![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Namaste Buddhipriya, I'm certainly far from a vandal as one can see from my editing history. Rather, I try to add a helpful and often significantly voluminous content. On the other hand, your history shows mainly reverts and minor changes. If that's your specialty, no problem with me but kindly give a _criteria_ by which you consider my contribution to Yajurveda 'bizzare' other than your subjective feelings. If you're not a hindu (on your talk page you say next to nothing about your spiritual affiliation or an academic background although from your comments on Narada Bhakti Sutra talkpage it seems you could be a smarta or an advaitist), let me note that these quotes are becoming a serious problem since they are used to misinterpret and denigrate Vedas and to convert its followers to Islam. This should be a concern for any genuine followers of Vedas, whichever sampradaya they belong to. I hope this short clarification is enough for now. I may elaborate on request. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 ( talk) 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
I second Buddhipriya's action, but the lack of sources is a minor point. Even if they were sourced, Islamic misunderstandings of Vedic texts are at best a tangential subject here. Start a separate page for that if you like. (After registering, of course. Your explanation of changing IPs doesn't hold water - registering is the way to avoid that problem.) rudra 05:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
the problem is indeed not that you are unregistered, but the quality of your additions, which seem to be some sort of confused opinion piece. If there is a controversy over the interpretation of specific verses, by all means give us a sourced discussion of it, do not just add claims of alleged "mistranslations" of "Muslim scholars" without saying who claimed what in which context. Since your mistranslations are mistranslations, it is otherwise unclear why we should give them at all, or why we are discussing these verses in particular. Anyone can look up the Keith translation of any verse by following the external link. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Difference between two translations is not an opinion but a fact, in this case blatant. The sources were given in the first edit (reposted below) and the standard translation from sacred-texts.com (not mine) was also given. Find a better one if you don't like it. Sure, anyone can look up anything but it should be mentioned that there are certain verses abused for nefarious purposes. If that requires a separate article (and I don't see why it should), let there be such an article.
Misquoted Yajur Veda texts
Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"
Yajur Veda 40:8: "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are in darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the created things."
source: http://www.islamherald.com/asp/explore/dawah/booklet_on_dawah.asp
"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakriti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, BUT THOSE WHO WORSHIP VISIBLE THINGS BORN OF THE PRAKRITI, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." -- Yajur Veda 40:9.
This is merely further confirmed in yet another verse:
"The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have NO MATERIAL REPRESENTATION, LIKENESS OR IMAGE." -- Yajur Veda 32:3.
source: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1033
In this way these texts are quoted by Muslim scholars but their real meaning is different:
Sukla Yajur Veda
32.3: na tasya pratima asti - There is nothing to compare with That.
40.8 (Isa Upanisad):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01243.htm
He (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.
40.9 All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.
A minimalist proposed edit:
Certain Muslims scholars promote translations of Yajur Veda, e.g. 32:3, 40:8 [1] and 40:9 [2], significantly different from standard translations. [3]
That's all. --Jan, using four tildes: 82.208.2.214 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a brief mention on
Hinduism_and_other_religions#Hinduism_and_Islam? Otherwise, I don't see any relevance here. I mean, we are discussing a "Booklet On Dawah to the World" by one Br. Sabeel Ahmad published on www.islamherald.com, that hardly belongs on our
Yajurveda article.
dab
(𒁳) 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the order of placement of the Black v/s White Yajur Veda. The former is written first and the later is know to be written by a Rishi much later.
I've check this at multiple locations all said the same. Kindly research and consider adding the details about the same.
I've found various sources saying that the Black Yajur Veda was taught by a Guru to his Pupil and later the Pupil was disregarded by the Guru and asked to Leave. The Pupil after penance got the new Yajur Veda from Lord Surya. I've seen this story almost every where. I will quote books telling the same.
An online version of the same Black White Yajur. It is a must that the chronology of the New Yajur Veda be mentioned as It will give important facts for the researchers to study on. BalanceRestored 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a postfix OLD and NEW to the titles for visitors to understand that the White yajurveda was created later. Kindly comment about the same. BalanceRestored 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Kindly provide the exact citations for the same. BalanceRestored 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Daya Krishna, in his book "Indian Philosophy - A Counter-Perspective" raises some pertinent questions regarding the status of the black and the white yajurveda.
