 | This is not a forum for general discussion of the Rigveda. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rigveda at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
 | 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 the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | Comments: | | edit · history · watch · purge Contribution of Madhvacharya (13-14th Century Vedantic Philosopher) for the interpretation of Vedas is completely ignored. Before Dayananda Saraswati and Sri Aurobindo, Sri Madhvacharya has declared that each mantra in the Vedas speak of one and only God Almighty. It is Sri Madhvacharya who IN RECENT TIMES first interpreted Vedas in a symbolic and mystic ways, later followed by Dayananda Saraswati and Aurobindo. Commentary of Sri Madhvacharya on the first 40 suktas of Rigveda are available. Dayananda Saraswati's interpretation of Vedas is presented in a bad light contradictory to how the people of the very religion of Vedas perceive it. This article doesn't relate to the vedic PRACTICE prevalent in today's Hindu society. This article completely ignores core Hindu beliefs about the Vedas. For example, the mantra drashtara rishis have been touted as AUTHORS of the hymns. This is not how a Hindu believes it. The hymns were HEARD by (shruti) the rishis. Vedas are perceived to be eternal by Hindus. There is no 'date' tag attached to the Vedas. At the least, there should be mention of the Hindu perception of Vedas here. In total, this is western propoganda of completely ignoring the views of Vedic/Hindu Religion while writing about the Vedas. Not good article for a beginner to read, with the skewed western views lacking even the mention of the core Hindu beliefs about the Vedas. | | | |
 | 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 | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | Comments: | | edit · history · watch · purge Contribution of Madhvacharya (13-14th Century Vedantic Philosopher) for the interpretation of Vedas is completely ignored. Before Dayananda Saraswati and Sri Aurobindo, Sri Madhvacharya has declared that each mantra in the Vedas speak of one and only God Almighty. It is Sri Madhvacharya who IN RECENT TIMES first interpreted Vedas in a symbolic and mystic ways, later followed by Dayananda Saraswati and Aurobindo. Commentary of Sri Madhvacharya on the first 40 suktas of Rigveda are available. Dayananda Saraswati's interpretation of Vedas is presented in a bad light contradictory to how the people of the very religion of Vedas perceive it. This article doesn't relate to the vedic PRACTICE prevalent in today's Hindu society. This article completely ignores core Hindu beliefs about the Vedas. For example, the mantra drashtara rishis have been touted as AUTHORS of the hymns. This is not how a Hindu believes it. The hymns were HEARD by (shruti) the rishis. Vedas are perceived to be eternal by Hindus. There is no 'date' tag attached to the Vedas. At the least, there should be mention of the Hindu perception of Vedas here. In total, this is western propoganda of completely ignoring the views of Vedic/Hindu Religion while writing about the Vedas. Not good article for a beginner to read, with the skewed western views lacking even the mention of the core Hindu beliefs about the Vedas. | | | |
there are many conspicious things, or we can also say folk tales about rugved . Rof and Bernof when tried to translate Rugved for the very first time in englsih, they died and the work was continued by Maxmuller, he was originally german, but came to england, and East India company finnaced him , for missinterpreting the translation of rugveda, It is also heared that he made Two sopis of rugved , one was the original, and the other was to miss guide Indians, many people also say that the deccan college is having some letters written by East India company to Maxmuller regarding the payments made towards him, for the work, and the answeres given by maxmuller to those letters, guyes if anybody is having any sort of fulll prooof information regarding this please add on this weiki............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.151.104 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ordering of article
The Rig Veda is a core shastra for Hindus. As such, the importance of this book should be discussed first prior to analyzing its layout, etc. This is why I changed the order. Kkm5848 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- This article is not written for Hindus, not only because WP is an encyclopedia with world-wide scope and readership, but also because the Hindu who needs this article to learn about the RgVeda is probably in deep trouble already. And you have not addressed the substance of Abcedare's argument. rudra (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Kkm5848, to expand on my edit summary
- Your version inexplicably talked about the content of the 10 mandalas of Rigveda without even defining "mandala"; refers to "verse 3.62.10" without first defining what that notation means; etc.
- More importantly in an encyclopedic article it is better to organize the content in a top-down fashion, rather than jump into presenting the details without orienting the reader. For example, if one is writing an article on the Shakespeare canon (which is a "core" component of English literature, just as Rigveda is a "core shastra for Hindus"), one would begin by talking about how many plays and sonnets he wrote and how the former are classified as tragedies, histories and comedies, instead of jumping into a content analysis of Hamlet etc. Similarly, when writing about the Rigveda it is important to begin by providing basic information, such as, "The Rig Veda consists of 1,028 hymns", "It is organized in 10 books", "It is preserved by two major shakhas" and its remarkable oral tradition.
- Hope this makes the reason for the reverts clear. If you still believe your approach is better, I would encourage you to first work on a internally consistent version of the Rigveda article in your userspace, instead of making cut-and-paste edits to this well-developed article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
some thought has gone into the arrangement of content in this article. Of course it can be discussed and improved, intelligently, with a view to improving article quality. What Kkm5848 is doing is nothing of the kind, but rather thoughtless WP:POINT. His brief overall history of edit warring and sockpuppeteering really establishes him as the sort of editor best ignored. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Coming from Dbachmann I almost feel complimented...thank you for yet another violation of WP policy on name calling! Kkm5848 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- chuckle, "another" is basically an admission that I am right. I have no interest in finding whose sock you are, and I guess we'll meet Kkm5849 as soon as this account is banned as a sock? dab (𒁳) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, to a certain extent we have a tail-wagging-dog problem here. The Rgveda is "important" in two distinct (albeit related) ways: one religious (as an object of reflexive veneration in Hinduism) and the other philological (as a text). The religious aspect is purely dogmatic: precious little is really relevant to modern Hinduism, but not only will this never be admitted, to the contrary it will be insisted that this "importance" be emphasized to the exclusion of most everything else. However, the bulk of scholarly literature is on the philological aspect, which of course leaves the average blog-fed science student Hindu mystified and outraged that the article isn't steeped in reverential cant. rudra (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same basic issue (the religious versus the philological), different take: this discussion. It's all over the place, and one reason why so many articles are in bad shape. rudra (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in downplaying the religious significance: this article should and does state the text is important to Hinduism, right in the lead. After this has been stated, it is time to give background on the text itself. The religious importance in current Hinduism cannot just be stated, it needs to be referenced to Indological literature. Our section "Vedantic and Hindu reformist views" badly needs an academic reference. Now even if we did find some paper on "the significance of the Rigveda in 20th century Hindu revivalism", it would hardly be advisable to treat this (chronologically latest) topic before we treat the text and its contents itself. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] significance in Hindu revivalism
ok, this may be quotable: Signifying Sanskrit in Hindu Revivalist and Nationalist Discourse, Adi Hastings, Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Chicago:[1]
- The primary textual sources for Dayananda’s vision of his new rational Vedism are his magna opera, Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth; 1st ed. 1874, 2nd ed. 1878) and the Rigvedadi Bhashya (Commentary on the Rigveda, etc.;13 1877-1899). In both of these texts, Dayananda elaborates a vision of a pure monotheistic Vedic religion which once had held sway over the entire subcontinent, a religion in which caste is based purely on merit, in which idols and icons have no place -- there is only the fire sacrifice. The Vedas for their part, become the canonical texts, the scripture, the sole source of truth and universal revelation, the ultimate origin of all science and knowledge ... Dayananda tended to dismiss entirely Western scholarship on Sanskrit, as when he ridicules Max Müller’s interpretation of certain Rigvedic words in Satyarth Prakash (Dayananda Saraswati 1970: 281-282).
detailed discussion of this belongs on the Swami Dayananda and Hindu revivalism articles, but we can certainly mention the role of the Rigveda (and notably and ironically Müller's edition of it) in the formative phase of Hindu revivalism. If nothing else, coverage of Dayananda's books and their impact certainly helps to elucidate a whole lot of confused pov-pushing, trolling and general misbehaviour on Wikipedia today, 130 years after he wrote them. This is rather amazing. A bit as if we got swarms of sworn-in Catholics giving Wikipedia in general grief over the tenets of the First Vatican Council (1870), touting papal infallibility on barely related articles such as Book of Amos. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Refactoring
I've moved some stuff around towards a possible refactoring. The first step was ToC changes to bring stuff together and move some into subsection level. Inter alia,
- The Brahmana/Aranyaka sections should probably be summarized. Right now, they're just lifted from EB1911 (presumably from a time when they had a "filler" role).
- Hindu tradition et al section needs more.
- Dating and historical reconstruction is most in need of refactoring.
- The text section also needs some work. E.g. the "Rishis" subsection looks like it's lifted straight from Talageri, and actually has a baloney factor to it. Talageri assigned many rishis to his canonical "ten families" on unsourced grounds. (Actually, much of his own OR is unattributed lifting from Rahurkar, whom Talageri dismisses in his book somewhat peremptorily: the hidden story there is that Rahurkar relied heavily on post-Vedic texts such as the Puranas for his own identifications.) rudra (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
excellent work, rudra. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Long way to go, yet. So far I've resisted my deletionist urges and tried to wrestle everything into some semblance of coherence.
I'll be revamping the "Rishis" section soon. Done, for now.- I don't know what to do with the prolix section on the Brahamanas and Aranyakas (all EB1911 stuff, actually). We may need to look at other related articles on that branch of the Vedic literature to get a proper balance distributed across several articles.
- The Dating section still needs more work. rudra (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Before anybody brings it back, explain what it was doing in the lead. Lead is meant to be a summary of the most important things that follow in the article. Linguistic and 'cultural' affinities to Avesta are not explained anywhere else in the article and the presence of the same in the lead is perplexing. Also explain, why we have to bend over backwards to squeeze in the bit about Andronovo. If it is the consensus that PII is/was associated with andronovo, then there is no need to qualify it. If it isnt, then we need to present both/all views. either way, andronovo in the lead is superfluous.. Sarvagnya 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD again. Your assumption, that a lead is only a summary, is false. It also functions as an introduction, such as establishing a context. The Rgveda is a philologically important text beyond its place in Hinduism (see the second section above this one), which means that its relevance to Indo-European issues needs to be mentioned. ("The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.") The material is adumbrated in the "Dating" section but, as also noted (this time immediately above), this is the section most in need of an overhaul. You are welcome to contribute constructively, rather than divagating with requests for references and waiting for them to be provided before deleting the passage you objected to, effectively taking it upon yourself to decide that others' time was yours to waste. rudra (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where did I say that I had a problem with the lead functioning as an introduction to establish context while at the same time providing a summary of the article? If anything, that is precisely what I've been asking for and I said so clearly on your talk page. That the Rigveda has a philological importance beyond its place in Hinduism isnt news to me.. and the article in its present state leaves no room for any such illusions. That however, is all the more reason to explain the context in which the avesta and andronovo finds itself in the lead. If it has to do with dating, then say so. The dating section (a whole section) doesnt so much as make a passing mention of the avesta. And in any case, the lead does mention that the dating is based on philological and linguistic evidence (which is where Avesta/andronovo and all that comes into the picture anyway, i suppose)... look.. I am not averse to dumping the couple of sentences I removed into the dating section.. but what good would it do? They will still keep sticking out. And my apologies for using the {cn}} tag last time when I should perhaps have used {clarify}}.. but I thought my message on your talk page clarified that. In any case, I cant imagine that I have wasted too much of your precious time considering that "utterly and completely uncontroversial" statements shouldnt be hard to source at all. Sarvagnya 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reason it belongs in the lead is that the linguistic and cultural similarities between the Yasna and the Rgveda strongly suggest that the Rgveda was composed in a time when the cultures which composed them were still fairly close, perhaps even in contact, and which was not particularly long after the Indo-Iranian period. This has implications not just for the dating of the Rgveda, but also for our understanding of the cultural and geographic milieu in which the Rgveda was composed - not to mention wider questions regarding the origin and evolution of the Indo-European languages and the culture associated with their speakers. Look, I agree that at some stage we need an appropriate section dealing with all this, but given the importance of the Rgveda to Hinduism and Indian culture more generally, these topics often raise sensitivies which aren't easily dealt with, making writing a detailed section a somewhat unappealing proces - the section would have to discuss, amongst other things, the "Origins of the Vedic people" controversy which causes no end of grief here. But surely it's better to have a couple of sentences in the lead even if we don't have a detailed section - because as I've tried to explain above the information does belong in the lead? If it's just a question of rewording it to give more context, that should be achievable, particularly if you have any suggestions. -- Arvind (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the bit Sarvagnya removed are perfectly mainstream, undisputed, and highly relevant. "Sensitivities" have nothing to do with it (or I invite you to go over to Talk:Muhammad and plead for the removal of the infamous images because they "raise sensitivities"...). If you have suggestions for rephrasing within WP:LEAD, you are most welcome to propose them. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Umm, dab... if you actually read what I was saying, I was trying to explain to Sarvagnya (1) why the information belongs in the lead and (2) why the information is only in the lead and not in a detailed section in the article (that would require a degree of refactoring which is nearly impossible to achieve given the atmosphere on this article, unless someone is willing to spend several weeks doing little else) -- Arvind (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ah, wait, I don't see a problem to expand on the information in the article body. The sentence in the lead is very concise, appropriate for the introduction:
- "There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta,deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo culture of ca. 2000 BCE."
That's about as compact as it gets. Details on this should go to the "Dating and historical reconstruction" section. It is also correct that the references should be cited in the body, not in the lead. I have made an edit to this effect. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a reference to Bryant, whose work I think is spot on as far as the Vedic-Avestan relationship goes. -- Arvind (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The artcle could have referred to an authoritative review book: "The Vedic People" by Rajesh Kochar, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1999, in which he supported the Afghanisan location for Rig Veda and the strong affinities with Avesta. Also see: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] things to consider
According to " Traditions and Encounters A global Perspective of the Past" the Rigveda was written from 1400 to 900 bce. they also refer to it as Rig Veda.
69.105.108.158 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Zaniar Moradian, September 25, 2008
- sounds reasonable? This is pretty much what we are saying in this article too? --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent prancing around with the date
re this edit, I fail to see which part of the terminus ad quem article is supposed to justify the fiddling with the date range given. Your change to "2000–1500 BCE" is unjustified, and unjustifiable. Witzel is perfectly correct, the 14th century is a terminus ad quem. This is what we had all along, the 14th century lies squat in the mainstream range of "1500 to 1000". You aren't contributing anything here. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- wait, you were confusing ante and ad? Try to get a grasp of what your source is saying before lecturing about things, ok? Saves everyone time. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It was supposed to have been redacted by 1200 BCE. Kris (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
no, it "was supposed" to have been composed by 1100 BC (or 1200, if you insist). That's not the redaction. The redaction into the current arrangement is much younger, and dates to the 1st millennium (about 800 BC). People too often throw around statements like "the Rigveda (1700 BC)". This is wrong. The Rigveda-as-we-know-it was compiled around 800 BC. "1700 BC" is only the oldest reasonable estimate for the oldest bits and pieces contained in the compilation. These floated around as individual hyms in priestly tradition for several centuries before the Iron Age shakhas compiled them into a fixed collection. Saying "the Rigveda (1700 BC)" is much like saying "the Iliad (1300 BC)". --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- The date (1400 BC) and the location as provided by Rajesh Kochar are the most reasonable. See the reference: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
this isn't Kochar's original idea. This has been the general consensus for about 150 years. The RV wasn't compiled in one year, or one century, ok? It reflects half a millennium of history, roughly speaking, say, from Kabul in 1500 BC to Delhi in 1000 BC. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arya Samaj & Dayananda
Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs) keeps re-introducing claims of "controversy" in spite of being reverted, and without any attempt to build a case, or cite a reference. Random websites aren't "references" for the purposes of Wikipedia, see WP:RS.
