Talk:Fifth Veda

Fifth veda or Panchama Veda?

Hi dab, I saw the Fifth Veda article. Its a good stub but I feel that the article should be moved to "Panchama veda" because "Fifth Veda" seems to suggest a canonical fifth Veda. Panchama Veda, otoh makes no such claims. Various works have been 'bestowed' the 'honour' of being 'dubbed' the "Panchama Veda" simply to show that they're works deserving the highest praise. That still does not make them the "fifth" veda. There are also parallels with several works being dubbed 'Bhagawadgeeta'. For example, the Kannada work Mankutimmana Kagga is popularly referred to as the "Kannada Bhagawadgeete". So unless there are objections, I'll move it. Sarvagnya 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to change the scope somewhat if you did that. Not all works which have claimed to be a "veda" have been called a (or the) "Panchama veda". The Tiruvaymozhi, for example, if memory serves right, was always called "Dravida veda", not "Panchama veda". -- Arvind 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was coming to that. I wanted to confirm it before I said that. But since you've confirmed it, we probably just need to remove the Tiruvaymozhi from the article altogether. I've actually heard itt being called the 'Tamil veda'. And similar descriptions, I believe have also been made of the Kural, if I am right. In any case, they're not the 'fifth' veda. Sarvagnya 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dravida veda" and "Tamil veda" are used interchangeably, the former is more common in Sanskrit texts, and the latter in Tamil texts. There are actually three texts which've been called this, the Tirukkural, the Tiruvaymozhi (later extended to the entire Tivya Pirapantam) and the Tevaram. On whether they're properly called "fifth veda", see below. -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

feel free to edit this article :) However, it should be noted that "fifth Veda" is the exact translation of "Panchama Veda", so I don't really see the point of moving it from one to the other. Of course these works aren't "Vedic" in any canonical sense, I thought the article made that perfectly clear. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This might just be linguistic bias, but to my mind, "panchama veda" has a rather specific meaning within the Hindu tradition, and thus only ought to be applied to texts which've specifically claimed that label, whereas "fifth veda" doesn't have that meaning, so it is in theory capable of being applied to all texts that have claimed the status of a veda. In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's worth having an article which discusses all post-vedic traditions that seek to confer the status of a "veda" on texts other than the four canonical vedas, not just the various texts which claim to be the "panchama veda". -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

what would be the point of that? Any hack can call this or that a "Veda"? That's at best an idea for a disambiguation page (along the lines of Vedic). But again, feel free to edit and/or move Fifth Veda to your liking. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Fifth Veda as it is - I don't like the idea of it being moved to "Panchama veda". FWIW, I'm not talking about texts which any old hack calls a veda, but about texts like the Tiruvaymozhi (and to a lesser extent the Tevaram), which have an established commentarial tradition that has expressly (and successfully) sought to give the texts the status of a Veda. I hope I'm making myself clear. -- Arvind 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

of course, your point is perfectly valid. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it should be moved because, the way I see it, "Fifth Veda" even seems to have an unintended but subtle mix of OR and UNDUE built into it. It is somewhat akin to, say, an article titled "Eighth wonder". Several things, people, places and what not have been described as the eighth wonder by fawning commentators but that still doesnt an encyclopedic topic make. So I will move it to "Panchama Veda" which I feel sounds more genuine and also will remove references to Tiruvayamozhi etc.,. If there have been determined and successful attempts at dubbing the Tiruvayamozhi or any other work as a 'Veda', that fact probably belongs in its own article; and perhaps as a footnote somewhere in the Vedas or The four vedas or something. Sarvagnya 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fixated as the title - call it anything suitable: "Additional vedas" is one possibility. I just don't see what is the problem with having one article which discusses the various major attempts to endow non-Vedic texts with the status of a veda. Why is it better to discuss them in different articles? And, surely if the Tiruvaymozhi's vedicisation only belongs in its own article, the same goes for the vedicisation of the itihasas and the Natyashastra? -- Arvind 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw this just now. I just moved the article but I have retained refs to tiruvaymozhi for now. As for the why I feel that refs to tiruvayamozhi etc., dont belong here(they may at best belong in "See also") - well, strictly the metaphor(for want of a better word)Panchama Veda is a Sanskrit literary invention... and the 'fifth veda' is its literal translation in English. The tiruvayamozhi and other non-Sanskrit works(or maybe even some non-traditional Skt., works) havent been described as the Panchama Veda or even the 'fifth' Veda for that matter. Tiruvayamozhi for example, may have been described variously as the dravida veda or tamil veda or something. Panchama Veda otoh is a term that I feel is a little too steeped in and unique to Skt., literary tradition. I'd love to explain this better if I could, but I'm tiring at the moment. Hope u get my drift. Sarvagnya 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I also get the feeling we're going round in circles. Anyway, do as you will - I'm not planning to be very active here for the moment. -- Arvind 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had some free time at the BL today, so I decided to check what the academic literature has to say about this topic. I found an incredible amount of stuff written about it, and I've rewritten the article to take account of the literature. One fallout is that I'll be moving it back to "Fifth veda", because the academic literature overwhelmingly uses that phrase rather than "Panchama veda". Comparing a search for articles containing Panchama veda (in every conceivable spelling) and fifth veda is illustrative - the results are even more skewed in favour of fifth veda if one actually searches within the databases, and in the print literature. Basically, it seems pretty clear that the accepted name for this phenomenon in scholarly writing on this topic is "Fifth veda", so that's what we ought to call it as well. -- Arvind 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

excellent work so far. dab (𒁳) 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just stopped by to say, great job by Dab in starting this article and by Arvind in expanding and sourcing it! Abecedare 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I prefer the title "Fifth Veda" since in addition to the reasons cited by Arvind, it can stand for both the English translation of "Panchama veda" and in a non-technical sense as a generic term indicating extra-canonical "Vedas". An encyclopedia article, unlike a dictionary entry, need not be very narrowly focussed or only definitional, so I think it is fair to briefly discuss texts such as Tiruvaymoli within the scope of the article, even if they have not been referred to this exact term. Abecedare 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

hy i am sujit patel from balasinor kheda gujarat i read this article but i am not sure that its right as per my point of view because in all 4th vedas they are declare the knoweledge about our 5 elements and 5 bodies and also the god . he creat the hole brahamnd but i know that the 5 th vedas say that in small sentance " soham swasa svasmehi pranav prakrutam jeh akhil lok antar jap shree pancham ved teh " means all of the world form sthavar to jangam jati they are live by the bredhem swasa. its calls panchamveds meand they are not focous on the -perticuler body but targeted to the god who creat the world and in this vedas they focous on ance and ancy means atama and god . if we under stand as per all vedas that brahma vishnu and mahes and nirangan so they are not god bur mahan purus because one probe that no porter stay in to the port means god cannt come at earth if he desire it but he is not come at because he is not made by any element so how can shiv vinsnu and braham came so, they are not god but they are mnage the whole world and they are live and birth on the braham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.218.9 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)