5 ms·

> And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature. Their being classified a part of the "Vedic" l

by danans 6y ago

> And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature. Their being classified a part of the "Vedic" literature is not borne out by linguistic analysis, even though tradition claims it to be. They post-date the actual Vedas themselves by centuries. The language used in most of them does not contain nearly as much irregularity as the Vedic language nor its pitch accent system - it's on its way to being a refined liturgical language, not a common man's language as the Vedic language was. And the subject matter contained in them reflect that of the elites of a far more settled and stratified society (vs the more nomadic tribal culture of the Vedas). They are no more representative of Hinduism than their contemporary folk traditions, just as St. Augustine is no more representative of Catholicism than folk Catholicism where blessings are sought for mundane topics like health and prosperity. No doubt, both groups of literature are incredible, but to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition.

svat 6y ago
This argument is circular: it is only Western indology that defines “Vedic” as referring to “the actual Vedas” by which it means only the saṃhitā portion of the texts. The traditional Indian understanding of “Veda” is indeed that it includes both mantra (saṃhitā) and brāhṃaṇa — the latter including āraṇyaka and upaniṣad. Yes it's true that sometimes when (say) “Ṛgveda” is mentioned, in that context it may refer only to the ṛk saṃhitā, etc — but the narrow meaning is only contextual; in general one talks of which brāhmaṇa-s / āraṇyaka-s / upaniṣad-s belong to which Veda, etc. More generally the Vedāṅgas are also considered part of the Veda, etc. When Pāṇini (whom you allude to in one of the replies here) distinguishes the older language, he uses terms like “chandasi” not "in the Vedas”. Even today when a certain practice or person is called “Vaidika” obviously it doesn't mean a certain time period, belonging to several centuries BCE. Ultimately, to consider linguistic analysis relevant to the definition of “Vedic” and to say “to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition” is simply saying “let's make up a definition of ‘Vedic’ different from the traditional definition, under which the traditional definition can be termed incorrect” — no traditional scholar thinks of “Vedic” as referring to “the Vedic language” as referring to the language of the saṃhitās. Edit: I have a theory for how this state of affairs came about: Western interest in Sanskrit texts took off in a big way after William Jones's (much-quoted) pronouncement of the relation between Sanskrit and Persian and Greek and Latin. So the interest started with linguists and philologists, who were naturally more interested in the oldest texts / the texts whose language was closest to the rest of the Indo-European family, and that has become the frame by which these texts are still talked about (rather than say the framing used by traditional Vaidika paṇḍita-s). This is why we see someone confidently deciding that linguistic analysis can tell us something about what “Veda” means or should mean, rather than only telling us about the language of a certain subset of texts.
pulkitsh1234 6y ago
Can you provide some sources for your information ? From what I have read they are considered to be that part of the Vedas.
- danans 6y ago
  Here's an article that gets into the differences between the Vedic hymns and the later material that grew around them (in section 2): https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol In particular: ”Over time a body of dependent and scholastic material grew up around the poems, known loosely as 'the Veda'. Perhaps around 1000 BC (all dating in prehistoric India is only approximate), editors gathered the ancient poems together and arranged them, together with some more modern material, into ten books according to rules that were largely artificial" In terms of subject matter, I would cite the texts themselves. The bulk of the original Vedas (meaning the Samhitas proper), though exquisite in language, poetry and description, are remarkably concrete and earthly compared to the subject matter of the Upanishads, which instead are concerned with esoteric subjects like dualism and non-dualism, and the relationship of that to individual identity and a universal consciousness. The Vedic Samhita's subject matter predominantly concerns propitiation of deified forces of nature to aid with everyday survival concerns, like food, kinship practices, and inter-tribal conflicts. The Upanishads clearly represent the reflections of an elite of a far more "advanced" stage of society than the Samhitas.
  - ravoori 6y ago
    Indeed. Many Upanishads are, in spirit, opposed to the old Vedas, and some are outright critical of the ritualism that forms the core of the Vedas.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      No, they are not. Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas. There are four vedas and ten principal upanishads. Hindu philosophy aims to be accessible and useful to everyone. In that, Upanishads offer a way for people who are unable to follow Vedic standards. An alternative is not opposition. It’s available choice. Upanishads are not against the Vedas. They just form the latter portions of Vedas. Eg: consider chicken eaters. Veganism is an alternative dietary choice. Veganism existed before it was considered an ‘opposition’ to consuming meat. They are all part of ‘food’ and ‘eating’. Some vegans decided that it’s position against meat eating, but that’s not it’s origin. It’s a choice And a latter interpretation that it’s opposed to meat eating. But it doesn’t mean that veganism emerged due to an opposition to meat eating to compete with it.

by danans 6y ago

svat 6y ago

This argument is circular: it is only Western indology that defines “Vedic” as referring to “the actual Vedas” by which it means only the saṃhitā portion of the texts. The traditional Indian understanding of “Veda” is indeed that it includes both mantra (saṃhitā) and brāhṃaṇa — the latter including āraṇyaka and upaniṣad. Yes it's true that sometimes when (say) “Ṛgveda” is mentioned, in that context it may refer only to the ṛk saṃhitā, etc — but the narrow meaning is only contextual; in general one talks of which brāhmaṇa-s / āraṇyaka-s / upaniṣad-s belong to which Veda, etc. More generally the Vedāṅgas are also considered part of the Veda, etc. When Pāṇini (whom you allude to in one of the replies here) distinguishes the older language, he uses terms like “chandasi” not "in the Vedas”. Even today when a certain practice or person is called “Vaidika” obviously it doesn't mean a certain time period, belonging to several centuries BCE. Ultimately, to consider linguistic analysis relevant to the definition of “Vedic” and to say “to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition” is simply saying “let's make up a definition of ‘Vedic’ different from the traditional definition, under which the traditional definition can be termed incorrect” — no traditional scholar thinks of “Vedic” as referring to “the Vedic language” as referring to the language of the saṃhitās. Edit: I have a theory for how this state of affairs came about: Western interest in Sanskrit texts took off in a big way after William Jones's (much-quoted) pronouncement of the relation between Sanskrit and Persian and Greek and Latin. So the interest started with linguists and philologists, who were naturally more interested in the oldest texts / the texts whose language was closest to the rest of the Indo-European family, and that has become the frame by which these texts are still talked about (rather than say the framing used by traditional Vaidika paṇḍita-s). This is why we see someone confidently deciding that linguistic analysis can tell us something about what “Veda” means or should mean, rather than only telling us about the language of a certain subset of texts.

pulkitsh1234 6y ago

Can you provide some sources for your information ? From what I have read they are considered to be that part of the Vedas.

danans 6y ago
Here's an article that gets into the differences between the Vedic hymns and the later material that grew around them (in section 2): https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol In particular: ”Over time a body of dependent and scholastic material grew up around the poems, known loosely as 'the Veda'. Perhaps around 1000 BC (all dating in prehistoric India is only approximate), editors gathered the ancient poems together and arranged them, together with some more modern material, into ten books according to rules that were largely artificial" In terms of subject matter, I would cite the texts themselves. The bulk of the original Vedas (meaning the Samhitas proper), though exquisite in language, poetry and description, are remarkably concrete and earthly compared to the subject matter of the Upanishads, which instead are concerned with esoteric subjects like dualism and non-dualism, and the relationship of that to individual identity and a universal consciousness. The Vedic Samhita's subject matter predominantly concerns propitiation of deified forces of nature to aid with everyday survival concerns, like food, kinship practices, and inter-tribal conflicts. The Upanishads clearly represent the reflections of an elite of a far more "advanced" stage of society than the Samhitas.
- ravoori 6y ago
  Indeed. Many Upanishads are, in spirit, opposed to the old Vedas, and some are outright critical of the ritualism that forms the core of the Vedas.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    No, they are not. Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas. There are four vedas and ten principal upanishads. Hindu philosophy aims to be accessible and useful to everyone. In that, Upanishads offer a way for people who are unable to follow Vedic standards. An alternative is not opposition. It’s available choice. Upanishads are not against the Vedas. They just form the latter portions of Vedas. Eg: consider chicken eaters. Veganism is an alternative dietary choice. Veganism existed before it was considered an ‘opposition’ to consuming meat. They are all part of ‘food’ and ‘eating’. Some vegans decided that it’s position against meat eating, but that’s not it’s origin. It’s a choice And a latter interpretation that it’s opposed to meat eating. But it doesn’t mean that veganism emerged due to an opposition to meat eating to compete with it.