Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:43, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bhagavad Gita article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Bhagavad Gita was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 18, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted April 10, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2012 Peer review Reviewed September 24, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed October 25, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 30, 2012, and November 30, 2017. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India: Literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Hinduism: Philosophy / Krishnaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Top-importance). Philosophy: Literature / Religion / Eastern / Ancient High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Ancient philosophy Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts Mythology Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Yoga High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

GAR

Bhagavad Gita

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by a peer review before renominating at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I request the re-assessment of the article bhagavad gita, because :

• The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
• The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
• The article, related to a major religious book is relatively less informative and neutral than the other major religious books of the world , like quran,bible or guru granth sahib.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)‎
  • Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is incorrect: भगवद् गीता (bad grammar)

People who haven't learnt संस्कृत वव्याकरणम् (Sanskrit grammar) well enough do this mistake quite often. In English, while one may write as "Bhagavad Gita", while writing in Sanskrit (Devanagari script), one must either write as भगवत् गीता or as भगवद्गीता

The व्यंजन संधि (Vyanjana Sandhi) in Sanskrit works like these:

• जगत् + ईश = जगदीश (see how letter त becomes द)
• भगवत् + भक्ति = भगवद्भक्ति (see how letter त becomes द)

The term भगवद् written independently is incorrect.

Vaishnavism

Happy to see you more contribution on Bhagavad Gita, however it's sacred text for Vaishnavism and Vishnu devotee. Please add Religious significance of Bhagavad Gita Add sub article text with link.

Here is the link

Gita Mahatyam https://bharatabharati.in/the-myth-of-saint-thomas-and-the-mylapore-shiva-temple-2010-ishwar-sharan/bhagavad-gita-mahatmya/ @Joshua Jonathan Keshava Kumar (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Keshava Kumar. You made two series of edits to the article. First you added diff this to the lead:

References

1. Eknath Easwaran (2007). The Bhagavad Gita: (Classics of Indian Spirituality). Nilgiri Press. pp. 21–59. ISBN 978-1-58638-019-9.

References

Then you added diff a new subsection, "Significance of Bhagavad Gita," with a lengthy quote from the Varaha Purana.

Some comments on your edits:

• The lead already says "Gita is a central text in the Vaishnava Hindu tradition"; additional statements like this would need a good reason
• Where exactly does Easwaran's introduction state this? It may be relevant, but should first be added to the body of the article;
• There already is a section Bhagavad Gita#Vedanta, which states "It forms a central text in the Vaishnava tradition.." An additional section on the same topic is unnecessary;
• the quote from the Varaha Purana may be interesting, but it is a WP:PRIMARY source; we don't interpret primary sources. Nor do we add lengthy quotes, per WP:QUOTEFARM. This quote would be more relevant when a scholarly source uses it, to argue that the Gita took on a significance on it's own as a kind of mantra.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added a line on the Gita Mahatmya diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Gita and war

QuillThrills: regarding this removal diff, appealing to MOS:TERRORIST, which removed

Narla compares the Krishna of the Gita with a "modern-day terrorist", who uses theology to excuse violence.<ref>V. R. Narla (2010), The Truth About the Gita, pp. 142-148.

(and left part of the reference), MOS:WTW says " The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources." Kindly request to self-revert, and stop your WP:CENSOR. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if my edits were assumed in good faith prior to accusations of censorship. I would maintain that the most appropriate course would still involve to altogether remove Rao based on his medium relevance and lack of expertise on the topic of the page. But before I jump to any change, I would prefer to discuss.

I appreciate your clarification that Misplaced Pages:WTW does not apply to direct quotes. But my initial edit to remove Narla Venkateswara Rao from the Bhagawad Gita were based on the following lines of reasoning:

1. Extreme Minority Viewpoint + Undue Weight: Rao's comparison of Krishna to a "modern-day terrorist" is a rare perspective not supported by mainstream scholarship or even a significant minority that you could easily name prominent figures for, consistent with an application of Misplaced Pages:Undue weight. In good faith, I performed a quick literature search to see if this viewpoint comes up often among scholarly critics of the Gita. I only came up with a single piece by someone relatively unknown named Kedar Joshi https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228172355_The_Satanic_Verses_of_Bhagavad-Gita, which I believe is insufficient in quantity and quality to elevate the viewpoint - a contentious and direct comparison of Krishna to a modern-day terrorist - to the status of a significant minority view rather than an extremely small minority.
2. Even if you do believe this is a significant minority viewpoint, we should be able to agree the inclusion of Rao's quote is of Misplaced Pages:Relevance Medium relevance: "example is any substantially disputed characterization or opinion about the topic because it is info about somebody's opinion about John Smith rather than direct objective information about him." Misplaced Pages maintains that medium relevance topics are subject to "a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as neutrality, weight and strength and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion."