Concerning the alleged Hindi translation of the Rigveda by Dayananda, I seem to be able to confirm that a commentary on Sayana's commentary by Dayananda was published posthumously, as Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā, in 1920. Pending actual citation of references or publication details on the part of the pov-pusher I will assume that is what they are intending to refer to.
I would advise Arya Samaj adherents to focus on cleaning up our article on Arya Samaj topics, including the Dayananda Sarasvati article itself, which unlike this article on the Rigveda tend to be in appalling states of disrepair. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dbachmann (talk · contribs) who claimed that Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā was published in 1920 is wrong. It was published in 1878 by Lajrath Press. Another claim by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) that Dayananda just wrote a commentary on Rigveda is also wrong. He has given a word-to-word translation of the Sanskrit text to Hindi, and then followed by a commentary. I am doubtful if Dbachmann (talk · contribs) can read Hindi or Sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)
- I was making no "claim", I was charitably trying to second-guess what you were trying to say. Now please do impart your "knowledge for all" with proper references from now on, or consider spreading it elsewhere. As for "Lazarus Press",
- Find sources: "Lajrath Press" — search, news, books, scholar, images
- Google hasn't heard of it. Not very promising in terms of WP:RS. The most commonly available edition appears to be a 1981 reprint by Meharchand Lachhmandas. If you are so great at Sanskrit, no doubt you can give me a translation of the title "Ṛgvedādi-bhāṣya-bhūmikā". Hint, it does not involve "translation". --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the first was a typo. And mentioned "Lazarus Press" was a publishing house in Benaras, India, and it is not the same as [2].
- i've reverted Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs)'s edit as the preexisting content appears broadly in line with what i read in Davi Smith's Hindism and Modernity and furthermore, Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs)'s changes are unsupported by reliable sources. incidentally, according to David Smith, "Dayananda’s first detailed examination of the Veda was via Müller’s translation." Smith cites this statement to Jordens, J. T. F. 1997: Dayananda Sarasvati: His Life and Ideas. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Doldrums (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- David Smith seems to be rather confused. Müller never translated the Rigveda, and if he had it would have been into a European language, which would have been of no use to Dayananda. Dayananda owned a copy of Müller's Sanskrit edition of the RV. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- the amount of bad scholarship surrounding Hindu revivalism boggles the mind. It might almost be part of the definition of Hindu revivalism (incidentially offering a parallel between Hindu revivalism and Neopaganism in the west, which are probably much more closely related than usually noted, vide Theosophy and similar stuff surrounding their emergence). --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the book, History of Modern India, the author Hukam Chand writes that Dayanada Saraswati died in 1863 [3], but most of the books and records state that the year for his death was 1883. Can we believe all publications? I have found typos in books published by Oxford, IEEE, Wiley, etc.
The source of Dayananda's knowledge of Vedas wasn't Mueller or anyone else. He learned Sanskrit grammar and proceeded with Vedic studies under Swami Virjananda [4].
Why is Dbachmann (talk · contribs) reverting what I state? There is nothing wrong in it and why not the world should know it? As a researcher I feel that what I have mentioned is perfectly correct and makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)
- as should be duly discussed at Dayananda Saraswati. It is beyond me how people are unable to grasp that whatever bee they have in their bonnet isn't the main focus of interest at any old article that can be argued to bear some tenuous relation to the subject rather than the actual dedicated article discussing it. You want to edit Dayananda Saraswati. Thank you. Also, if you are a "researcher", I am a bleeding edge space-drive engineer. Perhaps you can get a research grant for your quest towards figuring out how to sign Wikipedia talkpage contributions in the next semester or so. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added referenced content about Dayanand's views and writings on the Vedas and other scholar's opinion of them. But I completely agree that all this content really belongs in Dayananda Saraswati, rather than here. There, when placed in context of his exemplary work as a social reformer fighting orthodoxy, his interpretation of the Vedas is perfectly understandable. Here, placed in context of historical and literary scholarship, they just end up appearing loony. More the pity. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
similar to Devaneya Pavanar whose work may have had the effect of uplifting Tamil self-esteem, but is at the same time utter nonsense in terms of scholarship, Dayananda should be treated as the founder of a new religious movement, and as a social reformer if that's what he was, but certaily not as a philologist. Scholarship doesn't equal charisma or popularity. Charismatic authors are primary sources, scholarly ones are secondary sources. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Who are you Dbachmann to say that Dayananda's translation is not a good work? Do you know ancient Sanskrit? Have you seen Dayananda's word-to-word translation and the justification he has done in tracing each and every word of the Sanskrit text to its root? I am sure that space research doesn't use ancient Sanskrit as a medium of explanation or usage, then on what basis are you bouncing your head over your heels and vice-versa? Dayananda spent a large part of his life studying the Vedas and translating them. His translation of the Rigveda fits in almost 3000 A4 size pages. Such an eminent work cannot be neglected. I have read read Griffith's translation, and Dayananda's translation too, and after consulting about 12 professors of Sanskrit, I state with assurance that Dayananda's work is far more superior linguistically and spiritually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)
3000 pages equals an "eminent work"? Then Dayananda is dwarfed by any tabloid paper. But if your dozen professors have published their opinion in academic literature, as professors usually tend to do, you are perfectly free to just quote the relevant references. --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Who writes about physics? A physicist; not a carpenter! In the same way about Hinduism, Hindus should write, others can have an opinion but it is not the definition. How can linguists like Griffith or Max Muller understand the true spiritual meaning of the Rig Veda, when their approach was merely lingual, and of course, biased (this is what I have discerned). Why the people of India don't have the right to write their own history? Are Indians writing the French or English or German history? NO! You people are writing the WRONG history of India and providing FALSE REFERENCES for the future scholars. Dayanada Saraswati needs no introduction and his mastery of ancient Sanskrit is well-known. There are thousands of DAV (Dayananda Anglo-Vedic) institutions in India. Does this scholar need an introduction? Any why his translation and commentary on the Rigveda (Sanskrit to Hindi), which is available for free online [5], can't be considered in the Wikipedia section on Rigveda? His meaning of Sanskrit words agrees with the authoritative Nirukta-Nighantu.
- nothing good has ever come from your approach on Wikipedia. And you aren't the first to try. What you want to do is write a blog. Nobody is censoring you, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia. You are welcome to vent spleen, free of charge even for hosting costs, at blogspot. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
[edit] Date, once again
It seems that author/approver of this article is not aware of Indian Vedic History especially regarding dating of the writings of the Rigveda. In this article on many places it is written that Rigveda was not written down before 1200 BC. There are numerous references which verifies that Rigveda was written at least before 1200 BC or for that matter even before 2500 BC including. The oldest surviving manuscript may be a matter of investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk • contribs)
the date of the oldest MS is, indeed, a matter of investigation. The result of the investigation is: 11th century CE. You do not appear to be aware of the history of writing in India. The Rigveda was not "written" prior to the Common Era. It was transmitted orally. There is no evidence whatsoever that would place the composition of the earliest origins of the earliest hymns before the mid 2nd millennium BC. The late hymns, the bulk of books 1 and 10, cannot be shown to predate 1200 BC. The redaction of the various collections of hymns into the ten books we have today dates to the 1st millennium BC. This is all properly explained and referenced in the article. You should read it. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I must revise that statement. The oldest Vedic manuscript appears to date to the 11th century, preserved in Nepal. But it happens to be of the Yajurveda, not the Rigveda. The oldest Rigvedic manuscript apparently dates to the 14th century. I believe the oldest complete text dates to the 15th century. Discussion of the age of the manuscripts is irrelevant to the discussion of the age of the text itself. It is undisputed that the text is some 2000 years older than the oldest surviving manuscript. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that you are not aware of even world history and/or influenced my Max Muller who is considered to be on of the most biased historian, but still wikipedia is siting his reference, which make wikipedia itself biased. Can you go through the book [6] (Indo-Aryan Controversy By Edwin Bryant) before saying 2nd millennium BC as the earliest possible date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is well aware of Bryant's book. You want to read Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration. The 2nd millennium date of the Rigveda isn't affected by any of this. If you disagree, I look forward to your concrete citation of relevant peer-reviewed literature. Not even Talageri, whose only claim to academic impact are utterly condemning reviews, and who uses the Rigveda for far out claims about the Indo-European homeland and what not, doesn't go as far as proposing a date before 2000 BC (although he does indulge in tongue-in-cheek innuendo that he would love to favour an Early Bronze Age date[7]). This is Voice of India chauvinism, not philology. Much less is there any scholarly literature suggesting a date before 2000 BC. This is a non-starter. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Let us suppose that the oldest surviving manuscript of Rigveda is from 11th century CE. Then how does it implies that it was the oldest written manuscript. It might be possible that other older manuscript might have been destroyed by invadors like Alexandar or Muslims. Or, it might be also destroyed due to other reasons that we don't know. Before going ahead we want to make it clear that the point of dicsussion is not the oldest surviving manuscript which have been written rather ' The oldest possible date during which Rigveda was written.' Now come to the following point what is the basis of your following statement "The Rigveda was not "written" prior to the Common Era. It was transmitted orally" where is the proper reference. Where is the basis of your following entry in [8] "Writing appears in India around the 3rd century BC in the form of the Brahmi script, but texts of the length of the Rigveda were likely not written down until much later,
the oldest surviving Rigvedic manuscript dating to the 14th century"
This alongwith other statements on this Wiki page conflicts with the following wiki entry and should be removed.
[9] As your wikipedia entry says that Ramayana was written around 4th century BC.
Your wikipedia entry also says that Baudhayana's Shulba Sutras were written around 800 BCE to 600 BCE. [10] so is the case with the Mahabharatha dating. Even the above Datings are themselves may not be earliest. Then the argument is how it is possible that Vedic rishi's or philosopher had written Shulba Sutras, Ramayana, Mahabharata (before circa 500 BC) to name a few but they had not written Rigveda which was the most important and authoritative text. Where is the consistency of wikipedia. There is no surviving written manuscript of Euclid's element which dates back before common era. But still your Wiki [11] frequently says that Euclid's element was written by Euclid circa 300 BC. Apart from that go through the following references (Book: Indian Philosophy Vol. one BY S. Radhakrishnan) [12] (Book: Secret of Veda By Aurobindo) [13] (Book: The Cosmology of Rigveda By H.W. Wallis) [14] (Book: Rigvedic India By Abinav Chandra Das) [15] (Book: The Philosophy of Ancient India By Richard Garbe) [16] (Book: The religion of the veda the ancient religion of india By Maurice Bloomfield) [17]
These are the text which has been written by some of the independent historians but non of the above references supports your theory. Go through these text then think in a rational manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you have read the article carefully. It is undisputed that the Rigveda is the oldest surviving Indic text, much older than the Ramayana, the Sutras, etc. Only, all of these texts weren't written until a long time after their original composition. To compose a text isn't the same as writing down a text. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:
Found this translation which seems to be more accurate and captures the intended meaning better than others currently in External links section:
http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rv1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
this is apparently a translation "based on Sayana and Wilson". The Sanskrit is in some weird private format. The translation isn't useless, but it isn't clear whose translation it is (just Wilson's?) --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Publication, Philology