"First, there is no such thing as the Yajurveda. We have either the Krsna Yajurveda or the Sukla Yajurveda. These are not treated as
sakhas of the Yajurveda, but if one were to do so one would have to point to some Mula Yajurveda of which they were the sakhas. And
there is no such Yajurveda extant at present. But do we, then, have a Krsna Yajurveda or a Sukla Yajurveda? As far as I know, there is no such thing either. What we have is the Taittiriya Samhita and the Kathaka Samhita, the Kapisthala Samhita, and the Maitrayani Samhita. These are all supposed to be sakhas of the Krsna Yajurveda, but then where is the Krsna Yajurveda of which these are the sakha?"
He further adds, that on closer examination even the claim these are parallel versions is suspect
"In fact, if we look at the structure of these four Samhitds of the Krsna Yajurveda, they show such variations that it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as sakhas of one and the same Veda. The Taittiriya Samhita is divided into seven Kandas, each further divided into Prapathakas which are then further divided into Anuvakas consisting of Mantras and Brahmanas. The Kathaka Samhita, on the other hand, has no Kandas but only Sthanakas which happen to be forty in number. These are divided into Anuvakas which contain the Mantras. The Kapisthala Samhitd, which also is supposed to belong to the Kathakas, consists of forty-seven chapters containing various sections. The Maitrayani Samhita, on the other hand, consists of only four Kandas containing Prapdthakas which consist of Anuvakas containing Mantras. It is not only that the structure of these texts is different, but also the sequence of the Mantras or even the Anuvakas is different in different Samhitas."
He proceeds to point out more discrepancies (regarding inclusion of certain Khila mantras from the Rc.) which are too technical to present here. All the quotes are from the Chapter Vedic Corpus : Some questions.
I think it deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.164.59 ( talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Yajurveda. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
How is any part of Max Mueller still there in Wikipedia when it is widely known he deliberately MISTRANSLATED with HORRIFIC opposites of what's written? Doveranalyst ( talk) 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yajurveda translation is wrong 2401:4900:41D4:9FA1:CE3E:CB:1BB3:5FA8 ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Namaste Buddhipriya, I'm certainly far from a vandal as one can see from my editing history. Rather, I try to add a helpful and often significantly voluminous content. On the other hand, your history shows mainly reverts and minor changes. If that's your specialty, no problem with me but kindly give a _criteria_ by which you consider my contribution to Yajurveda 'bizzare' other than your subjective feelings. If you're not a hindu (on your talk page you say next to nothing about your spiritual affiliation or an academic background although from your comments on Narada Bhakti Sutra talkpage it seems you could be a smarta or an advaitist), let me note that these quotes are becoming a serious problem since they are used to misinterpret and denigrate Vedas and to convert its followers to Islam. This should be a concern for any genuine followers of Vedas, whichever sampradaya they belong to. I hope this short clarification is enough for now. I may elaborate on request. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 ( talk) 09:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
I second Buddhipriya's action, but the lack of sources is a minor point. Even if they were sourced, Islamic misunderstandings of Vedic texts are at best a tangential subject here. Start a separate page for that if you like. (After registering, of course. Your explanation of changing IPs doesn't hold water - registering is the way to avoid that problem.) rudra 05:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
the problem is indeed not that you are unregistered, but the quality of your additions, which seem to be some sort of confused opinion piece. If there is a controversy over the interpretation of specific verses, by all means give us a sourced discussion of it, do not just add claims of alleged "mistranslations" of "Muslim scholars" without saying who claimed what in which context. Since your mistranslations are mistranslations, it is otherwise unclear why we should give them at all, or why we are discussing these verses in particular. Anyone can look up the Keith translation of any verse by following the external link. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Difference between two translations is not an opinion but a fact, in this case blatant. The sources were given in the first edit (reposted below) and the standard translation from sacred-texts.com (not mine) was also given. Find a better one if you don't like it. Sure, anyone can look up anything but it should be mentioned that there are certain verses abused for nefarious purposes. If that requires a separate article (and I don't see why it should), let there be such an article.
Misquoted Yajur Veda texts
Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"
Yajur Veda 40:8: "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are in darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the created things."
source: http://www.islamherald.com/asp/explore/dawah/booklet_on_dawah.asp
"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakriti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, BUT THOSE WHO WORSHIP VISIBLE THINGS BORN OF THE PRAKRITI, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." -- Yajur Veda 40:9.
This is merely further confirmed in yet another verse:
"The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have NO MATERIAL REPRESENTATION, LIKENESS OR IMAGE." -- Yajur Veda 32:3.
source: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1033
In this way these texts are quoted by Muslim scholars but their real meaning is different:
Sukla Yajur Veda
32.3: na tasya pratima asti - There is nothing to compare with That.
40.8 (Isa Upanisad):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01243.htm
He (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.
40.9 All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.
A minimalist proposed edit:
Certain Muslims scholars promote translations of Yajur Veda, e.g. 32:3, 40:8 [1] and 40:9 [2], significantly different from standard translations. [3]
That's all. --Jan, using four tildes: 82.208.2.214 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a brief mention on
Hinduism_and_other_religions#Hinduism_and_Islam? Otherwise, I don't see any relevance here. I mean, we are discussing a "Booklet On Dawah to the World" by one Br. Sabeel Ahmad published on www.islamherald.com, that hardly belongs on our
Yajurveda article.
dab
(𒁳) 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the order of placement of the Black v/s White Yajur Veda. The former is written first and the later is know to be written by a Rishi much later.
I've check this at multiple locations all said the same. Kindly research and consider adding the details about the same.
I've found various sources saying that the Black Yajur Veda was taught by a Guru to his Pupil and later the Pupil was disregarded by the Guru and asked to Leave. The Pupil after penance got the new Yajur Veda from Lord Surya. I've seen this story almost every where. I will quote books telling the same.
An online version of the same Black White Yajur. It is a must that the chronology of the New Yajur Veda be mentioned as It will give important facts for the researchers to study on. BalanceRestored 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a postfix OLD and NEW to the titles for visitors to understand that the White yajurveda was created later. Kindly comment about the same. BalanceRestored 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Kindly provide the exact citations for the same. BalanceRestored 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Daya Krishna, in his book "Indian Philosophy - A Counter-Perspective" raises some pertinent questions regarding the status of the black and the white yajurveda.
"First, there is no such thing as the Yajurveda. We have either the Krsna Yajurveda or the Sukla Yajurveda. These are not treated as
sakhas of the Yajurveda, but if one were to do so one would have to point to some Mula Yajurveda of which they were the sakhas. And
there is no such Yajurveda extant at present. But do we, then, have a Krsna Yajurveda or a Sukla Yajurveda? As far as I know, there is no such thing either. What we have is the Taittiriya Samhita and the Kathaka Samhita, the Kapisthala Samhita, and the Maitrayani Samhita. These are all supposed to be sakhas of the Krsna Yajurveda, but then where is the Krsna Yajurveda of which these are the sakha?"
He further adds, that on closer examination even the claim these are parallel versions is suspect
"In fact, if we look at the structure of these four Samhitds of the Krsna Yajurveda, they show such variations that it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as sakhas of one and the same Veda. The Taittiriya Samhita is divided into seven Kandas, each further divided into Prapathakas which are then further divided into Anuvakas consisting of Mantras and Brahmanas. The Kathaka Samhita, on the other hand, has no Kandas but only Sthanakas which happen to be forty in number. These are divided into Anuvakas which contain the Mantras. The Kapisthala Samhitd, which also is supposed to belong to the Kathakas, consists of forty-seven chapters containing various sections. The Maitrayani Samhita, on the other hand, consists of only four Kandas containing Prapdthakas which consist of Anuvakas containing Mantras. It is not only that the structure of these texts is different, but also the sequence of the Mantras or even the Anuvakas is different in different Samhitas."
He proceeds to point out more discrepancies (regarding inclusion of certain Khila mantras from the Rc.) which are too technical to present here. All the quotes are from the Chapter Vedic Corpus : Some questions.
I think it deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.164.59 ( talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Yajurveda. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
How is any part of Max Mueller still there in Wikipedia when it is widely known he deliberately MISTRANSLATED with HORRIFIC opposites of what's written? Doveranalyst ( talk) 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yajurveda translation is wrong 2401:4900:41D4:9FA1:CE3E:CB:1BB3:5FA8 ( talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)