So again, in good faith, I have done some groundwork on applying the higher level of scrutiny to Rao as a source in general and also more specifically, his book which was cited 3-4 times in a paragraph of its own prior to my edits.

2a. WP:SCHOLARSHIP of Author: Narla Venkateswara Rao is a politician and a journalist. Per Misplaced Pages:RSEDITORIAL, a specialist or expert is more likely to reflect a significant viewpoint. Rao is not known as an authority, scholar, or part of any rigorous academic discourse on the Gita to indicate his status as an expert. Here I would also submit that prominence of the author in other fields (eg as a journalist, rationalist, or politician) does not lend expertise to any subject within the purview of their personal interests. Such a leap is particularly problematic and liable to WP:BIAS when made by political figures, rather than scholars (historians, indologists, philosophers, theologians etc.) when commenting on religion. To understand this point, it may help to consider whether serious editors and readers of Misplaced Pages would accept direct quotes from journalist and political commentator Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)'s book Killing Jesus as an expert opinion on the encyclopedic article, Crucifixion of Jesus. While O'Reilly and Rao both may have tried to remain rigorous in their approaches, they were both ultimately writing books not as subject experts, but out of a personal interest in the absence of peer review or significant editorial oversight.

2b. Source Reliability (Rao's book): The Truth about the Gita: A Closer Look at Hindu Scripture has been cited a total of 2 times on Google Scholar. It is not a university-level textbook. It has not been vetted by the scholarly community.

2c. Publisher: The publisher of The Truth about the Gita: A Closer Look at Hindu Scripture is not associated with any university, nor is it considered a respected publishing house (See Prometheus Books' multiple lawsuits related to libel). QuillThrills (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll give a longer response later, but regarding 2c, lawsuits: that's a non-argument. Uri Geller, a charlatan, lost the lawsuit; that's rather an endorsement of the publisher. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the section is not the Gita sec, but opinions on the Gita's glorification of war and duty. The section repeatedly explains that the Gita inspired terrorism, for example

The teachings of the Gita on ahimsa are ambiguous, states Arvind Sharma, and this is best exemplified by the fact that Nathuram Godse stated the Gita as his inspiration to do his dharma after he assassinated Mahatma Gandhi.

So, Rao's opinion is not that utlandish. Personally, it reminds me of "befehl ist befehl," and there is a painfull analogy with Harada Daiun Sogaku, who famously stated:

march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom . The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war .

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can quote anything while doing anything. Although I am extremely against any type of censoring, the term 'terrorist' that you are trying to push is not only extremely fringe/borderline unique but also politically motivated. Better to add a section on 'political criticism'—then maybe your addition would be justified ( But wud still need better sources using that term). The article is already filled with views of political figures like Ambedkar, who went on to invent his own version of Buddhism later, criticizing all other forms of Buddhism too. It’s also funny that you merged the entire 'influence of the Bhagavad Gita' page while removing all the positive influences it had on various figures, expanding instead on the criticism part. You deleted all other quotes as quote farms, and here you are trying to push an exceptionally fringe quote from some non-specialist. I guess if only the Theravada Buddhists of Myanmar read the Bhagavad Gita, the genocide of Rohingya Muslims by them to 'save their country' would not have been so brutal, immoral, and inhuman.

I do hope you will come to an understanding. Otherwise, continue... who can stop you? I'm out of this page! DangalOh (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Some people turn an oppressive ideology into a socalled spiritually 'truth'; Ambedkar was quite aware of that. Quotes can be stored at Wikiquote, not here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Joshua, it's unfortunate that you think that way about Hindu scriptures. You are entitled to your opinion, as was Ambedkar. If you had bothered to research more about Ambedkar, you might have known his views on other religions as well. If I start quoting what he thought of other religions, it might violate various Misplaced Pages policies. In any case, I hope it's clear to everyone reading that your edits on India and Hindu-related pages are rarely made in good faith. Your premise is clear. End of discussion from my side. It's not worth my time. I have no more cents to give. DangalOh (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis

Joshua Jonathan: regarding undoing this revision diff, you did address my concern about the term non-brahmanical being confusing to an average reader and not being present in the sources. However, you replaced it with the term "sramanic" which is also just as confusing to the average reader and also does not make an appearance in the sources listed. The fact that it takes a SYNTHESIS of 4 sources to provide references to this idea of the Gita being a synthesis of vedic/sramanic or brahmanical/non-brahmanical concepts clearly has required an active process on your part to build an original argument WP:OR. All to make a distinction that does not show up in and of itself fully in any of the sources alone.
Misplaced Pages WP:SYNTH is CLEAR on this: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Let's break it down:
Synthesis of Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical traditions:

• Minor (1986, pp. 74–75, 81) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFMinor1986 (help) states that the Gita is "more clearly defined as a synthesis of Vedanta, Yoga and Samkhya" philosophies.

Excellent quote. But Minor doesn't distinguish brahmanical and non-brahmanical. Also Minor doesn't make a distinction between vedic and sramanic. The idea of labeling Yoga and Samkhya as purely sramanic or non-brahmanical concepts isn't represented in Minor's text

• According to the Gita translator Radhakrishnan, quoted in a review by Robinson, Krishna's discourse is a "comprehensive synthesis" that inclusively unifies the competing strands of Hindu thought such as "Vedic ritual, Upanishadic wisdom, devotional theism and philosophical insight" (Robinson 2006, p. 95) harv error: no target: CITEREFRobinson2006 (help).

Robinson uses the word synthesis, but doesn't make any distinction or argument about brahmanical and non-brahmanical or vedic and sramanic. She also doesn't make any leap in connecting devotional theism and philosophical insight as such to refer to sramanic or non-brahmanical

• According to Cornille (2006, p. 2) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFCornille2006 (help), the Gita presents the main beliefs of Hinduism, stressing upon the importance of detachment, duty, prevalence of gunas, difference between body and immortal soul, and its transmigration .

Still no idea of the Gita coming together as a synthesis of brahmanical and non-brahmanical or vedic and sramanic.

• According to Raju (1992, p. 211) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRaju1992 (help), the Bhagavad Gita is a great synthesis of impersonal spiritual monism with personal God, of "the yoga of action with the yoga of transcendence of action, and these again with the yogas of devotion and knowledge" .

Uses the word synthesis. Does not distinguish any individual concept or yoga as specifically being non-brahmanical or sramanic.

• Aurobindo described the text as a synthesis of various Yogas.

Uses the word synthesis. Does not categorize the yogas using the terminology you argue for

Even if you bring forth sources that label some of these concepts as non-brahmanic or sramanic, the problem remains that you are building an original argument UNLESS there is a reliable source that explicitly and WHOLLY states the Gita together as a synthesis of brahmanical / non-brahmanical strands of thought or Vedic / Sramanic strands of thought. Even then, unless the source is widely accepted, it does not belong in the lead as an essential aspect, but rather an interpretation or theory.
We are here to give people established ideas, theories, interpretations and truly "essential" aspects of the topic that are stated explicitly within the literature, not to synthesize our own arguments, however strong they might seem.
Lastly, let's not overthink WP:LEAD's recommendations to answer two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
The keyword is NONSPECIALIST. To a non-specialist, the following introduction answers these questions:
WHAT: The Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture, dated to the second or first century BCE, which forms part of the Epic Mahabharata...
WHY NOTABLE: It holds a unique pan-Hindu influence as the most prominent sacred text. It is a central text in Vedanta and the Vaishnava Hindu tradition.
That's all you need in a nutshell for a NONSPECIALIST explanation that is accessible to the average reader. Certainly not a complex 4-source synthesis that comprises an original argument attempting to delineate or specifically label the strands of thought from which the Gita supposedly sprang. I will remove the distinction you made and kindly ask you not add it back into the lead without proper rebuttal here. QuillThrills (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• " It is a Brahmanical text which uses Shramanic and Yogic terminology to propagate the Brahmanic idea of living according to one's duty or dharma, in contrast to the ascetic ideal of liberation by avoiding all karma."
• "According to Deutsch & Dalvi (2004, pp. 61–62), the authors of the Bhagavad Gita must have seen the appeal of the soteriologies found in "the heterodox traditions of Buddhism and Jainism" as well as those found in "the orthodox Hindu traditions of Samkhya and Yoga." The Gita attempts to present a harmonious, universalist answer."

See also Bhagavad Gita#Neo-Vedanta and yoga, which thtreats the three or four yogas mentioned in many treatments of the Bhagavad Gita. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And: see Yoga#Origins, for the non-Vedic origins of yoga and related sramanic traditions; see Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, and Johannes Bronkhorst, Greater Magadha, for the distinction between western Ganges basin based Vedic orthodoxy, with it's household-life centered ritualism and dharma, and the eastern Ganges basin based sramanic traditiins, with yoga and samkhya, rejecting Vedic ritualism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua that it’s a synthesis of Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical concepts. However, there are some points to consider:

1.) There is a significant difference between non-Brahmanical and non-Vedic.

2.) Sāṃkhya is 100% a Vedic, orthodox school. All six orthodox schools, by definition, are Vedic. Even if a school rejects rituals, that doesn’t make it non-Vedic. It would simply be called non-ritualistic or non-Brahmanical. Brahmanism is just one development (the oldest) from the Vedas, but not the only one.

3.) Someone is extremely delusional and deliberately engaging in intellectual fraud if they think Buddhism, Jainism, etc., would have existed without the Vedas or Upaniṣads. The very concept of dharma is Vedic, not to mention other concepts borrowed from the Upaniṣads by so-called Śramaṇa traditions, which, in turn, also influenced some later schools of Hinduism. These traditions are so interconnected that it’s almost impossible to label them as alien to each other. 'Post-Vedic' or 'non-Brahmanical' might be the right terms, but not 'non-Vedic.' You can take Vedic and Upanishadic concepts and criticize the Vedas in the name of Brahmanism, but that won’t change the facts. Westerners love to call even the Upaniṣads non-Vedic, as if they are philosophical works derived from the Bible—lol.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong with showcasing the Gita as a synthesis of Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical concepts. As for how to frame it according to the sources, I leave that to you all. DangalOh (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, you're completely right, I think. I'm not sure about Samkhya being 100% Vedic; as a sramanic philosophical view, there may be Vedic influences, but also non-Vedic; as a description of yogic-meditational experience, it's not Vedic/ritual-based. Regarding point three, Jainism and Buddhism do not need the Vedas for their genesis; Buddhism, though, did use Vedic terminology to present it's own worldview and practices (Bronkhorst, if I recall correctly). Neither do they need the Upanishads sec, but Jainism, Buddhism and the Upanishadic authors are definitely related; early Buddhism can easily be recognized as a form of yoga-samkhya. But then, of course, yoga can also be seen as Brahmanical but non-Vedic, since the Upanishads seem to reflect the lifes and practices of Brahmins who rejected Vedic ritualism. And on the other hand, Zimmer, Bronkhorst and Samuel argue for non-Vedic, non-Brahmanical origins of yoga. The basic point is that the Bhagavad Gita deals with the appeal of ascetic movements, paying lipservice to them, but prioritizing (Vedic-Brahmanical) dharma and (non-Vedic) bhakti over border-Brahmanical and non-Brahmanic asceticism. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Vedic influences on Samkhya? What world do you live in? It's an orthodox Hindu school. Please research the Vedic verses on Purusha and Prakriti—you'll find them in all four Vedas. What the hell is 'non-Vedic'? Islam is non-Vedic, Christianity is non-Vedic. You need a different level of delusion to label an orthodox school as non-Vedic. It's just a non-ritualistic school/non-Brahmanical, as I said. Rituals don't define the Vedas. Of course, both Jainism and Buddhism needed the Vedas to even begin. What was being practiced in that society? Do you think people are born ascetics? Do you think there were whole villages of ascetics who never engaged in the process of procreation, possibly causing their extinction? Vedic doesn't mean only ritualistic; Brahmanical means ritualistic. Whoever wrote the Upanishads rejected rituals( not even sure abt tht), not the Vedas. I mean, I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over again. It’s better I start banging my head on the wall—even the wall isn’t this stubborn and self-indulgent. I mean, listen to yourself: 'It can be considered Brahmanical but non-Vedic.' Is Brahmanism non-Vedic? I mean, I even agreed with you earlier, but you went on to change your stance just to prove me wrong or to make a point against me. Are you doing this on purpose? Whatever I suggest, do you just want to oppose it? What is wrong with you, man? You need help. I can’t help you. Do whatever you want. DangalOh (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Better quote whole sentence: yoga can also be seen as Brahmanical but non-Vedic, since the Upanishads seem to reflect the lifes and practices of Brahmins who rejected Vedic ritualism. And what did you miss in the point that numerous authors have argued that yoga has non-Brahmaniv/Vedic/Aryan origins? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ufff... those who reject ritualism don’t become non-Vedic. Also, just because something is made or written by Brahmins doesn’t mean it’s 'Brahmanical.' Brahmanical just means following the ritualism (set by Brahmins). The Upanishads are philosophical works on the Vedas, and many rituals trace back to the Upanishads too. Oh my God. Even after explaining everything, if you are stuck in your thought process and can’t distinguish between Brahmanical, Vedic, Post-Vedic, and non-Vedic, then so be it. I don’t care about the faithful Western authors who can’t even differentiate between these terms. They can argue whatever they want. There are many who argue otherwise, but I don’t know why you want to push a certain viewpoint. For many, Hinduism starts in the 1st century AD, and for others, it starts in the 19th century. Of course, you will find all sorts of sources for any point of view you want to push in Hindu-related pages. That’s the beauty of it, lol. If that is your aim, then do it. I really thought you wanted to learn, but I was wrong. Anyway, good day. I won’t let it ruin my Sunday. DangalOh (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

'Scholars' vs. 'Some scholars' Input Needed

Within the authorship section, there is a statement that is written with the connotation that all scholars believe Vyasa to be a mythical author. I have attempted to add attribution to the sentence (as suggested by Asteramellus). However, there is one user Joshua Jonathan who believes it is POV-pushing. For the record I have no POV push here, but simply trying to make it clear for any reader that this is not a scholarly consensus but a belief of a few scholars.

I would like to ask folks who have been editing here for their input and what their thoughts on this. Qalb alasid (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to read up WP:WEASEL. "Some scholars" is utterly meaningless. If you think that statement does not reflect the academic consensus then you NEED to bring up sources that challenge it. Adding weasel words will not help.CharlesWain (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qalb alasid: thank you for opening a thread; I hadn't been able yet to do so.

"Some scholars" implies that most scholars think that Vyasa was an historical person; obviously, this is not what most scholars think, as reflected in the references for the statement for "mythical or symbolical," and as reflected in the text of the article, which clearly states that the Mahabharata etc. did not have a single author; that the texts attributed to Vasya are separate in time with centuries, and even millennia; and that "Vasya" is not just a name, but also a title, used for multiple authors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan yes that is a very good point. Also, I think want to clarify from what I have read, for vedas, as stated, Vyasa is considered "compiler" "into four texts" (from Vyasa article lead) and not "author". And for Mahabharata/Gita and Puranas, Vyasa is traditionally considered author, but over years I think traditions also accept that it got revised as oral texts got passed on and then got into written form over centuries by multiple authors and now modern scholars have identified reasons for why there think there are multiple authors (and identify them with "Vyasa" as a title). Asteramellus (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qalb alasid You had raised a point and given differences between scholars, I thought attribution or further talk discussion might help. I often see attribution used in Hinduism related pages - e.g. see Hinduism page - there are many "According to" and "Some". But often talk discussions happen around such changes, and that's why I had also suggested talk discussion. e.g. see the last few edits resulting after this (maybe very minor) recent attribution.

However, just want to mention here that along with the complexity of various traditions and views from each of those traditions, and then bringing in oral texts and their authorship and dating etc adds even more complexity, and then including all that in few sentences is even more complex to satisfy all the readers. It is very difficult to firmly say one side or other around many of the hindu texts because there is such a contrast in scholarship - e.g. some consider Vedas and Upanishads as Apaurusheya and others have various dating for them.

Regarding this section of "Authorship" it does have some sort of attributions for most of the content. e.g. "In the Indian tradition", "According to Alexus McLeod" - so without attribution, as you mentioned, the paragraph being discussed may not be giving clarity to a reader. But, I think it is ok to not have "some" or attribution because first paragraph sort of explains the alternate view first. Asteramellus (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, reading more on this page, it does have some "somes"/others..e.g. In Raja yoga - meditation section, it uses "Some scholars treat the", "Some, such as Adi Shankara", "Others consider". Just a suggestion - maybe the "Indian tradition" paragraph and this paragraph can be combined to flow like the way this Raja Yoga section flows? Asteramellus (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain - sure I'll look into it. It seems like consensus is okay with keeping the statement as is. If I do find sources which refute the claim, I will revisit this. Thank you all. Qalb alasid (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• B-Class Indian literature articles
• Top-importance Indian literature articles
• B-Class Indian literature articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian literature articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Top-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Hindu philosophy articles
• Top-importance Hindu philosophy articles
• B-Class Krishnaism articles
• Top-importance Krishnaism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosophical literature articles
• High-importance philosophical literature articles
• Philosophical literature task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• B-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• High-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• B-Class Ancient philosophy articles
• High-importance Ancient philosophy articles
• Ancient philosophy task force articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Top-importance Mythology articles
• B-Class Yoga articles
• High-importance Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles