Talk:Rigvedic deities

Article needs improvement

Article is just a list of vedic deities which is excerpted from Griffin's book. Some points need to be corrected also. Article needs total revamp . If needed, please use the works of Indian scholars as well in devising this article and do no just rely on western scholars' work.141.160.26.251 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greek gods with Sanskrit connections

Greek Gods - The Sanskrit Connection. I find it rather interesting in a comparative religious perspective. Komitsuki (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dakshina and Jnanam

I, perhaps most of Indians, do not see Dakshina and Jnanam as being deities. Should we not remove them from the list? How do we counter removal of those names since they exist in Griffin's book? What was the logic that he used to list them as deities? Should we have two lists, one based on Griffin and another based on someone else? I know the answer is removal of those to deities; I just do not know how to go about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wilkn, you need to find other reliable sources of equal stature that disagree. Then we can discuss them and arrive at a WP:BALANCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I read the translation . The word is not even mentioned once in the translation. Will this self contradiction suffice? Further the meaning of the word is exemplified in There is no mention of it being a deity. It is just a verb or the corresponding noun. -- Wilkn (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the Dakshina article mentions it as being deified, you need to discuss it on its talk page. The Jnanam articles doesn't say anything about it. So you can delete the latter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Redirect

@Chariotrider555: There is no point in having an article called Rigvedic deities. By that logic, we can dozens of articles called Gitaic Deities, Ramayanic deities, Mahabharatic deities and dozen others? LearnIndology (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because the Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata all represent the same Itihasa-Puranic tradition of Hinduism, which is the dominant form of the Hindu pantheon. Whereas the Rigvedic deities represent a very different tradition that the later Itihasa-Puranic Hindu tradition. The epics and Puranas represent a much later and different religious tradition than the Rigveda, and while they do use some Rigvedic deities, they are completely changed in character and purpose. The Rigvedic deities (I actually think it would be better to rename this article as Vedic deities) are notable enough in their own tradition and have enough content on them, without later texts demoting their status among the pantheon and changing up their entire mythos. You can see on the pages of many Rigvedic deities that there is a direct contrast about the information from the Vedic tradition and the later Itihasa-Purana tradition. The gods are pretty much completely different, have different family trees, different myths, different personalities, and different views by their adherents. Whereas the Itihasa-Puranic traditions, which is composed of the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas, mainly focuses on Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, the avatars, Karthikeya, Lakshmi, Saraswati. Whereas the old Vedic deities are completely swept under the rug and are barely recognized. However, there is an extensive corpus on them, and they were certainly notable enough to have their own list. It is like how there is a different page for Yahweh and the God in Abrahamic religions. You will also note that there is a completely different page dedicated to the historical Vedic religion. Basically, the Rigvedic deities were part of a pretty much completely different religion than Hinduism, while the Itihasa-Puranic texts are from the same religion. And while Hinduism does affirm the Vedas, that affirmation is merely nominal as the later epics and puranas are pretty much a rejection of non-Upanishad content in the Vedas. To include Rigvedic deities under the banner of Hindu deities would be like redirecting Buddhist deities or Jain deities to Hindu deities. While there is considerable overlap on deities from those religions, they still are very different between those religions and cannot be completely lumped under one banner. While those deities like Buddha can be mentioned as a Vishnu avatar according to Hinduism, it is still important put them in their own category. Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It is very obvious that different traditions were dominant during different time period in the history of Hinduism, but that doesn't make older traditions a different religion. LearnIndology (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Get real. Hinduism is a synthesis of Brahmanical orthodoxy with a broad range of non-Vedic religions, which cam einto existence after 500 BCE; Vedic religion was not Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vedic period

@Joshua Jonathan: Vedic period lasted from 1500BC to 500BC, not the Historical Vedic religion, and the sentence 'These deities were part of the historical Vedic religion, which existed from 1500–500 BCE' is factually incorrect, as these deities are still part of Hinduism. LearnIndology (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

We use the term "historical Vedic religion" for precisely that, the religion of the Vedic people of the vedic period. And the sentence does not say that these deities are not also part of contemporary Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between Historical Vedic religion and Vedic period. The Vedic period includes not only the religion but other political developments as well. It's better to omit the line as it clearly violates WP:NPOV or we have to define the line quite exhaustively.LearnIndology (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see your problem here. How exactly does it violate WP:NPOV? Are there sources which say that these deities were not part of the Vedic religion? Encyclopedia Britannica, Vedic religion:

Vedic religion, also called Vedism, the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 bce [...] When Vedic religion gradually evolved into Hinduism between the 6th and 2nd centuries bce

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't you think it is more informative to rewrite it as

These deities are part of Indian religions

LearnIndology (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No because this article is specifically talking about a certain version of these deities, the Rigvedic way, which was part of a specific religion, the historical Vedic religion aka Vedism aka Brahmanism. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Vedism is part of Indian religions. LearnIndology (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like everybody is fine with inclusion of Indian religions. I shall proceed if no further objection is raised. LearnIndology (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I raise objection, because this page is specifically devoted to a specific pantheon of a specific religion in a specific time period, the historical Vedic religion. There is no need to mention that they were later included as deities in a wide banner of different religions in India. While they feature in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism the article is not about that and it specifically about their role in the Rigvedic religion. Indian religions as a concept didn't exist when these deities were worshipped, it is a classification done by later peoples. Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm npt fine at all with replacing "Vedic religion" with "Indian religions." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Chariotrider555: The concept of Historical Vedic religion never existed either in the past or even today. A regular Hindu will laugh at this concept called "Historical Vedic religion". Now coming to the point, I don't see any reason not to include the Indian religions. When an article is created, its past, present, and future is discussed, whether it is of a religion or a country. In this case, it is quite obvious to mention that they are part of Indian religions, not just Vedism. It seems like you guys are trying to WP:CENSOR information on Wikipedia. LearnIndology (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats exactly right, a "regular Hindu". Wikipedia doesn't value the opinions on random adherents of religions as much as it values the statements of scholars of religion. Scholars have repeatedly stated that the Vedic religion is different from Hinduism. What Hindu sect these days follows the historical Vedic religion? Pretty much none. Hindus don't perform most Vedic rituals, they don't worship the Vedic pantheon, they don't know Vedic mythology, they reject non-Upanishadic Vedic philosophy. Hinduism prescribes things that the Vedas scorn, for example the use of lingams. Hinduism is a synthesis of multiple religions, including the Vedic religion, but in the synthesis it removed pretty much everything from the Vedas out, and Hinduism only nominally affirms the Vedas. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Hinduism is a synthesis of many cultures but not religions. Maybe you aren't a practicing Hindu, but I am. I recite Gayatri mantra (Rig Vedic mantra) every day, I chant the mantra of Mitra every morning. Yajna and Homa are performed periodically in our home. Maybe you don't follow these simple Vedic practices but the majority of Hindus do. And let's look at the 3 most important deities i.e Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma. Shiva is a mix of IVC and Vedic culture, while Brahma and Vishnu being Vedic. And about Lingam, I am proud to follow the culture of the Indus Valley civilization as well. Now please comment on the actual topic. LearnIndology (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)