Talk:Historical Vedic religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The irrefutable proof that Jainism (shramanic tradition) is a pre-vedic religion

The following research from the independent scholars throws a true light on the truth that Jainism / Buddhism has not sprouted from vedism and Karma, moksha and Ahimsa are original shrman concepts which were incorporated b y later vedics.

Vedics were not aware of Ahimsa

See the following quotes from Vedas –

Rgveda Mandala 10

10.16.10 – “I choose as God for Father-worship Agni, “flesh-eater,” who hath past within your dwelling, While looking on this other Jatavedas. Let him light flames in the supreme assembly”

10.27.2 – “Then Will I, when I lead my friends to battle against the radiant persons of the godless, Prepare for thee at home a vigorous bullock, and pour for thee the fifteen-fold strong juices”

10.28.3 – “Men with the stone press out for thee, O Indra, strong, gladdening Soma, and thereof thou drinkest. Bulls they dress for thee, and of these thou eatest when, Maghavan, with food thou art invited.”

10.85.13 – “The bridal pomp of Surya, which Savitar started, moved along. In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride”

According to Manu Smruti, “The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad! even if he does it day after day; for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater” - Manu Smruti Ch 5 verse 30

Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88 has the discussion between Dharmaraj Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to ancestors during the Shraddha to keep them satisfied. An Excract provided here with Bhishma suggesting – “With fishes offered at Shraddha, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the muflon they remain gratified for three months and with the hare for four months, with the flesh of the goat for five months, with the bacon (meat of pig) for six months, and with the flesh of birds for seven. With venison obtained from those deer that are called Prishata, they remain gratified for eight months...........and so on”

IT IS CLEAR THAT AHIMSA IS NOT A VEDIC CONCEPT BUT HAS CREPT IN VEDIC RELIGION ON ACCOUNT OF INFLUENCE OF JAINISM.

It is pertinent to note that the concept of ahimsa was foreign to Vedic culture as shown by the eminent Indologist Prof.W.Norman Brown in his Tagore Memorial Lectures, 1964-65, Man in the Universe: "Though the Upanishads contain the first literary reference to the idea of rebirth and the notion that one’s action –karma determines the conditions of one’s future existences, and though they arrive at the point of recognizing that rebirth may occur not only in animal form but also in animal bodies, they tell us nothing about the precept of ahimsa. Yet that precept is later associated with the belief that a soul in its wandering may inhabit both kinds of forms. Ancient Brahmanical literature is conspicuously silent about ahimsa. The early Vedic texts do not even record the noun ahimsa nor know the ethical meaning which the noun later designated The ethical concept which it embodies was entirely foreign to the thinking of the early Vedic Aryans, who recognized no kinship between human and animal creation, but rather ate meat and offered animals in the sacrifice to the gods." Therefore, Prof.Brown concludes: "The double doctrine of ahimsa and vegetarianism has never had full and unchallenged acceptance among the Hindus, and should not be considered to have arisen in Brahmanical circles, it seems more probable that it originated in a non-Brahmanical environment, and was promoted in historic India by the Jains and was adopted by Brahmanic Hinduism." Also checkout the link that proves that vedics were beef eaters. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

First off, Jainism and Buddhism are not non-aryan. That is a fabricated lie by bias scholars working around odd race theories.

Also, you would have to answer why the word Aryan is mentioned much more in Buddhism and Jainism then in Hinduism. Odd considering they are supposed to be of so called non aryan origin. Don't refute me on this, read yourself, it's all public knowledge. Anyway, I don't think the word Aryan ever applied to a race in the spiritual sense, but many here do.

Jainism and Buddhism do not solely reject caste. Many of their scriptures work around caste although they don't normally propagate it with their teachings. All Jain Thirtankaras have been Kshathriya. So was Buddha. All of the Boddhisatvas have been Brahmin or Kshathriya. Brahmins have also played a large role within Jainism, just as much as in Hinduism (Vedic). So this is all modern poltical propaganda on behalf of Jains (and some Buddhists) who have all jumped on the band wagon to seperate themselves from Brahmins (see anti-Brahminism). Equally as odd considering that Brahmins have played such a crucial role in the development of both religions (Jainism and Buddhism)since the time of their origins.

Also, i'm not a Brahmin so think twice before you come back and accuse me of bieng pro "Aryan" or Brahmin or something of that sort..

Vedanta is a part of the Vedas but a move away from the ritual aspect and more into the philosophical aspect. Jainism and Buddhism are also a movement away from the Vedic rituals and animal sacrifice. Jainism is extreme ascetism, which Buddha and Hindus never believed in.

Ahimsa may have came from Jainism but had a lot of influence on both Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are all a mixture of the Aryan, Tribal and Animist beliefs and traditions that the so called "native" and "aryans" formed together. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism share many concepts, symbols and dieties such as Brahma and Nagas (especially Buddhism and Hinduism).

So what really seperates Hinduism from Buddhism and Jainism? Hinduism always accepted the Vedas and a higher eternal creator while Buddhism and Jainism rejected both.

Hinduism clerly evolved along Vedic thought.

Vedics were not aware of even Karma, Samsara, transmigration and borrowed it from the Shramanas

Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press : UK ISBN 0521438780

• “The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure.These concepts were certainly circulating amongst sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions.” Page 86

• “Yet on the other hand, although there is no clear doctrine of transmigration in the vedic hymns, there is an idea of re-death i.e. person who has died in this world, might yet die again in the next.” Page 86

• “It is significant that early Brahnanism does not contain institution of renounciation akin to those of Buddhism or Jainism. There are certainly lineages of teachers going back many generations, but these are not monastic institutions.” Page 90

• “In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad retributive action first appears to be a secret and little known doctrine. [..] By later Upanashids (Svetasvatara Upanashid 400 – 200 BCE) the doctrine is firmly established.” Page 86

Jainism as the oldest religion

Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150

• “Till very recently it was believed that Vedic Hinduism is really the oldest form of Indian religion. But, at the present time, it would not be correct to hold this view. Even at the time of Rgveda, there were at least the Dasas/Dasyus who racially differed much from the Aryans, and certainly much more in their religious theories and practices. The Dasas Dasyus were linga-worshippers and had a god different from Indra. They did not have animal-sacrifice and had observances quite different from those of the Vedic Aryans. Most probably proto-Shiva of Mohenjo-daro was one of their deities.

It is not possible to know much at present about the Dasas Dasyus.But certainly,we find Ajivikism, Jainism and Buddhism as three religions which did not share the Vedic Aryan religion called Brahmanism which accepted the Vedas as the only religious scripture for it, and, keeping to the caste maintained the excellence and supremacy of the Brahmins over all other castes and people. The non-Vedic religions of Ajivikism*, Jainism and Buddhism did not accept the Vedas as their holy books and did not have castes.” Page 17

• “There is no evidence to show that Jainsim and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times.” Page 18

• “This confirms that the doctrine of transmigration is non-aryan and was accepted by non-vedics like Ajivikism, Jainism and Buddhism. The Indo-aryans have borrowed the theory of re-birth after coming in contact with the aboriginal inhabitants of India. Certainly Jainism and non-vedics [..] accepted the doctrine of rebirth as supreme postulate or article of faith.” Page 37

• “We know only this much that the doctrine of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti is first seen in the clearest form in the shramanic tradition. It is now even accepted by orthodox bhramins. This doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Rgvedas and not even in the oldest parts of Upanishads called chandogya and Brhadaranyaka.” Page 149

• “Jainism is a very old non-Vedic religion and some of its features go back to the times of Indus Valley Civilization. Like the Upanishads and Buddhism, Jainism was a kshatriya movement. It had its locus in a religion which was not yet touched by Brahmin cult. These regions East of Sadanira (modern Gandaka) were inhabited by non-Aryan tribes. [..]

Again, this is biases scholarship. First off, there is no proof what so ever that Jainism originated from the Indus Valley. No one even has been able to decipher the script successfully. So the Indus Valley religion remains a mystery. If anything, Indus Valley religion may have surfaced in the later period of the Vedic religion (Hinduism) then in Jainism or Buddhism. For example, the yogic like posture which resembles Shiva or a proto type of Shiva is a part of Hinduism not Jainism. Goddess's like figures which resembles Durga and Kali are all a part of Hinduism. None of the artifacts, sculptures or material found in Indus Valley is a part of Jainism with the exception of the Swastika, which is a part of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and Bulls which are a part of Hinduism and Jainism.

Jainism is not an offshoot of Vedic Brahminism. It belonged to the people who were essentially agriculturist, who valued bulls and cows. They therefore had simple living and could practice ahimsa and austerities. In contrast, the Vedic Aryans were essentially pastoral people and they were used to animal-sacrifice. Naturally the Aryan and non-Aryan people of India were always in conflict, and, so in their religious beliefs too they held opposite views. In the long run, the Vedic Aryans accepted all that was of importance in Jainism and Buddhism. The present Hinduism is a commingled stream of Aryan and non-Aryan cults. Keeping in mind the independent and parallel development of Jainism, we can proceed further.” Page 235

• “The four pillars of Jainism karma-samsara-jnana-mukti have been assimilated into Hinduism. The Pancamahavrata of Jainism (Satya, Ahimsa…) have been fully adopted by Hinduism though not with the same rigour.” Page 237-8

First off, Janism and Buddhism are not non-aryan. That is a fabricated lie by bias scholars.

Also you would have to answer why the word Aryan is mentioned much more in Buddhism and Jainism then in Hinduism. Odd considering they are supposed to be of so called non aryan origin. Don't refute me on this, read yourself, it's all public knowledge. Anyway, I don't think the word Aryan ever applied to a race in the spiritual sense but many here do.

Jainism and Buddhism do not solely reject caste. Many of their scriptures work around caste altough they don't normally propogate it with their teachings. All Jain Thirtankaras have been Kshathriyas and even Buddha. Mostly all of the Bodhisatvas have been Brahmin or Kshathriya. Brahmins have also played a large role within Jainism, just as much as in Hinduism (Vedism). So this is modern poltical propaganda to seperate from Brahmins (anti-Brahminism).

Vedanta is a part of the Vedas but a move away from the ritual aspect and more into the philosophical aspect. Jainism and Buddhism are also a movement away from the Vedic rituals and animal sacrifice. Jainism is extreme ascetism, which Buddha snd many Hindus rejected.

Ahimsa may have came from Jainism but had a lot of influence on both Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are all a mixture of the Aryan, Tribal and Animist beliefs and traditions that the so called natives and aryans collaborated and formed into a whole. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism share many concepts and dieties such as Brahma and Nagas (especially Buddhism and Hinduism) and symbols.

What seperates Hinduism from Buddhism and Jainism?Hinduism always accepted the Vedas and a higher eternal creator while Buddhism and Jainism reject an eternal creator.

Hinduism clerly evolved along Vedic thought.

Vedism is actually the name before Jainism or perhaps still needs to be invested. a Vedist or Vedan believes there was No Buddhism or Hinduism. It was known as Vedism. --TheBreed (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

focus

since you (IAF and Anish) are quite obviously not interested in Vedic religion, just in hyping Hinduism and Jainism, respectively, and neither know nor care to learn anything on the topic, how about you go and edit topics you are interested in now. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DBachmann, if you still wish to subliminally indicate that Vedic religion is in no way related (or at the most a distant ancestor) of modern Hinduism, then you are grossly wrong. If you don't have your timeslines clear about the advent of Vedanta and latter reformist faiths, then I suggest you to shoo. Don't bother to come back again.

The article itself mentions that the writing of the Upanishads overlap the end of the Vedic period. Thus, it implies that Vedanta and Vedic periods are not mutually exclusive. This, coupled with the fact that the Budd'ism and Jain faiths were the latest in the series of the sprouting of faith systems makes it amply clear that they borrow from the Upanishads and not that their ideas were developed in parallel.

Anyway, if one line about Buddism can be included, then so can one line about Jainism. Do Not attempt to remove that. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DBachmann, you are apparently irritated with IAF. So don't group me IAF who is simply imposing the Hindu Orthodox view without throwing any new light. My views are backed with solid research and I don't simply parrot "Facts dont require citations" and "come to India to see the ground realities". Anyway in a short while I am posting the proof of my research.--Anish Shah 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IAF is into Hinduism, you are into Jainism. Beyond that, IAF's behaviour is of course much more offensive and unwikilike than yours. You don't believe how bored I am with Hindu orthodox blockheads. But the point is that this is not the Dharmic religions article, where this debate would at least be on topic. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True I am into Jainism. I cant deny that (my personal page says it all) but I beleve that whatever we put up has to be well researched. As long as any other article depicts Jainism falsely, I am concerned. As gues one has to be alert for certain people who propogate wrong info and their ilk.--Anish Shah 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have provided adequate proof (I believe this is adequate for reasonable editors but bot for incurable and deluded editors) , I wish soem reasonable editor will remove the offensive line - "Religions that have continued from the Vedic religion " for Shramanas and Jainism. Still there is a tons of scholarly material that proves that Jainism is a pre-vedic religion. But IAF will still suffer from grand delusions. It does not matter. I will leave this article to the fate of some reasonable editors and concentrate on non-controversial aspects of Jainism.--Anish Shah 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DBachmann's uninformed, and disruptive edits apart (emboldened nonetheless by AnishShah) I would like to clarify for the uninitiated and for those who don't have the motivation to go through this entire talk page, that it is my sincere wish to highlight the fact that the Vedic religion is not a separate entity than modern Hinduism. Many western scholars (personified in the singular by DBachmann) seem to incorrectly suggest that the transition from the Vedic religion to modern Hinduism is akin to the life-cycle of a pupa into a butterfly----> i.e. two completely different faith systems---which although linked---hardly bear any semblance to each other.

This ulterior motive to establish a firm disconnect is visible in the latest edit of the article. Whatever remains about modern Hinduism was also added by me nearly a year ago; earlier, even that was not present. The over-emphasis on just the sharuta practice being the only remnant of the Vedic religion today is specious at best, besides being inexplicable. The recitations, rituals (sans sacrifices except in some remote places) continue today too. The nomadic context is lost. Indra, Agni et al though not completely secondary, have lost in popularity to more contemporary dieties.

Unfortunately, AnishShah and DBachmann both of you in all your infinite wisdom have misinterpreted my edits to a mere Jain vs. Hindu sling-fest or an attempt to show some faith in a "lesser light". I cannot understand why Buddhism can be included as one of the faiths that have emerged from the Vedic religion but Jainism cannot. The shramana argument is weak. A cursory glance at the Vedas show that some of Jaina tirthankars like Rishahbh, Ajithnath,Suparshvanath, Arishtanemi, find first mention in the RV or YV. The same is true of concepts like hiranyagarbha, karma, dharma etc. Other tirthankars date to clans or dynasties (like Ikshvaku clan) far later than the demise of the Vedic period.

So much explanation for just ONE sentence in the intro and a few in Post-Vedic/offshoot section ! What to say about DBaulkmann. And the less said about AnishShah, the better. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 13:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

uninformed indeed. Do you even have an idea how the average "Hinduism" article on Wikipedia tends to look like before I take pity and clean it up? This article would be a sad mess written by random teenagers if I didn't look after it. You are also wrong about my intentions. I do emphasize that Vedic ritualism is preserved pretty much perfectly in Shrautin traditions. How much mainstream Hinduism is similar or dissimilar to Shrauta is in the eye of the beholder, and I have no opinion on that. You are free to focus either on the similarities or on the differences. The important thing is to be clear that continuity is not identity. Continuity is undisputed. It's a terminological matter. "Vedic religion" refers to the Early Iron Age religion, while "Hinduism" generally refers to the medieval to modern stage. You are free to point out similarites, but you are not to identify the two. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where you are completely wrong. The continuity and prevervance of the Vedic religion is not limited wholly to the shrauta tradition (which as I've pointed out numerous times before, is not just common, but rampant. Many claim to parrot the Vedas and pass on to their next of kin. And this is the least significant part). The Vedas are chanted around yagyas today, and that's not merely a rote recitation; pretty much the same rituals are carried out for the same or atleast similar intents. True, continuity is visible and for all to see but there are no two identities. Hinduism has evolved over time to have temples, many more dieties (which by the way, can ALL be found in the Puranas at the very latest), and festivities like Diwali and Holi. That is called evolution and not a "medieval modern stage" as you said, because all of what was written, practiced and believed in the Vedas, Upanishads is fully, asolutely followed without dilution of importance. One thing that has changed is the vivid and clothed depiction of gods and goddesses since the time of Raja Ravi Verma unlike the semi-nude depictions that were common prior to the arrival of Islamic invaders in India.

Anyway, I repeat that watever little mention this article has of Hinduism (for obvious reasons) are all due to me. Prior to my edits, this article seemed to speak of an ancient and 'lost' peoples. So you can guage when the article was actually in a messIndian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Request to put up Buddhism chart along with Hinduism. The two religons are Vedic and are same according to Vedic period. The movement reffers to Buddhists and Hindus that were parted or seperated. Shows communism between the two and neighbouring countries. --Police187 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• Historical Vedic religion → Vedic Hinduism —(Discuss)— clarity and consistency with Hinduism article. --Wikidās ॐ 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

nonsense. If anything, move to Vedism. See also discussion above. "Vedic Hinduism" isn't a well-defined term. Google it and see how the first hit points this out. Whatever it is, it isn't the topic of this article. "Vedic" in popular Hindu usage appears to mean something like "cool". In this article, we are using "Vedic" in the scholarly sense. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat myself, but the references to Hinduism as the oldest tradition were given at Talk:Hinduism We have and according to the consensus we have its being 'religious tradition' as per this quote ' it is the oldest living major religious tradition on earth with root reaching back into the pre-history '. At the moment this article is named as if Vedic Religion is an alternative to Hinduism. However, "Vedic religion is seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest extant form." ("JSTOR: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1984 ), pp. 234-236". www.jstor.org.). That is is the main reason for the move. Wikidās ॐ 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vedic" in popular Hindu usage means "cool" ? DBachmann, is the air around Zurich warming up too fast, or are you on psychedelic substances ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Gonda, until his death in 1997, was for many decades the acknowledged doyen of European Indology and a prolific writer on many aspects of Hinduism. He contributed two volumes on Hinduism for a comprehensive series on ``The Religions of Mankind. His major divisions are as follows:

I. Veda and Older Hinduism

1. Vedic (and Brahmanic) Hinduism

2. Epic (and Puranic) Hinduism

II. Younger Hinduism

"Hinduism: A Short History". www.oneworld-publications.com. Retrieved 2008-07-06. Based on that Dab is clearly overheated, and should get to the lake more often:-) Wikidās ॐ 11:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand the problem. The problem is, that, as soon as we call this "Vedic Hinduism", lots of Hindu editors will misunderstand this, because they think that all of Hinduism is "Vedic". This is due to different usages of the term "Vedic". Gonda understands what he is doing, but most of our Hindu editors have no clue of the history of their tradition, hence we need to be very clear and unambiguous. Do you have any interest in bona fide debate on this article's scope, or are you just enjoying a little bit of antagonism? I'm sorry, but I'd really only like to continue this discussion if you show some appreciation of the subject matter. Childish taunts like the above are not helpful, and indicate that I am wasting my time talking sense to you. If you have a grown up who can make your point for you, feel free to pass them the keyboard now. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you start with Ignoratio elenchi and end with ad hominem. Can you please discuss properly and avoid [WP:NPA]]. Sindhian (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the Latin phrases I've pointed you to in the past have appealed to you. It's a sign of your capability to learn. Now if you were only willing to start learning about Vedic religion too, you'll be fine. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Britannica encyclopedia

1. Using Britannica encyclopedia as a reference is against wikipedia’s policy WP:PSTSbecause encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. Wikipedia guideline is to use reliable secondary sources.
2. Britannica encyclopedia also fails as a un-biased source WP:NPOV since was used for propaganda for British imperialism. Its pro-Christian and anti-eastern religion bias has been exposed and criticized by secular writers. Please see a detailed analysis.["The Lies And Fallacies Of

The Encyclopedia Britannica How Powerful And Shameless Clerical Forces Castrated A Famous Work Of Reference"http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html] [1]

Also please see the following narrative on Britannia on Hinduism which not only proves the blatant anti-hindu bias but also uses scandalous language against hinduism. "By that time, the main divinities of later Hinduism were worshipped. Rama, the hero of the epic poem, had become the eighth avatar of Vishnu, and his cult was growing, though it was not yet as prominent as it later became. Similarly, Rama’s monkey helper, Hanuman, now one of the most popular divinities of India and the most ready helper in time of need, was rising in importance. Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha. Strange syncretic gods had appeared, such as Harihara, a combination of Vishnu and Shiva, and Ardhanarishvara, a synthesis of Shiva and his consort Shakti." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

nonsense, EB is an excellent source, we couldn't do without it. Of course the 1911 EB is outdated, everyone is aware of that. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism an offshoot of Vedic Religion?

I removed that curious idea which appeared a few times in the article, and added sources saying the opposite. I see from the talk page that that was probably a waste of time and someone will come along and remove it and again say the same thing. Have fun everyone! Mitsube (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

try to be pragmatic. Buddhism is an offshoot of Vedic religion in the same way as Anabaptism is an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. It shot off it because it was fed up with it. Yes, Buddhism and Jainism have prehistoric non-Vedic roots. Sheesh, any religion has prehistoric roots going back to great ape spirituality, this simple fact appears to be surprisingly difficult to grasp. Historical Jainism and Buddhism are still strongly influenced by Vedic (Sanskritic) tradition, even if by defining themselves as anti-Vedic (nastika). The end of the Vedic religion comes about in two ways:

• nastika: "out with the Vedas", enter Buddhism
• astika: "the Vedas are great, only, they really mean the precise opposite of what you thought they meant" -- enter Vedanta

--dab (𒁳) 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I have read a lot of scholarly material on this subject that contradicts your ideas. In addition to removing sourced material, you added the following unsourced, seemingly original ideas: "which began as a reform-movement of the Vedic religion." and "Vedic religion gradually metamorphosizing into the historical Indian religions, such as the various schools of Hinduism and Buddhism,"

I have never read that the Vedic religion metamorphosed into Buddhism, or anything close to it. Perhaps you are confusing "Vedic religion" for "Aryan culture." Your proof by analogy doesn't seem to make sense, either, because Anabaptists are still Christian and Buddhists are not Hindus or Brahmanists or whatever you want to say. The Shramana religious culture was parallel and simply unconcerned with the ritualism of Brahmanism. The goals and ideas were different. The confusion might be here that scholars actually group the early Yogis who preceeded the Upanishadic period in with the non-Vedic shramana group. If you mean that that movement metamorphosed into Buddhism, I wouldn't argue. But that's not what scholars mean when they say "Vedic religion." See for example Karel Werner, The Longhaired Sage in The Yogi and the Mystic, page 34. Mitsube (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I find it difficult what part of "my ideas" you imply to have telepathic access to, since I am not in disagreement with any of your references. Of course when your reference has "since prehistory", you choose to paraphrase that as "for many millennia", and similar liberties. You can repeat the statement that "The Shramana religious culture was parallel and simply unconcerned with the ritualism of Brahmanism" as often as you like, and I'll agree with you every time. I humbly submit that the "confusion" is all yours. Shramana is a catch-all term for non-Vedic asceticism. Yes, it can easily be assumed that "Shramana" goes back to the Stone Age. But the historical Shramana traditions are post-Vedic. Buddhism is very much relevant to the demise of Vedism, and as such in purely historical terms is a successor of Vedism: 800 BC: the religious establishment in India is Brahmanical. 200 BC: the religious establisment in India is Buddhist. A better simile would perhaps be Roman Catholicism as an offshoot of the Roman imperial cult. We can certainly discuss tweaks of phrasing etc., but it is difficult to have a "dispute" when I do not actually disagree with any of your claims. Nobody ever claimed the nastika traditions had anything to do with Vedic ritualism. The point is that their very core concepts -- karma, yoga, dharma, moksha -- are all Vedic in origin. It is impossible to understand the history of Jainism or Buddhism without referring to their intimate interaction with Vedic tradition. The game in 500 BC to 100 BC India was "how to best get rid of Vedism", and Buddhism and Vedanta chose different strategies (both successful), but both had to undergo syncretism with Vedic tradition. Just as Hinduism had to undergo syncretism as it emerged from the ruins of Brahmanist, Buddhist and various tribal traditions. Yes, the "goals" are completely different. No, this doesn't mean they aren't "offshoots". --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to simply assert your own opinions as facts, such as "the point is that their very core concepts -- karma, yoga, dharma, moksha -- are all Vedic in origin" without sources, then there's not much we can do. The fact is that there were two parallel movements, and for you to assert that one was somehow primary is your own, unsupported idea. You said "even if by defining themselves as anti-Vedic (nastika)." They did not. This label was given to them by the Brahmans. The Buddhists and Jains did not see themselves as part of a society defined by Vedism, or inherently Vedic. They did not define themselves and their ideas as opposition to Vedism. The Buddhists described themselves as Buddhists, not as "nastikas."

Karma, yoga, and moksha were shramanic ideas. For source saying this look at the Masih quotes above at Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion#Jainism_as_the_oldest_religion. For example, Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 ""We know only this much that the doctrine of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti is first seen in the clearest form in the shramanic tradition. It is now even accepted by orthodox bhramins. This doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Rgvedas and not even in the oldest parts of Upanishads called chandogya and Brhadaranyaka." Page 149. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

Here is my original statement:

• The Vedic period is held to have ended around 500 BC, Vedic religion gradually metamorphosizing into the historical Indian religions, such as the various schools of Hinduism and Buddhism

This was intended as no more than a sweeping statement gesturing at the further history of post-Vedic Indian religions, for any detail on which, the Indian religions article should be consulted. Yes, the history of Buddhism is complicated, but this isn't the place to go into it in any detail. So, if you find this "dubious", suggest a better phrasing, but without getting on a soapbox about millennia of Shramana. How about this:

• The Vedic period is held to have ended around 500 BC, Vedic religion gradually giving way to successor traditions, the Indian religions including the various schools of Hinduism and Buddhism.

is this better? No "metamorphosis" claim, we just want to note that first Vedic ritualism was big (1000 to 500 BC or so), then Buddhism became big (300 BC to 100 AD or so), and finally, Hinduism became big (from 400 AD or so). More detail isn't warranted in this article. dab (𒁳) 13:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it asking too much for you to find a source for disputed claims you want to add? Buddhism is a successor to Brahmanism chronologically, but the continuity implied by the statement is with older yogic traditions, not Brahmanism. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma. Essentially, the sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins". Page 141 of Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom, Inc ISBN 1933316225

Buddhism and Jainism are the successors of a parallel and distinct religious culture. I have brought many sources saying exactly this. You have not provided a source contradicting my sources. Mitsube (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, I am delighted to see your edits and your cognizance of the emerging scholarly consensus that the sramana tradition was not off-shoot of the vedic religion, but a parallel movement…some hold it even older than the vedic tradition. You are right…the word Nastika itself is a vedic POV for all non-belivers in Vedas. Jainism and Buddhism do not categorise themselves as nastika only vedics do for obvious reasons. The word Nastika is similar to the word infidels. Just because the vedics were always in majority in history and their commentators always categorized sramanas as Nastika and hence anti-vedic, it has become a cliché to state that Jainism and Buddhism arose from anti-vedic sentiment and hence are offshoots to Vedic religion. All my scholarly sources and references were deleted or not accepted on this page as well as on that of Indian religions and I was forced to endure prolonged and unproductive edit wars with a nationalistic troll who refused to accept the scholarly references and were keen to push his own POV’s. In India, most of the gullible but well meaning people have been taught that everything good in this world has emanated from the Vedas. However the scholars have now noted that the vedics were not even aware of the concepts like – Karma, Ahimsa, samsara and Moksa. The Upanishads themselves testify that the Brahmins i.e. the vedics, learnt of the concept of Karma from the Ksatriyas the same class to which Buddha, Mahavira and the preceeding 23 Tirthankaras belonged. (Brhad. Upan 6.2.2 – 8). I would be happy if you could arrive at a NPOV along with Dbachmann.--Anish (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "a cliché", or, in other words, "the standard view". I can repeat that I obviously agree shramana has prehistoric roots just like every other religious tradition on the planet to the point of sounding like a broken record, it's not like you guys are interested in getting it right. "Buddhism is pre-Vedic shramana" is exactly the same stupid reflex as "Hinduism is Vedic". Why do you people always want to lose yourselves in misty prehistory instead of looking at the actual history of the actual religion. In the case of Buddhism, that, in your own words, it arose from anti-vedic sentiment. Just like Hinduism (via Mimamsa) arose from anti-Buddhist sentiment. This antagonism is crucial to the understanding of the history both of early Buddhism and early Hinduism. Making naive statements about stone age asceticism is not. The term shramana itself is post-Vedic, and first appears in the epics dab (𒁳) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there were two parallel cultural strands. That's what the sources say. They also say that Buddhism, Jainism, and the early Upanishads are products of this non-Vedic (as in not originating from Vedic or proto-Vedic thought) strand. I'm not saying that anything is pre-Vedic. The term "shramana" (Pali samana) may not be attested in the Vedas but there actually is mention made of a shramana (i.e. yogi) under the term "keshin" or "longhaired sage" at RV 10.136, according to Werner's analysis. Mitsube (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cliché as in majority laymans’ view without any scholarly study. Dab…let us forget the pre-historic stuff and leave it to scholars. Frankly, I have lost interest in proving the pre-history origins of any religion. Let us look at the actual history and actual religion as you say. Let us look at actual Buddha and actual Mahavira. There is a lot to Buddhism and Jainism then being anti-vedic…too much importance is given to the fact that they propagated Ahimsa and therefore they criticised the Vedic sacrifices and did not believe that vedas are divine books etc. as they had their own agamas. That does not make their origin as “in protest of Vedas”. Be real dab. Read the Historical biography of Buddha and Mahavira. Buddha did not read Vedas and then …… Voila!.....suddenly decide to start a new religion. Same with Mahavira. Buddha saw a sick man, old man etc. and realized the futility of material life and became ascetic to seek enlightenment. There was nothing vedic or anti-vedic about it. The vedics labeled them as nastika or heretic and that became a gospel truth for everyone…too bad. I am sure that you would have read the references of the scholars that I have provided. Its not that you don’t understand, but you rationalize by sounding like a broken record and prefer to go by argumentum ad populum. Because these things are repeated by the majority many times since ages…. the coming generations believe it to be true…(like you once said – “Vedas are cool”) Jainism is one case …….for many years up to 19th century, Jainism was wrongly believed to be an offshoot of Buddhism. There is an alternate view accepted by scholars that is not in conformity with the majority layman view. Atleast give it some due consideration.--Anish (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

sure, WP:DUE says, if there is an alternate view accepted by scholars, there is nothing wrong with covering it, as an alternate view, directly based on scholarly sources. Nothing wrong with that. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So what is alternative view and what is mainstream view....Is it that the beliefs by the masses/ laymen is mainstream view and view of scholars is alternate view? Because apparently masses believe Hinduism is the mother religion and blah blah..while scholars believe that the sramanas co-existed with the vedics, are not offshoots of vedics, could be pre-vedic and ultimately vedics adopted most of the sramana philosophical concepts. So now which is the main view and which is the alternate view?--Anish (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

the image

I like the image. It does look shrauta-ish to me. But I'm not an expert, and I don't recognize this particular altar (etc.). So, unless we can specifically and credibly state which sacrifice precisely is in progress here, the image is just plain unencyclopedic eye-candy and should go. In order to be encyclopedic, we would need to be able to state where and when the image was taken, and what ritual is depicted. Of course, some amount of good grace is necessary, I don't require rock solid academic references here, just plausibility. Still, WP:V isn't optional, and naturally holds for images just as much as for text. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Śrauta (of the Śruti i.e Vedas) should be merged with this article since it merely represents the continuity of the historical vedic ritualism in present times. To clarify, Śruti does not stand for just the present-day ritualism but vedic practices continued till the present times. See http://images.google.co.in/images?q=yajna ­ Kris (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean, "merely"? So Prehistory should probably be merged with Modern era, since the modern era is "merely" a continuation of prehistory? And, on the same grounds, Roman Empire belongs merged with Holy Roman Empire, and with Germany while we're at it? shruti is a class of scripture. shrauta OTOH is the vrddhi of shruti, with a meaning of its own. I really don't know why you keep insisting on "contributing" to topics with which you are superficially acquainted at best. I have no idea why you would be asking me to "see" the google image results for a "yajna" query. Is there any point to this? Anyway, I was merely asking for a specification of the content of the image you added. You claim copyright for this image. So, you did take it, yes? Where did you take it? When did you take it? What was going on? I'm prepared to take your word if you make a plausible case, but we need some information on what is depicted. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont be silly, I am not proposing merger of all articles that represent a continuity; you are the one talking amateurish on a topic you are acquainted with probably only as a linguist. What is the point of srauta being (as obviously it is) the vRddhi of sruti? I didnt ask for the merger of the Sruti article with Srauta!! You want to have separate articles for the srauta rituals of 1000BCE (the historical vedic religion) and that of 2000CE, right? Did anyone tell you that the historical vedic yajnas weren't srauta yajnas? Present-day srauta can be accommodated as a section in this article, since "srauta" is not a modern appellation. ­ Kris (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

indeed. What is the point of srauta being (as obviously it is) the vRddhi of sruti? -- my comment refers to your Śruti does not stand for just the present-day ritualism above. Now can we cut to the chase, please, will you, or will you not, provide the information I requested regarding the image. Have you, or have you not, taken the image yourself? --dab (𒁳) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a haviryajna done by a Nambudiri in Kerala. I hope I am not duty-bound here to educate everyone who demands to know things. ­ Kris (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

nope, only when you insist to insert information to Wikipedia. You want to insert something? Then you are 'duty bound' to satisfy WP:V. So could you please state unequivocally on the image page that you yourself have taken this image? --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You clearly were not aware that shrauta is simply the native name for "historical vedic...". Merging both articles therefore is the only sensible thing to do. ­ Kris (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that your first sentence is factually accurate. My impression is that most Hindus conflate modern Hinduism with "historical Vedic religion" to a greater or lesser extent. Mitsube (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube is right (and Skris wrong), of course, but the image may still be useful. It would be lucky to have a free image of a shrauta ritual. But judging from Skris' general behaviour, I doubt that the image is really his. I also doubt that the image depicts merely a "haviryajna". I surmise Skris has no clue which ritual is actually in progress in the image, but the priest is clearly in the act of throwing something in the fire, so in that sense he is captured in the act of performing a "haviryajna". Now, as is explained at yajna, a haviryajna may be any of seven out of 21 compulsory sacrifices. There is nothing to suggest that the image depicts such a compulsory sacrifice, and not much rather one of the greater optional ones, which of course also involve "throwing things into the fire". If we cannot ask the photographer, we would need an actual expert to identify the precise altar pileup in order to identify what is going on here. In a nutshell, I doubt the image as it stands qualifies as encyclopedic. --dab (𒁳) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunday, September 04 2011, 01:29 PM IST : Regarding the Image - I doubt if it is a Vedic sacrifice, far from being a shrauta sacrifice. I am not a registered Wikipedia User, nonetheless I can authoritatively say, it is Not a Vedic sacrifice. Three reasons should clarify, first, in a Shrauta Sacrifice, the sacred "thread" is worn around the shoulder, as Brahmans (Brahmins ?) have been wearing for aeons. This shows a Cloth wrapped and worn - a peculiarly Nambootiri practice, mainly/often used in conjunction with Tantric Sacrifices. Second, a Haviryajna requires three fires, or five in certain schools. This one has only one. Thirdly the HavirYajnas and other Shrauta Yajnas are meant to be oblated in what is called as "Kundas", clearly the one in the photograph is what is known as a "Sthandila" (I am short of an English translation for both terms). Also the oblated item is not "Havis" rather it is either "Charu" or "Payasa". Needless to say, the photograph is good.

A Good Summary of the Vedic Period...

...can be found on page 132 of The Earth and Its Peoples, Fourth Edition. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not bad as a tertiary source, but it's just two pages. Our coverage is already far more detailed than this, and we cite our secondary sources inline. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I did some Googling, and apparently the whole book is available online. Here's a link to a PDF of the chapter on Ancient India. It provides a good summary of the Vedic period, the rise of the Sramanic religions, and the development of post-Vedic Hinduism.

Hokie Tech (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Practiced in Harappa

From page 45 of Archaeology and World Religion by Timothy Insoll:

The Kalibangan fire-altars measured roughly 75 cm by 55 cm. At Lothal a similar fire-altar (77.5 cm by 1.05 cm) built of mud-bricks was found inside a house (Rao 1979: 93, fig 13). The inside of this fire-altar yielded, along with three painted sherds, a carnelian bead, a gold pendant, and the charred mandible of a bovine. Incidentally, the tradition of making offerings including gold, precious stones and the like is still current in Hinduism. It should be noted that these fire-altars do not necessarily denote the custom of fire-worship, as some scholars have proposed (Dhavalikar 1997:60). A more convincing explanation is that they performed the function of Yajnas for sacrificial rituals of various types connected with Hinduism. In an overwhelming number of cases in modern Hinduism, such Yajnas are performed by householders.

Hokie Tech (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Vedic Period Dates

In the lead it says:

"The religion of the Vedic period (3500 BC to 3000 BC[1])..."

Are those dates correct? In the citation, it says the period was from 1500 BC to 500 BC. In the wiki page for Vedic Period, it says that the period was from somewhere around 2000 BC to 500 BC. Anyways I think the date 3500 BC to 3000 BC is way off because it corresponds more to the Bronze age in India. Can somebody check on that?--Oracle125 (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I think the two articles on vedic religion and historical vedic religion need to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We can't have two articles giving the same information. Its tedious to edit both pages. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this article should be merged with Vedism, they appear to be the same thing. Nikki (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Vedas

It is odd that the origin of the Vedas is not discussed here. It would seem to be relevant given that it is believed that they weren't of Indian origin. In that discussion it should be mentioned that while some of the Vedic ideas are clearly tied to Indo-European beliefs found elsewhere, some seem more likely attributable to the Harappan civilization. There is no mention of yogic postures elsewhere in Indo-European literature and there has been pottery in found in Harappan ruins that suggests yogic postures.

--174.7.56.10 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Vedic period and Hinduism

See Talk:Indian religions#Vedic tradition or Vedic Hinduism?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tantra

The main source for this section is Feuerstein, who willingly admits that "most scholars reject the notion that Tantra originated in the era of the Vedas or earlier" (Feuerstein, "the Path of extacy", p.15) Tantra was a recation to the fragmentation and feudalisation of Indian kingdoms in the "Late Classical Period" of ca. 500-1100 CE (Michaels 2004), while the Vedic period ended ca. 800-500 BCE, where-after followed the Reform Period of ca. 800-200 BCE and the period of Classical Hinduism (ca. 200 BCE-500 CE). To try to establish a direct connection between the Vedic times and tantra is therefor highly speculative and WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Religious tolerance

This section is being repeatedly added to the article, sourced to:

• A quote from the Rigveda, and
• A paper about contemporary Hindu diaspora's interaction with practitioners of other religions

to make an apparent claim about Historical Vedic culture ~3000 years back. This is pure synthesis and if a section on the topic is to be introduced it will need much better and pertinent sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hypotheses treated as facts?

While Anthony is certainly a reliable source, I don't think we should be treating his scenario as fact; so far as I know, his view is far from being universally accepted in the field. Likewise for Witzel and so forth. If their views are in fact the consensus among prehistorians, please provide sources. Megalophias (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They are WP:RS. If you think there are reliable alternative voices, please provide reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Brahmanism (Brahminism)

Searching for Brahminism redirects to this page, but there is no mention of the term here. I agree that "Brahminism" is a made-up term. But since that term is used in the literature, Wikipedia should have some mention of what that term means and how it relates to Vedic religion. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" and Subhash Kak

This kind of edits is typical for the people who wnat to use Wikipedia as a forum for Hindu-fundamentalism: selective choice of sources, over-generalisations, and misrepresenting the sources.

Subhash Kak's Vedic astronomy is mentioned as a "proof" the the Indo-Aryan migration theory is wrong. It's interesting that Kak himself notes that "The use of Vedic astronomy in fixing early Indian chronology has been contentious" (Kak 2005 p.309)

Here is some criticism from Witzel and Meera, as given at Subhash Kak:

"Kak's method depends on the structure of the Rigveda as redacted by Shakalya in the late Brahmana period as opposed to the intrinsic content in the oldest portions of the text. Specifically, Witzel (2001) believes that Kak's approach relates to the organizations of the Rigveda into mandalas ("books"), a process of redaction undertaken by the shakhas long after the composition of the individual hymns (the samhita prose period, dating to well within the Indian Iron Age), rendering the attempt to date the text in this flawed. Other scholars like Meera Nanda have said that Kak's "method is breathtakingly ad hoc and reads like numerology 101.""

I'm still surprised, again and again, of the simplicity of the counter-arguments of the IAMt-opponents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not about supporters or opponents, or fundamentalism, as you would like it to be. Wikipedia has to be neutral in its articles. You can't make it favorable to one side and anti to the other. But apparently people like you do it all the time. JaguarEyes (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Kenoyer-quote

JaguarEyes added the following quote, twisting the meaning:

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

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

Kenoyer does not write that there was no migration, he writes that there "is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations". This is in line with the IAMt.
I corrected this into

"Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that the Indo-Aryan migrations were not an "invasion", nor a mass-migration:"

This was changed by JaguarEyes into:

"However, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that:"

And the following edit-summary:

"Let's not twist it. You clearly know where the author stands. And if you don't, read his article in Bryant's book."

Okay, let's do that. P.44 (emphasis mine):

"One of the most important results of the current work at Harappa is that there continues to be no support for the earlier interpretations of Vedic-Aryan invasions and the destruction of Harappan settlements."

So, I don't get the impression that Kenoyer supports any "Indigenous Aryans theory". He only says that the "Aryan Invasion theory" is not supported by the arcaeological data. Which is old news.

This was also a nice addition:

"Jim Shaffer and Diane Lichtenstein concur with Kenoyer that there is no archeaological indication of an Aryan migration into northwestern India during or after the decline of the Harappan city culture."'

They don't concur; that's JaguarEyes misrepresentation of the sources.

By the way, Kenoyer's book is unaccesible at Google Books, but the same quoet is given at Hindu Wisdom, aryan invasion theory - archaeological evidence. Looks like a brilliant site for people fighting strawman and windmills from the 20th century. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Migration Controversy, Article Neutrality and the Quote

The user @Joshua Jonathan: has suppressed credible references that were cited in relation to the controversy of the Migration hypothesis. That is, he suppressed references that do not agree with the Migration hypothesis. And to distract, he accuses others of being opponents of the hypothesis, fundamentalists etc. By quoting and believing a criticism of Subhash Kak, he displays a personal bias. He is free to quote criticism, but Wikipedia has not appointed him to decide on what to be included and, what is to be believed.

The Kenoyer quote was included in order to give the article a neutral tone. It was never claimed by anyone that he supports Indigenous Aryans. It is Josha Jonathan's biased imagination, since he only sees either opponents or supporters, clearly failing to understand that some researchers neither support nor oppose a viewpoint. They just report what they find in their investigation. Their results apparently annoy some people. The introduction to this quote by the user @Joshua Jonathan: is a clear manipulation: According to him:

"Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that the Indo-Aryan migrations were not an "invasion", nor a mass-migration"

He thus claims that Kenoyer agrees with the Migration hypothesis. Before claiming to know about the writer's stand, he should consider what the writer has written:

"... earlier models of the Late Harappan period need to be substantially revised" (The Indo-Aryan Controversy, Page 43)

"... instead of trying to identify Indo-Aryans who are a modern construct, it is more important to focus future research on the more complex array of cultures that are identifies in the Vedic literature." (Page 46)

Invasion has long been disproved and it is Migration that is controversial. Shaffer and Lichtenstein don't concur exactly with Kenoyer. In fact they find no evidence of any migration. JaguarEyes (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many archeologists who deny the migration, and many of them don't agree or support the OIT, I think that they should be included too and if you can name any. Also we must avoid quote-farming. I had recently admonished an IP and a User some days ago who kept ripping off quotes from the books. One of them went to ANI, but admins confirmed that we must avoid quotations and they should not be used for giving additional weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, scholarly citations should be included. And it is good that a new section- Indigenous Aryans, has been introduced for all this. JaguarEyes (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Kerk & mass migrations

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

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

It was introduced as:

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

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

It certainly looks like our statement misrepresented the source on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To understand the actual manipulation of the quote by the user Joshua Jonathan, @Sitush:, refer to the section "Migration Controversy, Article Neutrality and the Quote" below. JaguarEyes (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any worshipers in the modern world?

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

No. Why do you ask? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't clear in the article. It should be clearly stated whether there are Vedic worshippers or not. The adjective "historical" in the title implies there are none. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical Vedic religion (aka Vedism) is a term of art for the Vedic religion as it was practiced around the second millennium BCE, ie the Vedic period. So by definition there is no modern "Historical Vedic Religion", although Hinduism as a whole in large part derives from it, and some Hindus may aim/claim to adhere to the ancient ("true") form of the religion more rigorously than others. Abecedare (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's informative; thanks. I'd suggest that you try to include this explanation in the lead of the article, to help people like me, with very little knowledge of the subject, to avoid becoming confused about this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No. The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati follows this Historical Vedic Religion. It believes Vedas to be the core source of all valid knowledge. It's main mottos are "Make the world Aryan- Noble" and "Back to Vedas". Even the Aurobindo Ashram followers are followers of this religion.14.97.69.149 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Soma

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

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

Brahminism VS Historic Vedic religion

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

• Agree. Brahminism is a set of rituals or practises within Hinduism. Hinduism is not only belongs to Brahmins. So seperate article needs to be created for Brahminism. Brahminism means influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion.--DanielZinker (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• A fork has been started at Brahminsm. Is this fork warranted, and is that even a valid spelling for the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Brahmanism developed out of the Vedic religion. To use it for contemporary Srautas is incorrect, I think, so the current developments at "Brahminsm" should not be encouraged. @Ms Sarah Welch and VictoriaGrayson: any thoughts here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• @C.Fred:, @Joshua Jonathan: This is WP:POVFORK indeed. The title is spelled wrong, and it reads like a casual POV-y essay. Yes, there are sources that use the word Brahminism, but such sources can be readily summarized in sections of the appropriate Project:Hinduism articles, such as a section within the article Brahmin. I agree with @JJ, just delete this fork, or move into the sandbox of one of these new wiki accounts with a link to the discussion here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, there is no actual religion called "Brahminism." Scholars use the term to just to allude to what is described in Brahminincal texts. I have never seen a proper definition of it. The POVFORK is obviously all WP:OR. What is the procedure here? Does one have to AfD it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've prodded it for deletion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This person seems to have multiple accounts - DanielZinker, IrumudiChozhan, JohnPhilipsDM all seem to be the same person, someone needs to report them to the mods. Mywikicommons (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits

"and existed in northern India", cites Michaels, who talks about the creation of Vedic religion from 1750 - 500 BCE, rather than "existence". Witzel is not mentioning any end date of Vedic religion, nor other sources (that have cited 1750 BCE) as starting period,[2][3] they don't mention any end date, because there was no end. Sentence should be:- "and developed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE to 500 BCE" or "and existed in northern India from c. 1750 BCE."

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

POV-check: Eurocentric bias

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Historical Vedic religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost all citations are from Western scholars. A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times. South Asia has plenty of modern day scholars, the article needs to cite them in equal measure if not more in order to bring reasonable neutrality and quality to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What scholars do you think need to be added? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, how the content "eurocentric"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the template. There's no discussion added to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Also, the reason given above is making a false distinction between western and South Asian scholars, and making an unsubstantiated and polemical accusation: "A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times." See Template:POV:

"An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."

That's what this article does: using high-quality sources. In the absence of any reliable source for the accusation of eurocentric biases of specific auhtors, which seems to be a personal judgment from Demystifiersf, and the absence of concrete examples of reliable south Asian sources, tagging this section with a POV-tag is misplaced and disruptive. By the way, Singh seems to be a south Asian scholar, just like B. S. Ahloowalia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And Panikkar 2001. Why is that reference missing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Demystifiersf: please explain and substantiate concretely how David Anthony has an eurocentric bias, has a hangover from colonial times, and which south Asian autjors are on a par with him. Same for Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical Vedic religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3440/chapterseven.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611142934/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historical Vedic religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006002119/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/unescos-legup-for-city-veda-research/280908/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/unescos-legup-for-city-veda-research/280908/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Vedic religion

@Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan: Any reason we should retain "historical" in the title? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ehm... Good question. Because the Cedic relgion, in a way, lives on in Hinduism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is to distinguish it from the present day Hinduism. Pinging Dbachmann. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Beckwith

I've re-inserted Beckwith's statement on the influence of the BMAC on the old-Indic religion. Beckwith writes:

The most influential of the new dialects was Proto-Indo-Iranian, the speakers of which appear to have been influenced linguistically by a non-Indo-Eoropean people from whom the Indo-Iranians borrowed their distinctive religious beleifs and practices. The locus of this convergence is increasingly thought to have been the area of the advanced, non-Indo-European-speaking Bactria-Margiana culture.

Anthony further explains these influences. In Endnote 33, Beckwith refers to Witzel (2003), Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: please add the Beckwith and other ref details to the reflist. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean, as a note? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean here, so that if we click we don't get a harv error, instead we see the cite details of Beckwith and other sources, then locate and read the context etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion of the Indo-Aryans

I think that

...was the religion of the Indo-Aryans in ancient India during the Vedic period (~1500-500 BCE).

is incorect. The Vedas were created by a subset of Indo-Aryans, and not all Indo-Aryans adhered to this specific Indo-Aryan tradition. I'll have to look for sources, but Kuz'mina (p.319) argued that the Swat-people were Aryans, but with a culture/relgion which was different from the Vedic Aryans. Bronkhorst argued that the Buddha lived in an Aryan area where the Vedic religion was met with opposition. And Witzel probably also argues that not all Aryans were Vedic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Let us avoid too many details in the lead and primary sources. I reworded the lead para a bit. Please feel free to revise and improve it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

How about "was the predominant religion of the Indo-Aryans"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Sramana

@Ms Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan:, in the Sramana section, it seems like something needs to be said about Sramanas in Hinduism, Vedic or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sramana in Hinduism is an anachronism, I think; but the Vedic influences are implicitly mentioned, aren't they? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Calling it an anachronism would be going a bit too far, but yes the term sramana generally refers to those Indian religious traditions that rejected the Vedas. Perhaps, Kautilya3's comment is about clarifying the Hindu traditions who questioned/rejected some or all of the Vedas such as the materialists (who became extinct). Further, the terms "sramana, yati, parivrajaka, bhikshu, sannyasi, sadhu, etc" are all fluent in and discussed within Vedic context in the early Hindu texts, particularly in the Sannyasa Upanishads and related literature. Galvin Flood does mention this somewhere in his An Introduction to Hinduism in the Hindu ascetics / renunciation-related discussion. Kautilya3, therefore, has a point. This and other related articles would be improved if something is said to summarize the overlap, the shared elements, and the differences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We're quoting Encyclopaedia Brittanica in a lead on Vedic Religion?

Quaint, really...

It is 2019, last I checked. Perhaps we can dig a little deeper than one of the great obsolete bastions of colonial thinking.

cheers

184.69.174.194 (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism sidebar

Wojsław Brożyna removed the Hinduism-sidebar twice, with the argument diff modern stuff has nothing to do with ancient religion. It doesn't make sense; the Hsitrorical Vedic religion is one of the ancestors of present-day Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent DNA studies and archeological finds 2018-2020 need to be included in "Historical Vedic religion"

This is my first comment regarding the accuracy of any Wikipedia article. My attention has been drawn to the popularizing of the Aryan Migration Theory as it stands in contrast to more recent scientific data.

The September 5, 2019 publication of "Largest-ever ancient-DNA study illuminates millennia of South and Central Asian prehistory"(1) by renowned genetic researcher David Reich indicates that Indus Valley culture and genetic populations are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, quote: "We can rule out a large-scale spread of farmers with Anatolian roots into South Asia, the centerpiece of the 'Anatolian hypothesis' that such movement brought farming and Indo-European languages into the region," said Reich, who is also an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Broad Institute. "Since no substantial movements of people occurred, this is checkmate for the Anatolian hypothesis."

This research is supported by independent Indian geneticist Dr Gyaneswar Chaubey(2)(3), Delhi University, who in September 2019 cited the Aryan Migration Theory as now being erroneous and out-dated by recent scientific data.

Also in September 2019, Dr Sanjay Kumar Manjul(4)(5), renowned archaeologist from Archaeological Survey of India, lectured about his recent findings of the horse chariot at Sanauli, Haryana, India, which dated back before the "Vedic period" and who has discovered the oldest metal helmet in the world. The 4,000 year old horse-drawn war chariot and weapons were found in a ruling class burial site belonging to an advanced indigenous culture of the Mahabharata-War region of North India 7km from the Ganges River.

New scientific evidence calls for a re-investigation and update of this Wikipedia listing about the "Historical Vedic Religion".

(1) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190905145348.htm
(2) https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VYn4LGsAAAAJ&hl=en
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_eFmLSMb4
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinauli
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU5SMcKePp0

Soolaba (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the sources you are citing. They do not contradict the Aryan migration theory at all. The Indus valley peoples are not held to have migrated from Anatolia, but the Indus valley peoples are not the ones among whom Vedic religion originated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No wonder IAmt keeps being "debunked" again and again: an epic misreading of sources.

• 1 - Narasimhan et al (2018/2019) explicitly confirms the IAmt; it rejects the Anatolian hypothesis, which argued that (proto-)IE spread with the advance of farming
• 2 - which study co-authored by Chaubey?
• 3 - Infinity Foundation, absolutely not WP:RS
• 4 - Sinauli says bronze helmets
• 5 - Bharat Patriot Foundation, need we say more?

Narasimhan is WP:RS; Chaubey seems to have contributed tp WP:RS; the rest is in the same category as alien sightings and the like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaubey qualifies as a reliable source, but he has recently (2018) co-authored a peer-reviewed paper supporting the Steppe hypothesis, so he wouldn't be of great help to support the Out of India theory. Alcaios (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

These sentences in the lead section of the article is disputed for non-neutral point of view:

The Vedic religion developed during the early Vedic period (1500–1100 BCE), but has roots in the Eurasian steppe Sintashta culture (2200–1800 BCE) and the subsequent Central Asian Andronovo culture (2000–900 BCE), and possibly also the Indus Valley Civilisation (2600–1900 BCE). It was a composite of the religion of the Central Asian Indo-Aryans, itself "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements", which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices" from the Bactria–Margiana culture; and the remnants of the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley.

Max Muller who introduced the term "Indo-Aryan" mentioned:

I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans Germans, Celts and Slaves. When I speak of them I commit myself to no anatomical characteristics. The blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slaves; and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. .. To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.

The Concept of Indo-European language family had been articulated by Sir William Jones in 1786 as a group of related languages consisting of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Gothic, Celtic and Old Persian, co-descended from a lost ancestral language, although he did not give this language family a name. The "original stock" that spoke the ancestral language he simply called the Indian or Hindu. Friedrich Max Muller who took the word Arya and applied it to the family of languages now called Indo-European and the peoples speaking them

They are called Indo-European because the language which they are supposed to have spoken was precursor of some of the main languages which are now spoken in India (Indo-) and Europe (-European). For reasons that are not too clear, these tribes started spilling over into areas on their borders along a wide arc extending from Asia Minor to Afghanistan. They moved into Greece, made an impact on the Middle East, moved into what is now Iran and Pakistan. When they moved into Indian subcontinent they did something they did not do elsewhere. They started keeping a record of their religious experience in India -- from 1500 BCE onwards, when they are generally believed to have entered India

The idea of mass migration from the north has fallen out of favour among scholars not only because it has become so politicized, but also because archaeologists have realized that major cultural shifts in the archaeological record do not always imply major migrations.

The discovery of Indus civilization challenged three major hasty conclusions of Western scholars namely, (1) the writing system was borrowed from the Iranians (2) the date of Rigveda is 1500 BCE and (3) the Aryans came from elsewhere in India

European racists, including Nazis, were drawn to the idea of an invasion of India in which the dark-skinned inhabitants were subdued by light-skinned warriors related to northern Europeans, who imposed on them a hierarchical caste system that forbade intermarriage across groups. [...] Some placed ancestral homeland of the Indo-Aryans in northeast Europe, including Germany. They also adopted features of Vedic mythology as their own, calling themselves Aryans after the term in the Rig Veda, and appropriating swastika, a traditional hindu symbol of good fortune.

The present classification of Indo-European Languages was carried out during 19th century. In the light of increased knowledge and awareness in hitherto unknown areas, post internet information explosion, there appears to be an urgent need to revisit the existing Indo-European language classification. I am of the view that the original classifications were carried out during an era of British colonial power’s dominion over a sizeable population of the globe.

Quoting Swami Vivekananda: According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have say that they came from Central Asia,... Of late there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the (so called) Aryan even came from anywhere outside India

Quoting Dr Ambedkar "The Theory of Aryan invasion is an invention.. [it] is a perversion of scientific imagination. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts, .. The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a considerable hold upon people".

The most archaic Old Indo-Aryan is found in Hindu sacred texts called the Vedas

If the Indo-European tradition was as developed as Rgveda is said to testify, what happened to it in the Greek and Latin sources? Or even simpler, why is it that barring some remote similarities in a few god names, we do not find any similar personal names? I do not know of a single early Vedic name that resembles any Greek personal name. Further if Aryans were an Indo-European clan, how did they come to acquire this literature Rgveda? Since nothing comparable to Rgveda is found in any Indo-European dialects, it is obviously under the local Indian influence that this literature has grown

Western scholars first regarded the Indus Valley culture to be an offshoot from the Middle Eastern, probably Sumerian, though it was much larger in size and better organized. Recent excavations at Mehrgarh show that antecedents of the Indus Valley culture go back earlier than 6000 BCE in India itself, and that it did not develop from an outside influence. If the Indus Valley culture is late Vedic, as the Vedas suggest, such sites as Mehrgarh would reflect the earlier Vedic age of India. The date of Mehrgarh is quite in keeping with the astronomical references we have uncovered in the Vedas. Mehrgarh site also reveals the use of barley as a grain and extensive use of cattle as domesticated animals which is characteristic of Vedic culture

References

-- Updated Jaykul72 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Jaykul72 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? WP:NPOV means that we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories. See also Indo-Aryan migrations#Indigenous Aryans and Indigenous Aryans#Criticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit article hijacked by european nationalists

This article needs to mention

1) saraswati river drying up in 3800 BC which is archaeological/ geological evidence
2) fire altars in kalibangan, rakhigarhi and lothal
3) dates of vedic texts has been disputed by many scholars such as nicholas kazanas, shrikhant telegari, shubhash kak etc
4) it needs to mention that many scholars such as nicholas kazanas opine that zoroastrian religion is an off shoot of vedic religion
5) needs to mention mitanni vedic religion and kassites vedic gods, the pre zoroasterian religion of yazdanism present in iraq and syria and its relation to vedic religion
6) needs to mention the kali yuga and that prominent indian mathematician aryabhatta calculated kali yuga date as 3102 BC which predates the 1500 BC aryan migration notion
7) scholars who have established indus seals with the event of kali yuga.
8) mention that max muller who proposed aryan dating of 1500 BC was a christian evangelist who believed earth was created in 4000 BC

so far i see so many aryanists contribution and editing and this article seem to be exhibiting very aryanist and european nationalist views, it needs to accomodate the second view as well. This article seem to be deliberately destorting and presenting twited one sided european nationalist view of the indian history.

The entire article seems to be propagating aryanist author views, without any evidence of archaeological proofs, where are the views of Mark kenoyer etc on cemetry H culture, cultural and anthropological continuity? and the swat grave culture etc? seems like any contrary views are not being accomodated in this article. where is archaeological evidence that andronovo and sintashta cultures spoke an indo european language since zero inscriptions have been found from the sites? Mark kenoyer also argues that BMAC has no evidence of indo european language presence as well, so how do we conclude in the article that BMAC spoke indo european language?

the article fails to mention one single archaeological evidence which argue that there is cultural continuity, neither anthropological views, neither discovery of bronze chariots from sanauli and horse bones which was discovered by mortimer wheeler and later verified by german scholar who specialised in biological study of the horse who verified that the horse feet discovered from surkotada, the entire article is made on fantasy based contribution of few aryanists like david anthony, michael witzel who are repeatedly quoted every where which concerns indian history.

regardsRameezraja001 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:

• Kazanas, Kak, etc. are definitely not WP:RS;
• Your comparison of Anthony and Witzel with Aryanists is unacceptable, amd need to stop.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Hothead: you're post could be edited 70% and it would say more, with less spittle getting on the reader. "Aryanist"? That's a big assumption. If you have something interesting, then add to the article, but "brevity is the soul of wit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Saraswati drying up 3800BCE is not conclusive. A 2017 studybby London’s Imperial College and the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur says In the paleo channel identified as Saraswati had an active mighty river as late as just 1600 years ago: Hindustan Times (Nov 29, 2017), New study challenges existence of Saraswati river, says it was Sutlej’s old course. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Who on the Earth told you that "chariot" were vedic? Chariots were not vedic horse driven chariots with spoked wheel is Vedic. The Sanauli "chariot" were solid wheels not spoked. Bronze Chariot from Sanauli had no spoked wheels. If you don't know the difference between spoked wheel and solid wheel, please don't spend time here promoting speculations. Horses played an important role in vedic culture and their presence was widespread . There were no wild horse native to India 5000 years and there are no wild horses native to India now. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hindustan Times:

“We showed that there was a mighty river in that channel in Haryana till at least 1600 years ago,” Rai said. “We cannot say that this is the same river that is mentioned in the Vedas.”

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)