Talk:Historical Vedic religion

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)

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)

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)