Talk:Vedic priesthood

Terminology

I took out:

The word is from Indo-Iranian *athar not attested in Sanskrit (c.f. Latin ater "black").

I find it interesting and it can be put back. I just thought that the Avestan word made more sense, and the Vedic Sanskrit is most likely a cognate. Especially considering the similar Athravan class in ancient Persia is probably reflective of their shared proto-religion. Also please note that the Av. athravan is not mispelled ;-) Khirad 09:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Should the title be Hotar or Hotra?

To my knowledge the spelling 'Hotra' is more near to the Sanskrit pronunciation. Hotar might refer to the Tamil transcription. --SrinivasP (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Purohita

"Vedic priesthood, the priests of the Vedic religion, were known as purohita".

This is utter nonsense. purohita generically meaning "priest" is a latter day (and modern) usage. Simply because that's what it means today does not automatically imply the same meaning in Vedic times, though I understand the Politically Correct motivations to have it be so. In Vedic times, a purohita (literally, "one who is placed in front") was the personal priest of a king or leader. The term designated an office, if not also the official capacity. The generic term for priests was vipra, and later Rtvija. rudra 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, purohita means "a family priest, a domestic chaplain" in the Rigveda (Monier-Williams). The article does mention rtvija as the term including the sub-classes of priests. We might add a discussion of the looser term vipra. Your additions are most welcome, but they wouldn't be less welcome if you would do without the scathing or belligerent asides. You obviously have the knowledge needed to improve our articles on Vedic religion. Many of these articles are in a very sketchy or dilapidated state. So, there is nothing to stop you from going ahead and fixing things. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. But I find the treatment of vedic subjects a disaster area on Wikipedia, full of anachronistic (if not also tendentious) projections of latter-day notions to vedic times. Of course, it's eminently peecee to treat vedic subjects synchronically with modern Hinduism, as it buttresses the idea of "continuity" from hoary antiquity (the hoarier the better [1]). I took "were known as purohita" as yet another example of this all too common tendency. rudra 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Philological comparison and "pseudoscientific"

I am not an expert in the Indo-European history, however (or maybe because of this) I find the phrase about "psedoscientific interconnectedness" very confusing. While I don't deny that *some* methods of finding relations between various Indo-European cultures may be pseudoscientific in the sense of false etymology (it can be applied even in one language, without thee need for comparisons) or history, the fact that Indo-European cultures are from the same origin is beyond all doubt. Even the Proto-Indo-European religion is being reconstructed now (I mean scientific analyses and not the religious, eg. neopagan reconstruction, though the latter also takes place).

Therefore, to someone not well acknowledged with Indo-European issues, it could create an impression, that Indo-European common traditions, history etc. are a pseudoscientific babble and not the deep studies conducted through many years by the best academics.

Therefore, it should be clarified that eg. despite many common traditions, there is no evidence (which is crucial in the scientific discourse) that Celtic Druid/Bard/Ovate castes come from Indian Purohitan traditions. Similiarly, the speculations about Slavic Gods and Goddesses being the counterparts of Greek or Roman ones were found to be wrong; I mean, there was probably no Goddess with the name Lada, despite any similiarities with Roman Leda or Juno and making such assumptions only from knowledge of Greek/Roman culture (as Jan Dlugosz did) was totally baseless.

Also, it may seem from the text, that fire was unimportant for the ancient Iranians/Persians, which is also wrong. It was important, but in another way than for Vedic Hindu people.

. But nobody denies that both Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek/Roman and Hindu traditions derive from proto-Indo-European mileau.

With regards, Critto (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. But I wouldn't put any money on "PIE religion" if I were you. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How to read Sanskrit words

There is a major difference between how the sanskrit words are written in English speaking community of North and South India. Due to easons unknown to me, the south pioneered the English Education in India somewhere in 19th century and brought a major aberration in the phonetics used. While the sounds for Roman letters in North India is consistent with the Western world, the phonetics in South are not. E.g If you encounter the term "Yagna" read it as "Yagya" North India "Chakra" would have the "ch" pronounced as in "China" however if the text is compiled by an South Indian he would write it as "cakra" - h missing So "Sita" from North is written "Seetha" in South There is a long list which probably would require a separate Wikipedia article. The common difference is the misplaced "h" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.44.137 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)