This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012.

"The ŚB is notable as one of the oldest prose (non-metrical) Sanskrit texts altogether."

Who said this? Prose texts such as the Aitareya Brahmana and the Pancavimsa Brahmana are considered older by most. If anything, the ŚB is one of the youngest of the "true" Brahmanas (i.e. excluding the Gopatha). There is also a classical controversy going back to a varttika of Katyayana according to which the ŚB is not to be refered to with the -ina.h ending associated with other Brahmanas (as per Panini). IOW, the ŚB was not considered clearly as old as others in its class, and all the Brahmanas happen to be prose. This is discussed in Eggeling's introduction to his translation. I suggest removing this sentence, as unfounded. rudra 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Keith, (in the introduction to his translation of the) Aitareya Aranyaka, p.38, writes: "by common consent, the Satapatha is one of the youngest of the great Brahmanas"; and footnotes: "Cf. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, pp. 203, 217. The Jaiminiya may be younger, cf. its use of aadi, Whitney, P.A.O.S, May 1883, p.xii." rudra 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

this would explain my frequent surprise to find full-fledged Vedanta in an "early" Brahmana... assigning it to the 8th to 6th c. BC seems reasonable. -- dab (𒁳) 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

"""Linguistically, it belongs to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit, dated to the first half of the 1st millennium BCE (Iron Age India)."""""

What is the proof ? Do you mean to say SB is post Arthasastra and Buddha ? Wikipedia should not be used to project some wayward thoughts into making it a fact of history. Srikant Talegari's books have debunked most of the myths about dating Vedic texts. So this should follow the recent accepted facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apexpreci ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Nobody claimed SB was "post-Buddha", or "post-Arthasastra". It may well predate Buddha by more than a century. Srikant Talageri is an autodidact who has published a book with a lunatic fringe publisher. It stops there. He has not "debunked" anything as far as I am aware. -- dab (𒁳) 18:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Talageri is part of a dying cult. He even recently wrote a book to “debunk” Early Indians by Tony Joseph. But fortunately Talageri’s work got only the little attention it deserved ChandlerMinh ( talk) 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shatapatha Brahmana. 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/20140801202320/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b5c_15.pdf to http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b5c_15.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Presence of mathematics, especially of multiplication and division, in SB has been established through the fifteen factors of 720 mentioned in SB 10.4.2.1-18. However, how these factors have been obtained in the absence of a script, place-value system and zero, has not been addressed. Absence of script, and hence of numerical symbols, in Indian subcontinent after the decline of Harappan civilization (1900 BC) until the appearance of Brahmi script in the Ashokan edicts (~300 BC) is well known. Place-value system and the symbol for zero are also later inventions. So, either SB is of an age after these systems came into existence, or if it is from 700 BC or prior to that then the problem with finding factors of 720 has to be addressed. 2600:4040:558C:AC00:38EF:18DF:90D4:1170 ( talk) 14:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Generally the reliability of Indian origin publications regarding Science/mathematics from Vedas and science/mathematics of Ancient India is questionable. The Author who mentioned this doesn't state how he arrived in that conclusion or doesn't state any reliable academic works done on it. For the time being, I am going to remove the citation and sentence until further academic works are brought to bear on the subject. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Kak, SC. "THE SUN'S ORBIT IN THE BRAHMANAS is from the Indian journal of history of science. Reliability on Indian journal of history of science is extensively discussed in the Wikipedia Reliability noticeboard here under the section named Indian journal of history of science. There seems to be a general consensus that this journal is not a reliable source of information for citation. Also, see the guy(Kak, SC) who authored this isn't an expert on the field, he is from Electrical Computer Engineering Department so definitely not qualified to cite him as source. Therefore removing every lines of claims attributed to this unreliable source as per Wikipedia Reliable Sources guidelines. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 19:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The line which is the issue here is this as provided in the article

I.G. Pearce, F. Staal, and D.M. Knipe all agree with Kak, repeating that the number, layering, size, and configuration of bricks to construct sacrificial altars – real and symbolic – as detailed in texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana had numerous rules, ^{[1] [2]}

Pearce isn't endorsing Kak's works by independently verifying Kak's claims as it is evident from his disclaimer here [1] which states My evidence comes primarily from a paper by S Kak, which analyses some of Panini's work, and there is further support from a paper by S Sinha. B Datta and A Singh also give evidence of an early emergence of numerical forms and the decimal place value system.. An author directly quoting another without independently verifying their work isn't at all sufficient for the inclusion of such far fetching claims of pushing dates very further back than the academically widespread agreed upon dates and origins of scientific and mathematical notions such as decimal place value system.

David M. Knipe's Vedic Voices: Intimate Narratives of a Living Andhra Tradition is a work that offers according to the description provided in the Google books …for the first time, an opportunity for them to speak about their lives, ancestral lineages, personal choices as pandits, wives, children, and ways of coping with an avalanche of changes in modern India. He presents a study of four generations of ten families, from those born at the outset of the twentieth century down to their great-grandsons who are just beginning, at the age of seven, the task of memorizing their Veda, the Taittiriya Samhita, a feat that will require eight to twelve years of daily recitations. Profile of Knipe David M. Knipe is as provided here [2] a historian of religions focusing on Hinduism and Vedic studies. He conducted field research in India from 1971 to the present. In 1974 he released Exploring the Religions of South Asia, his educational television series of 15 programs on Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, and Christianity in India. Since 1980 he has concentrated on field studies in the Godavari Delta of Andhra Pradesh.. How could a work by historian of religions who is expounding on a particular culture be a reliable source for endorsing far fetched claims made Kak whose claims comes under the field of mathematics, astronomy and Science? Scientific and mathematical claims requires endorsement or academic agreement from that respective fields.

Except for Pearce, neither Staal nor Knipe specifically mentions any of Kak's works by referring him, so this statement of line which is the issue here directly comes under WP:NOR where the guidelines says If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research

So I am hereby removing the above line which is stated as endorsing Kak, as it falls under Original Research when dispunging citation attributed to Pearce as that alone cannot suffice Kak's claim.

അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply