geet,anand,bheem instead of rama,seeta,geeta,ananda,bheema etc. masculine ends in a,feminine ends w/ i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Richipoto is correct. The English transliteration of Sanskrit is messed up. (I am not sure who began the mess, possibly the British and German "scholars" of the 19th century). Unless you put proper accents everywhere on English alphabet, which almost nobody does, the correct representation of the word in English would be Ved and not Veda. That said, I am fine with the word Veda because that is what is currently in use everywhere. In any case, the Devanagari representation needs to be seriously changed - in Sanskrit, the correct word is Ved (the last alphabet is actually half to allow for suffixes). Jnorton7558's suggestion to provide reference is ridiculous. It is equivalent to asking for proof that "proof" is spelt with two o's. Jnorton7558, my answer to you is go and open any basic Sanskrit grammar book or look up a Sanskrit dictionary, and if you do not wish to or lack the expertise, stop protecting articles you know nothing about. Wikipedia seriously needs to ask itself a question: What is the purpose of this site? It is increasingly becoming a medium for propaganda and false information. This kind of protection by people who do not know the basic "abc"s of what they are protecting makes absolutely no sense, particularly if this is meant to be a site to go for information. You are asking people who do not know the numerals to perform complex arithmetic! Samenewguy (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Please drop the insults and show good faith. You agree that "Veda" is the current usage, so what are you arguing about? Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologize about the unkind and uncivil language. Samenewguy (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Veda" is currently in use in English. Let me first explain why some people prefer to write is as "Ved". In either of Sanskrit or Hindi, the pronunciation of the ending "a" is not a long "a" as in "father" but is rather silent - so Veda, in Sanskrit or Hindi, is a single syllable word. (And just for more information and if there be interest of precision in this article, the original Sanskrit root that actually means "knowledge" is "Vid".) In the way it is written in English though, unless you had been told otherwise, the natural inclination when pronouncing "Veda" (based just on how English words are pronounced) would be to extend the ending "a" sound. That is why people argue that the correct English representation is Ved and not Veda.Samenewguy (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
My main concern here though is with the Sanskrit representation of the word as shown in the article. What has been shown in Sanskrit in this article actually reads "Vedah" (to transliterate to English) with a long a. My problem is with that "ah" at the end of the Sanskrit representation of the word. If you go to this site:, type "veda" in the "citation" box and hit search, you will see what the Sanskrit representation should look like. Here it is: वेद And yes, I am not able to edit this article on my own. Samenewguy (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Given it's a page name and is obviously not uncontroversial I think a requested move discussion is required. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheer disrespect towards Hindu scriptures in this article[edit]

The Vedas are considered by most Hindus as the ultimate Hindu scriptures, yet this article uses "veda" with a small v instead of "Veda". This needs to be corrected, else I would like to see scriptures of other religions such as "Bible" and "Quran" to be named with a small "b" and "q" respectively. Samenewguy (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know who is protecting this article and why. Please make your intentions clear. Samenewguy (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the change was made a few days ago. I've fixed it. I'm not sure about 'Vedic' as our manual of style calls for 'biblical' with a lower case 'b'. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that when the section on Jainism was added it was added with 'veda', which was quickly changed to Veda. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
And I should say I'm sorry I missed the change although you could have made an edit request (and I think you didn't realise it was a very recent change. As for protection, don't you have enough edits to edit this one? Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the change. Regarding the term "Vedic", all history books use it capitalized. And it is true that I have seen biblical used almost everywhere with a small "b". My guess is "Vedic" is capitalized because it has a larger context than just pertaining to Vedas (for instance, it can also be used for Vedic period or Vedic civilization) and is the adjective formed from a proper noun as its root - for example the adjective formed from the proper noun "Elizabeth" would be "Elizabethan" and not "elizabethan". Another reason why Biblical has come to be low-cased in English could be that the term "Bible" is often also used as a common noun - e.g. the bible of botany. In any case, I am just conjecturing here. Samenewguy (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
My error. I clearly misremembered MOS:CAPS. It has specific wording on this which negates its basic point that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation". While I regard this exception for religions and their texts as silly, it has clearly been discussed ad nauseum, so I won't further beat a wp:DEADHORSE. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Vedas and Jainism[edit]

Some time back socks of the User:Maleabroad (namely User:FolkTraditionalist and User:Rockin It Loud) added lengthy sub-sections to this article, pushing the fringe POV that Vedas are more-or-less accepted by Buddhists and Jains (see this version). Recently that section was partly edited by User:The Rahul Jain to present the opposite, and closer to truth, POV that the Vedas are rejected by the Jains as authoritative scriptures. I removed the whole discussion as undue, but the "In Jainism" section was re-added with edit-summary "this is notable enough". I disagree with that judgment because:

  1. This article, by design, deals with Vedas as essentially literary texts, leaving the analysis of their philosophy and their influence to various related and linked articles on philosophy and religions/religious movements respectively.
  2. If this article were to be reworked to cover those aspects (which I don't recommend), then clearly any section of "Religious influence" will be dominated by discussion of Vedas in Historical Vedic Religion and Hinduism; with shorter mention of movements like the Arya Samaj that give the Vedas central importance; and, perhaps a sentence encapsulating view of Buddhism, Jainism etc that reject Vedas.

Can others weigh in on the issue and comment whether the current In Jainism should be retained, re-edited, or removed? My view is that the single sentence coverage in the lede of the article is adequate, given the current length of the article and its scope. Abecedare (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be correct to put information in the lead but not describe it anywhere else in the rest of the article. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The lede can often provide larger context for the subject, as the last paragraph for this article does. In any case, you haven't addressed the issue of due-ness and why we need a seprate section on Jainism's view on the Vedas. I'll ping @Dbachmann, Rudrasharman, Paul Barlow, and Dougweller:, other active editors of this article to see if they have a view on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There can be an "in Jainism" section, as long as it is based on academic secondary references. Just presenting random snippets of primary sources, as has apparently been the case in the past, is less than helpful. The recent restoration of the brief section by "The Rahul Jain" introduced the source "Dundas 2002" without specifying what this is supposed to be. This has to be reverted already on technical grounds. "The Rahul Jain" can kindly take responsibility for the content he adds and properly present the sources he uses in the bibliography. The burden is also on him to verify that the content of these sources is properly summarized and that the sources qualify as "reliable". "The Rahul Jain" is a terrible username for this, as it screams "WP:COI". If you feel that Wikipedia at large must know that you are "the Jain", you should probably refrain from even touching articles related to Jainism. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have myself written the section that is currently there (See this edit). I have also removed the section written by User:Rockin_It_Loud (See [18] and [19]). I might have forgotten to write the full citation, so I am restoring the content with the full citation in the reference section. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Jainism's view on vedas sounds same as Islam or Christianity(basically), so i think it's better to just not add. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Abecedare, what you think about it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The case of Jainism, Buddhism and a few other faiths is a bit different from Islam and Christianity, in that the former set reject the Vedas specifically (and that rejection may even be one of the foundational features), while the latter set essentially have had no specific view of the Vedas, and reject them only as one of the many non-orthodox texts. That said, as I argued above, the lengthy discussion of Jain views of the Vedas is outside the scope and undue in this article. I'd like other editors to weigh in to see where the consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The nature of the Vedas, the entities praised and invoked, makes them irrelevant to Jains and Buddhists on the deva cavanti principle. If they don't use the pantheon, they don't use the scripture. It has a place in this article if we can clearly show that rejection of the Vedas played a notable part in the formation of the religion. I don't believe it warrants more than a sentence or two. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Either way, people disagreed with the Jainism views. Thus it has been removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Vedas two times changed[edit]

Why is there no mention that the vedas two times changed? First time according to Sri Kalki Purana (maybe implied in Aitareya Brahmana) after the flood, second time after the overthrow of Bali (in Srimad Bhagavatam Vali). The second event is also stated in the babylonian Anzu-Mythos. Only at the last change the four vedas were fabricated.-- (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014[edit]

Please add the following book to the Literature/Overviews section because it has just been published and is the most up-to-date reference for Vedic research.

R. Dalal, The Vedas: An Introduction to Hinduism's Sacred Texts, Penguin (2014), ISBN 978-0143066385 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an introduction. Who said it "is the most up-to-date reference for Vedic research"? Sam Sailor Sing 13:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014[edit]

please change mythical sage to Vedic sage Keshava kashmir (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Arjayay (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Total lying nonsense ![edit]

In modern languages like Russian it is fully acceptable to say 

Ja veday - I know or I ne veday - I don't know . In modern Swedish you say Jag vet - I know . why haven't you mentioned those directly related by ehymological usage examples of the word

Veda ?
Is this a circus driven by  incompetents ,or is it scientific like driven knowledgge-based platform?

Whu no one knows Russian or Swedish and dares to talk about I-E languages? Why don't you mention the ancient Slavic druid-like priests were called Veduni(knowing ones) ?

The worsest Wiki example of worsest incompetence ever !
You make human science to be shamed !
Edelward (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014[edit] (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC) The word Hinduism is a coined word... It should be Sanathan Dharma... Veda is everything to do with each and every human being..whetehr he is a christian Islam Buddhist Zoroastrian or any other so called "religion"!! Bible, Quran or any other sacred books are from VEDA... Sorry guys there is nothing called Hinduism.. There is ONLY VEDA and only VEDA... thats why we are able to live life the way we want...... everything els is just INCIDENTAL........ YOU BELONG TO SANATHAN DHARMA.. the way an individual wants to live!!

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014[edit]

It is argued where the texts originated, there is much evidence to suggest the texts did not originate from India. I request this is changed to Indo-Europe (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Research about Saraswati River[edit]

After the discovery of satellite images of Saraswati river, its been proven that it is not a mythological river, but truely existed. Vedas which mention Saraswati River - must exist prior to the drying to Saraswati river. It is well known fact know that Saraawati dried between 2200 BC - 1900 BC. Hence the Vedic texts existed before 1900 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

They existed before 1900 BCE, everyone knows. But the current form can be dated anywhere between 1700 - 1000 BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014[edit]

Please change "While White Yajurveda separates the Samhita from its Brahmana (the Shatapatha Brahmana), the e Black Yajurveda intersperses" to "While Krishna (White) Yajurveda separates the Samhita from its Brahmana (the Shatapatha Brahmana), the Shukla (Black) Yajurveda intersperses" as Krishna and Shukla vedas are the original names of the two types of Yajurveda and not Black or White Veda moreover, the character 'e' before Back Yayurveda is a typing mistake. Gaurangpkhurana (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Krishna=Black. Shukla=White. (Monier Williams) Reverted and removed e. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
[20] Bladesmulti (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Add a book name in the section o"f Further reading"[edit]

When I went through this book Name "Nomenclature of The Vedas" that is good book.I am not only saying this you can find it under "Prabuddha Bhārata's" book review section here is the review The author, Swamini Atmaprajnananda 646 PB November 2014. I just suggest you must add this book in the Further reading or where ever you think right. Thank you --Stallion444 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talkcontribs)

Veda Sanskrit[edit]

There should be a footnote that Sanskrit translation into English is very prone to interpretation and may not reflect indigenous understanding by Indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)