Talk:Atharvaveda

Capitalisation

I'm curious about the unorthodox capitalization here - is this SAMPA or something? Could we use IPA unicode instead, if it's important to convey the nuances of pronunciation?

-Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.104.153 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

.

The whole "popular misconceptions" (!) section desperately needs an NPOV screening. Wikipedia isn't a platform for privileging any religious ideas over another, whether 'misconceived' or otherwise. I'd prefer not to do the rewrite myself, however, since my knowledge of the Vedas is insufficient. QuartierLatin1968 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

remove that section. At least points 1-3 are entirely consistent with academic communis opinio. dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

Thanks for the IASTification Miljoshi :) I think we will be able to remove the "attention" tag soon. The article preserves much material from a major anon edit in Sept 2003 [1]. This should still be sourced and verified, I hope I can get to that sometime. Also, see Talk:Rig_Veda#Rigveda_or_Rig_Veda; I propose to move the articles on the four Vedas back to Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda (on grounds of their being tatpurusha compounds, these names should be considered single words, not appositions). dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its was a bit tough to work-around in absence of original Devnagari words, but have used some common Sanskrit grammar rules to figure out what-it-would-had-been :-). Oh well, I'm afraid I already removed the notice! On the naming point, Agree, all the four are spelled as one word in Sanskrit (I'm reading from their book-covers). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article history

this article was copy-paste moved in the past. Part of the edit history is now at Atharva-Veda. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history was merged back in August 2009 by Wknight94 (talk · contribs). Graham87 11:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junk giant quotations?

This page seems to have had several giant quotations from the source material dumped into it, obscuring the actual article. Perhaps they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.47.136 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having waited a few days, I (the poster of this question) went ahead and deleted them; I think the article is much better this way. 128.54.44.136 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet "Birds of the Same Nest" Myth

Its quite a popular internet myth that the following text appears in the Atharva Veda, though it does not:

Birds of the Same Nest "We are the birds of the same nest, We may wear different skins, We may speak different languages, We may believe in different religions, We may belong to different cultures, Yet we share the same home - OUR EARTH. Born on the same planet Covered by the same skies Gazing at the same stars Breathing the same air We must learn to happily progress together Or miserably perish together, For man can live individually, But can survive only collectively."--Atharva Veda

I get all of four google hits for this, so calling it "popular" is rather stretching things. A lot of unfounded nonsense floats around on the internet at large. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- it is possible, that those two birds actually refer to jiva-atma and Parma-atma - both sitting just like two birds on one tree - material body. So yoga is meditation of jiva-atma onto Paramatma. That text is found in different parts of Vedas. Of course, it is not that heart is like "Earth" as in those phrase above. It is simply said that there is aham-kara - false ego, and real 'ego', self, soul - that is jiva-atma. And there are other material elements, additionaly to false ego: mind, intellect, and also ether, air, fire, water, and earth. They keep conditioned jiva-atma for many lifetimes in material world. So another bird, Paramatma, is waiting for jiva-atma that he would direct attention to Paramatma. Finally, jivaatma is expected to realize Bhagavan and serve Him - by serving devotees of His devotees - in bona-fide chain of disciplic succession (Vaisnava sampradaya). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedicsciences (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do we don't anything about Atharvaveda in detail from anywhere....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.68.113 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article quality

these edits apparently fall under WP:COI. Referenced criticism of a scholar with the same name as the editor was replaced by an unreferenced eulogy. Somebody may want to fix this. --130.60.142.82 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atharvaveda isn't black magic

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atharvaveda. 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).

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) 05:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Atharva Veda" or "Atharvaveda"

One is used in the title. The other is used in the first sentence.

Which is it to be?

It currently looks amateurish. 86.180.11.200 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]