text:
Vedas

The Vedas ( or, वेदः) are a large body of religious texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.

There are four Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda. Each Veda has four subdivisions – the Samhitas (mantras and benedictions), the Brahmanas (commentaries on and explanation of rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices - Yajñas), the Aranyakas (text on rituals, ceremonies, sacrifices and symbolic-sacrifices), and the Upanishads (texts discussing meditation, philosophy and spiritual knowledge). Some scholars add a fifth category – the Upāsanās (worship). The texts of the Upanishads discuss ideas akin to the heterodox sramana traditions. The Samhitas and Brahmanas describe about daily rituals and are generally meant for Brahmacharya and Gr̥hastha stages of the Chaturashrama system, while the Aranyakas and Upanishads are meant for the Vānaprastha and Sannyasa stages, respectively.

Vedas are ' ("what is heard"), distinguishing them from other religious texts, which are called ' ("what is remembered"). Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeya, which means "not of a man, superhuman" and "impersonal, authorless", revelations of sacred sounds and texts heard by ancient sages after intense meditation.

The Vedas have been orally transmitted since the 2nd millennium BCE with the help of elaborate mnemonic techniques. The mantras, the oldest part of the Vedas, are recited in the modern age for their phonology rather than the semantics, and are considered to be "primordial rhythms of creation", preceding the forms to which they refer. By reciting them the cosmos is regenerated, "by enlivening and nourishing the forms of creation at their base."

The various Indian philosophies and Hindu sects have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy that acknowledge the importance or primal authority of the Vedas comprise Hindu philosophy specifically and are together classified as the six "orthodox" (āstika) schools. However, śramaṇa traditions, such as Charvaka, Ajivika, Buddhism, and Jainism, which did not regard the Vedas as authoritative, are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools.

Etymology and usage
The Sanskrit word  "knowledge, wisdom" is derived from the root vid- "to know". This is reconstructed as being derived from the Proto-Indo-European root , meaning "see" or "know."

The noun is from Proto-Indo-European , cognate to Greek (ϝ)εἶδος "aspect", "form". This is not to be confused with the homonymous 1st and 3rd person singular perfect tense , cognate to Greek (ϝ)οἶδα ((w)oida) "I know". Root cognates are Greek ἰδέα, English wit, Latin videō "I see", Russian ве́дать (védat') "to know", etc.

The Sanskrit term  as a common noun means "knowledge". The term in some contexts, such as hymn 10.93.11 of the Rigveda, means "obtaining or finding wealth, property", while in some others it means "a bunch of grass together" as in a broom or for ritual fire.

Vedic Sanskrit corpus
The term "Vedic texts" is used in two distinct meanings:
 * 1) Texts composed in Vedic Sanskrit during the Vedic period (Iron Age India)
 * 2) Any text considered as "connected to the Vedas" or a "corollary of the Vedas"

The corpus of Vedic Sanskrit texts includes:
 * The Samhitas (Sanskrit ', "collection"), are collections of metric texts ("mantras"). There are four "Vedic" Samhitas: the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and Atharva-Veda, most of which are available in several recensions ('). In some contexts, the term Veda is used to refer only to these Samhitas, the collection of mantras. This is the oldest layer of Vedic texts, which were composed between c. 1500–1200 BCE (Rig Veda book 2–9), and 1200–900 BCE for the other Samhitas. The Samhitas contain invocations to deities like Indra and Agni, "to secure their benediction for success in battles or for welfare of the clan." The complete corpus of Vedic mantras as collected in Bloomfield's Vedic Concordance (1907) consists of some 89,000 padas (metrical feet), of which 72,000 occur in the four Samhitas.
 * The Brahmanas are prose texts that comment on and explain the solemn rituals as well as expound on their meaning and many connected themes. Each of the Brahmanas is associated with one of the Samhitas or its recensions. The oldest dated to about 900 BCE, while the youngest Brahmanas (such as the Shatapatha Brahmana), were complete by about 700 BCE. The Brahmanas may either form separate texts or can be partly integrated into the text of the Samhitas. They may also include the Aranyakas and Upanishads.
 * The Aranyakas, "wilderness texts" or "forest treaties", were composed by people who meditated in the woods as recluses and are the third part of the Vedas. The texts contain discussions and interpretations of ceremonies, from ritualistic to symbolic meta-ritualistic points of view. It is frequently read in secondary literature.
 * Older Principal Upanishads (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Chandogya, Katha Upanishad, Kena, Aitareya, and others), composed between 800 BCE and the end of the Vedic period. The Upanishads are largely philosophical works, some in dialogue form. They are the foundation of Hindu philosophical thought and its diverse traditions. Of the Vedic corpus, they alone are widely known, and the central ideas of the Upanishads are still influential in Hinduism.
 * The texts considered "Vedic" in the sense of "corollaries of the Vedas" are less clearly defined, and may include numerous post-Vedic texts such as the later Upanishads and the Sutra literature, such as Shrauta Sutras and Gryha Sutras, which are smriti texts. Together, the Vedas and these Sutras form part of the Vedic Sanskrit corpus.

While production of Brahmanas and Aranyakas ceased with the end of the Vedic period, additional Upanishads were composed after the end of the Vedic period. The Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, among other things, interpret and discuss the Samhitas in philosophical and metaphorical ways to explore abstract concepts such as the Absolute (Brahman), and the soul or the self (Atman), introducing Vedanta philosophy, one of the major trends of later Hinduism. In other parts, they show evolution of ideas, such as from actual sacrifice to symbolic sacrifice, and of spirituality in the Upanishads. This has inspired later Hindu scholars such as Adi Shankara to classify each Veda into karma-kanda (कर्म खण्ड, action/sacrificial ritual-related sections, the Samhitas and Brahmanas); and jnana-kanda (ज्ञान खण्ड, knowledge/spirituality-related sections, mainly the Upanishads').

Śruti and smriti
Vedas are ' ("what is heard"), distinguishing them from other religious texts, which are called ' ("what is remembered"). This indigenous system of categorization was adopted by Max Müller and, while it is subject to some debate, it is still widely used. As Axel Michaels explains: "These classifications are often not tenable for linguistic and formal reasons: There is not only one collection at any one time, but rather several handed down in separate Vedic schools; Upanişads [...] are sometimes not to be distinguished from [...]; contain older strata of language attributed to the ; there are various dialects and locally prominent traditions of the Vedic schools. Nevertheless, it is advisable to stick to the division adopted by Max Müller because it follows the Indian tradition, conveys the historical sequence fairly accurately, and underlies the current editions, translations, and monographs on Vedic literature.'"

Among the widely known śrutis include the Vedas and their embedded texts—the Samhitas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas and the Aranyakas. The well-known smṛtis include Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, amongst others.

Authorship
Hindus consider the Vedas to be apauruṣeyā, which means "not of a man, superhuman" and "impersonal, authorless." The Vedas, for orthodox Indian theologians, are considered revelations seen by ancient sages after intense meditation, and texts that have been more carefully preserved since ancient times. In the Hindu Epic Mahabharata, the creation of Vedas is credited to Brahma. The Vedic hymns themselves assert that they were skillfully created by Rishis (sages), after inspired creativity, just as a carpenter builds a chariot.

The oldest part of the Rig Veda Samhita was orally composed in north-western India (Punjab) between c. 1500 and 1200 BCE, while book 10 of the Rig Veda, and the other Samhitas were composed between 1200 and 900 BCE more eastward, between the Yamuna and the Ganges rivers, the heartland of Aryavarta and the Kuru Kingdom (c. 1200). The "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000–500 BCE.

According to tradition, Vyasa is the compiler of the Vedas, who arranged the four kinds of mantras into four Samhitas (Collections).

Chronology
The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (Punjab) of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500 and 1200 BCE, although a wider approximation of c.  1700–1100 BCE has also been given. The other three Samhitas are considered to date from the time of the Kuru Kingdom, approximately c. 1200–900 BCE. The "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000–500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The Vedic period reaches its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reaches its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas (archaeologically, Northern Black Polished Ware). Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 to c. 500–400 BCE. Witzel makes special reference to the Near Eastern Mitanni material of the 14th century BCE, the only epigraphic record of Indo-Aryan contemporary to the Rigvedic period. He gives 150 BCE (Patañjali) as a terminus ante quem for all Vedic Sanskrit literature, and 1200 BCE (the early Iron Age) as terminus post quem for the Atharvaveda.

Transmission
The Vedas were orally transmitted since their composition in the Vedic period for several millennia. The authoritative transmission of the Vedas is by an oral tradition in a sampradaya from father to son or from teacher (guru) to student (shishya), believed to be initiated by the Vedic rishis who heard the primordial sounds. Only this tradition, embodied by a living teacher, can teach the correct pronunciation of the sounds and explain hidden meanings, in a way the "dead and entombed manuscript" cannot do. As Leela Prasad states, "According to Shankara, the "correct tradition" (sampradaya) has as much authority as the written Shastra," explaining that the tradition "bears the authority to clarify and provide direction in the application of knowledge."

The emphasis in this transmission is on the "proper articulation and pronunciation of the Vedic sounds", as prescribed in the Shiksha, the Vedanga (Vedic study) of sound as uttered in a Vedic recitation, mastering the texts "literally forward and backward in fully acoustic fashion." Houben and Rath note that the Vedic textual tradition cannot simply be characterized as oral, "since it also depends significantly on a memory culture." The Vedas were preserved with precision with the help of elaborate mnemonic techniques, such as memorizing the texts in eleven different modes of recitation (pathas), using the alphabet as a mnemotechnical device, "matching physical movements (such as nodding the head) with particular sounds and chanting in a group" and visualizing sounds by using mudras (hand signs). This provided an additional visual confirmation, and also an alternate means to check the reading integrity by the audience, in addition to the audible means. Houben and Rath note that a strong "memory culture" existed in ancient India when texts were transmitted orally, before the advent of writing in the early first millennium CE. According to Staal, criticising the Goody-Watt hypothesis "according to which literacy is more reliable than orality," this tradition of oral transmission "is closely related to Indian forms of science," and "by far the more remarkable" than the relatively recent tradition of written transmission.

While according to Mookerji understanding the meaning (vedarthajnana or artha-bodha) of the words of the Vedas was part of the Vedic learning, Holdrege and other Indologists have noted that in the transmission of the Samhitas the emphasis is on the phonology of the sounds (śabda) and not on the meaning (artha) of the mantras. Already at the end of the Vedic period their original meaning had become obscure for "ordinary people," and niruktas, etymological compendia, were developed to preserve and clarify the original meaning of many Sanskrit words. According to Staal, as referenced by Holdrege, though the mantras may have a discursive meaning, when the mantras are recited in the Vedic rituals "they are disengaged from their original context and are employed in ways that have little or nothing to do with their meaning." The words of the mantras are "themselves sacred," and "do not constitute linguistic utterances." Instead, as Klostermaier notes, in their application in Vedic rituals they become magical sounds, "means to an end." Holdrege notes that there are scarce commentaries on the meaning of the mantras, in contrast to the number of commentaries on the Brahmanas and Upanishads, but states that the lack of emphasis on the "discursive meaning does not necessarily imply that they are meaningless." In the Brahmanical perspective, the sounds have their own meaning, mantras are considered as "primordial rhythms of creation", preceding the forms to which they refer. By reciting them the cosmos is regenerated, "by enlivening and nourishing the forms of creation at their base. As long as the purity of the sounds is preserved, the recitation of the mantras will be efficacious, irrespective of whether their discursive meaning is understood by human beings." Frazier further notes that "later Vedic texts sought deeper understanding of the reasons the rituals worked," which indicates that the Brahmin communities considered study to be a "process of understanding."

A literary tradition is traceable in post-Vedic times, after the rise of Buddhism in the Maurya period, perhaps earliest in the Kanva recension of the Yajurveda about the 1st century BCE; however oral tradition of transmission remained active. Jack Goody has argued for an earlier literary tradition, concluding that the Vedas bear hallmarks of a literate culture along with oral transmission, but Goody's views have been strongly criticised by Falk, Lopez Jr,. and Staal, though they have also found some support.

The Vedas were written down only after 500 BCE, but only the orally transmitted texts are regarded as authoritative, given the emphasis on the exact pronunciation of the sounds. Witzel suggests that attempts to write down the Vedic texts towards the end of 1st millennium BCE were unsuccessful, resulting in smriti rules explicitly forbidding the writing down of the Vedas. Due to the ephemeral nature of the manuscript material (birch bark or palm leaves), surviving manuscripts rarely surpass an age of a few hundred years. The Sampurnanand Sanskrit University has a Rigveda manuscript from the 14th century; however, there are a number of older Veda manuscripts in Nepal that are dated from the 11th century onwards.

Vedic learning
The Vedas, Vedic rituals and its ancillary sciences called the Vedangas, were part of the curriculum at ancient universities such as at Taxila, Nalanda and Vikramashila. According to Deshpande, "the tradition of the Sanskrit grammarians also contributed significantly to the preservation and interpretation of Vedic texts." Yāska (4th c. BCE) wrote the Nirukta, which reflects the concerns about the loss of meaning of the mantras, while Pāṇinis (4th c. BCE) Aṣṭādhyāyī is the most important surviving text of the Vyākaraṇa traditions. Mimamsa scholar Sayanas (14th c. CE) major Vedartha Prakasha is a rare commentary on the Vedas, which is also referred to by contemporary scholars.

Yaska and Sayana, reflecting an ancient understanding, state that the Veda can be interpreted in three ways, giving "the truth about gods, dharma and parabrahman." The pūrva-kāņda (or karma-kanda), the part of the Veda dealing with ritual, gives knowledge of dharma, "which brings us satisfaction." The uttara-kanda (or jnana-kanda), the part of the Veda dealing with the knowledge of the absolute, gives knowledge of Parabrahma, "which fulfills all of our desires." According to Holdrege, for the exponents of karma-kandha the Veda is to be "inscribed in the minds and hearts of men" by memorization and recitation, while for the exponents of the jnana-kanda and meditation the Vedas express a transcendental reality which can be approached with mystical means.

Holdrege notes that in Vedic learning "priority has been given to recitation over interpretation" of the Samhitas. Galewicz states that Sayana, a Mimamsa scholar, "thinks of the Veda as something to be trained and mastered to be put into practical ritual use," noticing that "it is not the meaning of the mantras that is most essential [...] but rather the perfect mastering of their sound form." According to Galewicz, Sayana saw the purpose (artha) of the Veda as the "artha of carrying out sacrifice," giving precedence to the Yajurveda. For Sayana, whether the mantras had meaning depended on the context of their practical usage. This conception of the Veda, as a repertoire to be mastered and performed, takes precedence over the internal meaning or "autonomous message of the hymns." Most Śrauta rituals are not performed in the modern era, and those that are, are rare.

Mukherjee notes that the Rigveda, and Sayana's commentary, contain passages criticizing as fruitless mere recitation of the Ŗik (words) without understanding their inner meaning or essence, the knowledge of dharma and Parabrahman. Mukherjee concludes that in the Rigvedic education of the mantras "the contemplation and comprehension of their meaning was considered as more important and vital to education than their mere mechanical repetition and correct pronunciation." Mookei refers to Sayana as stating that "the mastery of texts, akshara-praptī, is followed by artha-bodha, perception of their meaning." Mukherjee explains that the Vedic knowledge was first perceived by the rishis and munis. Only the perfect language of the Vedas, as in contrast to ordinary speech, can reveal these truths, which were preserved by committing them to memory. According to Mukherjee, while these truths are imparted to the student by the memorized texts, "the realization of Truth" and the knowledge of paramatman as revealed to the rishis is the real aim of Vedic learning, and not the mere recitation of texts. The supreme knowledge of the Absolute, para Brahman-jnana, the knowledge of rta and satya, can be obtained by taking vows of silence and obedience sense-restraint, dhyana, the practice of tapas (austerities), and discussing the Vedanta.

Vedic schools or recensions
The four Vedas were transmitted in various Shakhas (branches, schools). Each school likely represented an ancient community of a particular area, or kingdom. Each school followed its own canon. Multiple recensions (revisions) are known for each of the Vedas. Thus, states Witzel as well as Renou, in the 2nd millennium BCE, there was likely no canon of one broadly accepted Vedic texts, no Vedic “Scripture”, but only a canon of various texts accepted by each school. Some of these texts have survived, most lost or yet to be found. Rigveda that survives in modern times, for example, is in only one extremely well preserved school of Śåkalya, from a region called Videha, in modern north Bihar, south of Nepal. The Vedic canon in its entirety consists of texts from all the various Vedic schools taken together.

There were Vedic schools that believed in polytheism in which numerous gods had different natural functions, henotheistic beliefs where only one god was worshipped but others were thought to exist, monotheistic beliefs in a single god, agnosticism, and monistic beliefs where "there is an absolute reality that goes beyond the gods and that includes or transcends everything that exists." Indra, Agni, and Yama were popular subjects of worship by polytheist organizations.

Each of the four Vedas were shared by the numerous schools, but revised, interpolated and adapted locally, in and after the Vedic period, giving rise to various recensions of the text. Some texts were revised into the modern era, raising significant debate on parts of the text which are believed to have been corrupted at a later date. The Vedas each have an Index or Anukramani, the principal work of this kind being the general Index or .

Prodigious energy was expended by ancient Indian culture in ensuring that these texts were transmitted from generation to generation with inordinate fidelity. For example, memorization of the sacred Vedas included up to eleven forms of recitation of the same text. The texts were subsequently "proof-read" by comparing the different recited versions. Forms of recitation included the  (literally "mesh recitation") in which every two adjacent words in the text were first recited in their original order, then repeated in the reverse order, and finally repeated in the original order. That these methods have been effective, is attested to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, the Rigveda, as redacted into a single text during the Brahmana period, without any variant readings within that school.

The Vedas were orally transmitted by memorization, and were written down only after 500 BCE, All printed editions of the Vedas that survive in the modern times are likely the version existing in about the 16th century CE.

Four Vedas
The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold () viz.,
 * 1) Rigveda  (RV)
 * 2) Yajurveda  (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
 * 3) Samaveda  (SV)
 * 4) Atharvaveda  (AV)

Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also called ""; that is, "the triple science" of reciting hymns (Rigveda), performing sacrifices (Yajurveda), and chanting songs (Samaveda). The Rig Veda most likely was composed between c. 1500 BCE and 1200 BCE. Witzel notes that it is the Vedic period itself, where incipient lists divide the Vedic texts into three (trayī) or four branches: Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva.

Each Veda has been subclassified into four major text types – the Samhitas (mantras and benedictions), the Aranyakas (text on rituals, ceremonies such as newborn baby's rites of passage, coming of age, marriages, retirement and cremation, sacrifices and symbolic sacrifices), the Brahmanas (commentaries on rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices), and the Upanishads (text discussing meditation, philosophy and spiritual knowledge). The Upasanas (short ritual worship-related sections) are considered by some scholars as the fifth part. Witzel notes that the rituals, rites and ceremonies described in these ancient texts reconstruct to a large degree the Indo-European marriage rituals observed in a region spanning the Indian subcontinent, Persia and the European area, and some greater details are found in the Vedic era texts such as the Grhya Sūtras.

Only one version of the Rigveda is known to have survived into the modern era. Several different versions of the Sama Veda and the Atharva Veda are known, and many different versions of the Yajur Veda have been found in different parts of South Asia.

The texts of the Upanishads discuss ideas akin to the heterodox sramana-traditions.

Rigveda
The Rigveda Samhita is the oldest extant Indic text. It is a collection of 1,028 Vedic Sanskrit hymns and 10,600 verses in all, organized into ten books (Sanskrit: mandalas). The hymns are dedicated to Rigvedic deities.

The books were composed by poets from different priestly groups over a period of several centuries between c. 1500 and 1200 BCE, (the early Vedic period) in the Punjab (Sapta Sindhu) region of the northwest Indian subcontinent. According to Michael Witzel, the initial codification of the Rigveda took place at the end of the Rigvedic period at c. 1200 BCE, in the early Kuru kingdom.

The Rigveda is structured based on clear principles. The Veda begins with a small book addressed to Agni, Indra, Soma and other gods, all arranged according to decreasing total number of hymns in each deity collection; for each deity series, the hymns progress from longer to shorter ones, but the number of hymns per book increases. Finally, the meter too is systematically arranged from jagati and tristubh to anustubh and gayatri as the text progresses.

The rituals became increasingly complex over time, and the king's association with them strengthened both the position of the Brahmans and the kings. The Rajasuya rituals, performed with the coronation of a king, "set in motion [...] cyclical regenerations of the universe." In terms of substance, the nature of hymns shift from praise of deities in early books to Nasadiya Sukta with questions such as, "what is the origin of the universe?, do even gods know the answer?", the virtue of Dāna (charity) in society, and other metaphysical issues in its hymns.

There are similarities between the mythology, rituals and linguistics in Rigveda and those found in ancient central Asia, Iranian and Hindukush (Afghanistan) regions.

Samaveda
The Samaveda Samhita consists of 1549 stanzas, taken almost entirely (except for 75 mantras) from the Rigveda. While its earliest parts are believed to date from as early as the Rigvedic period, the existing compilation dates from the post-Rigvedic Mantra period of Vedic Sanskrit, between c. 1200 and 1000 BCE or "slightly later," roughly contemporary with the Atharvaveda and the Yajurveda.

The Samaveda samhita has two major parts. The first part includes four melody collections (gāna, गान) and the second part three verse “books” (ārcika, आर्चिक). A melody in the song books corresponds to a verse in the arcika books. Just as in the Rigveda, the early sections of Samaveda typically begin with hymns to Agni and Indra but shift to the abstract. Their meters shift also in a descending order. The songs in the later sections of the Samaveda have the least deviation from the hymns derived from the Rigveda.

In the Samaveda, some of the Rigvedic verses are repeated. Including repetitions, there are a total of 1875 verses numbered in the Samaveda recension translated by Griffith. Two major recensions have survived, the Kauthuma/Ranayaniya and the Jaiminiya. Its purpose was liturgical, and they were the repertoire of the  or "singer" priests.

Yajurveda
The Yajurveda Samhita consists of prose mantras. It is a compilation of ritual offering formulas that were said by a priest while an individual performed ritual actions such as those before the yajna fire. The core text of the Yajurveda falls within the classical Mantra period of Vedic Sanskrit at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE – younger than the Rigveda, and roughly contemporary with the Atharvaveda, the Rigvedic Khilani, and the Samaveda. Witzel dates the Yajurveda hymns to the early Indian Iron Age, after c. 1200 and before 800 BCE. corresponding to the early Kuru Kingdom.

The earliest and most ancient layer of Yajurveda samhita includes about 1,875 verses, that are distinct yet borrow and build upon the foundation of verses in Rigveda. Unlike the Samaveda which is almost entirely based on Rigveda mantras and structured as songs, the Yajurveda samhitas are in prose, and they are different from earlier Vedic texts linguistically. The Yajur Veda has been the primary source of information about sacrifices during Vedic times and associated rituals.

There are two major groups of texts in this Veda: the "Black" (Krishna) and the "White" (Shukla). The term "black" implies "the un-arranged, motley collection" of verses in Yajurveda, in contrast to the "white" (well arranged) Yajurveda. The White Yajurveda separates the Samhita from its Brahmana (the Shatapatha Brahmana), the Black Yajurveda intersperses the Samhita with Brahmana commentary. Of the Black Yajurveda, texts from four major schools have survived (Maitrayani, Katha, Kapisthala-Katha, Taittiriya), while of the White Yajurveda, two (Kanva and Madhyandina). The youngest layer of Yajurveda text is not related to rituals nor sacrifice, it includes the largest collection of primary Upanishads, influential to various schools of Hindu philosophy.

Atharvaveda
The Artharvaveda Samhita is the text 'belonging to the Atharvan and Angirasa poets. It has about 760 hymns, and about 160 of the hymns are in common with the Rigveda. Most of the verses are metrical, but some sections are in prose. Two different versions of the text – the and the  – have survived into the modern times. The Atharvaveda was not considered as a Veda in the Vedic era, and was accepted as a Veda in late 1st millennium BCE. It was compiled last, probably around 900 BCE, although some of its material may go back to the time of the Rigveda, or earlier.

The Atharvaveda is sometimes called the "Veda of magical formulas", an epithet declared to be incorrect by other scholars. The Samhita layer of the text likely represents a developing 2nd millennium BCE tradition of magico-religious rites to address superstitious anxiety, spells to remove maladies believed to be caused by demons, and herbs- and nature-derived potions as medicine. The text, states Kenneth Zysk, is one of oldest surviving record of the evolutionary practices in religious medicine and reveals the "earliest forms of folk healing of Indo-European antiquity". Many books of the Atharvaveda Samhita are dedicated to rituals without magic, such as to philosophical speculations and to theosophy.

The Atharva veda has been a primary source for information about Vedic culture, the customs and beliefs, the aspirations and frustrations of everyday Vedic life, as well as those associated with kings and governance. The text also includes hymns dealing with the two major rituals of passage – marriage and cremation. The Atharva Veda also dedicates significant portion of the text asking the meaning of a ritual.

Brahmanas
The Brahmanas are commentaries, explanation of proper methods and meaning of Vedic Samhita rituals in the four Vedas. They also incorporate myths, legends and in some cases philosophy. Each regional Vedic shakha (school) has its own operating manual-like Brahmana text, most of which have been lost. A total of 19 Brahmana texts have survived into modern times: two associated with the Rigveda, six with the Yajurveda, ten with the Samaveda and one with the Atharvaveda. The oldest dated to about 900 BCE, while the youngest Brahmanas (such as the Shatapatha Brahmana), were complete by about 700 BCE. According to Jan Gonda, the final codification of the Brahmanas took place in pre-Buddhist times (ca. 600 BCE).

The substance of the Brahmana text varies with each Veda. For example, the first chapter of the Chandogya Brahmana, one of the oldest Brahmanas, includes eight ritual suktas (hymns) for the ceremony of marriage and rituals at the birth of a child. The first hymn is a recitation that accompanies offering a Yajna oblation to Agni (fire) on the occasion of a marriage, and the hymn prays for prosperity of the couple getting married. The second hymn wishes for their long life, kind relatives, and a numerous progeny. The third hymn is a mutual marriage pledge, between the bride and groom, by which the two bind themselves to each other. The sixth through last hymns of the first chapter in Chandogya Brahmana are ritual celebrations on the birth of a child and wishes for health, wealth, and prosperity with a profusion of cows and artha. However, these verses are incomplete expositions, and their complete context emerges only with the Samhita layer of text.

Aranyakas and Upanishads
The Aranyakas layer of the Vedas include rituals, discussion of symbolic meta-rituals, as well as philosophical speculations.

Aranyakas, however, neither are homogeneous in content nor in structure. They are a medley of instructions and ideas, and some include chapters of Upanishads within them. Two theories have been proposed on the origin of the word Aranyakas. One theory holds that these texts were meant to be studied in a forest, while the other holds that the name came from these being the manuals of allegorical interpretation of sacrifices, for those in Vanaprastha (retired, forest-dwelling) stage of their life, according to the historic age-based Ashrama system of human life.

The Upanishads reflect the last composed layer of texts in the Vedas. They are commonly referred to as Vedānta, variously interpreted to mean either the "last chapters, parts of the Vedas" or "the object, the highest purpose of the Veda". The central concern of the Upanishads are the connections "between parts of the human organism and cosmic realities." The Upanishads intend to create a hierarchy of connected and dependent realities, evoking a sense of unity of "the separate elements of the world and of human experience [compressing] them into a single form." The concepts of Brahman, the Ultimate Reality from which everything arises, and Ātman, the essence of the individual, are central ideas in the Upanishads, and knowing the correspondence between Ātman and Brahman as "the fundamental principle which shapes the world" permits the creation of an integrative vision of the whole. The Upanishads are the foundation of Hindu philosophical thought and its diverse traditions, and of the Vedic corpus, they alone are widely known, and the central ideas of the Upanishads have influenced the diverse traditions of Hinduism.

Aranyakas are sometimes identified as karma-kanda (ritualistic section), while the Upanishads are identified as jnana-kanda (spirituality section). In an alternate classification, the early part of Vedas are called Samhitas and the commentary are called the Brahmanas which together are identified as the ceremonial karma-kanda, while Aranyakas and Upanishads are referred to as the jnana-kanda.

Vedanga
The Vedangas developed towards the end of the vedic period, around or after the middle of the 1st millennium BCE. These auxiliary fields of Vedic studies emerged because the language of the Vedas, composed centuries earlier, became too archaic to the people of that time. The Vedangas were sciences that focused on helping understand and interpret the Vedas that had been composed many centuries earlier.

The six subjects of Vedanga are phonetics (Shiksha), poetic meter (Sanskrit prosody), grammar (Vyakarana), etymology and linguistics (Nirukta), rituals and rites of passage (Kalpa (Vedanga)), time keeping and astronomy (Jyotisha).

Vedangas developed as ancillary studies for the Vedas, but its insights into meters, structure of sound and language, grammar, linguistic analysis and other subjects influenced post-Vedic studies, arts, culture and various schools of Hindu philosophy. The Kalpa Vedanga studies, for example, gave rise to the Dharma-sutras, which later expanded into Dharma-shastras.

Parisista
 "supplement, appendix"  is the term applied to various ancillary works of Vedic literature, dealing mainly with details of ritual and elaborations of the texts logically and chronologically prior to them: the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Sutras. Naturally classified with the Veda to which each pertains, Parisista works exist for each of the four Vedas. However, only the literature associated with the Atharvaveda is extensive.
 * The  is a very late text associated with the Rigveda canon.
 * The  is a short metrical text of two chapters, with 113 and 95 verses respectively.
 * The ', ascribed to Katyayana, consist of 18 works enumerated self-referentially in the fifth of the series (the Shakha) and the '.
 * The  Yajurveda has 3 parisistas The ', which is also found as the second praśna of the ', the '
 * For the Atharvaveda, there are 79 works, collected as 72 distinctly named parisistas.

Upaveda
The term upaveda ("applied knowledge") is used in traditional literature to designate the subjects of certain technical works. Lists of what subjects are included in this class differ among sources. The Charanavyuha mentions four Upavedas:
 * Archery (Dhanurveda), associated with the Yajurveda
 * Architecture (Sthapatyaveda), associated with the Rigveda.
 * Music and sacred dance, associated with the Samaveda
 * Medicine (Ayurveda), associated with the Atharvaveda.

"Fifth" and other Vedas
Some post-Vedic texts, including the Mahabharata, the Natyasastra and certain Puranas, refer to themselves as the "fifth Veda". The earliest reference to such a "fifth Veda" is found in the Chandogya Upanishad in hymn 7.1.2.

"Let drama and dance (Nātya, नाट्य) be the fifth vedic scripture. Combined with an epic story, tending to virtue, wealth, joy and spiritual freedom, it must contain the significance of every scripture, and forward every art. Thus, from all the Vedas, Brahma framed the Nātya Veda. From the Rig Veda he drew forth the words, from the Sama Veda the melody, from the Yajur Veda gesture, and from the Atharva Veda the sentiment."

"Divya Prabandha", for example Tiruvaymoli, is a term for canonical Tamil texts considered as Vernacular Veda by some South Indian Hindus.

Other texts such as the Bhagavad Gita or the Vedanta Sutras are considered shruti or "Vedic" by some Hindu denominations but not universally within Hinduism. The Bhakti movement, and Gaudiya Vaishnavism in particular extended the term veda to include the Sanskrit Epics and Vaishnavite devotional texts such as the Pancharatra.

Puranas
The Puranas is a vast genre of encyclopedic Indian literature about a wide range of topics particularly myths, legends and other traditional lore. Several of these texts are named after major Hindu deities such as Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. There are 18 Maha Puranas (Great Puranas) and 18 Upa Puranas (Minor Puranas), with over 400,000 verses.

The Puranas have been influential in the Hindu culture. They are considered Vaidika (congruent with Vedic literature). The Bhagavata Purana has been among the most celebrated and popular text in the Puranic genre, and is of non-dualistic tenor. The Puranic literature wove with the Bhakti movement in India, and both Dvaita and Advaita scholars have commented on the underlying Vedanta themes in the Maha Puranas.

Vedas in Sangam literature
Vedas finds its earliest literary mention in the Sangam literature dated to the 5th century BCE. The Vedas were read by almost every caste in ancient Tamil Nadu. An Indian historian, archaeologist and epigraphist named Ramachandran Nagaswamy mentions that Tamil Nadu was a land of Vedas and a place where everyone knew the Vedas. The Vedas are also considered as a text filled with deep meaning which can be understood only by scholars. The Purananuru mentions that the ancestors of Velir kings where born from the Sacred fire of a Northern sage and the Paṭṭiṉappālai mentions that the four Vedas were chanted by the priests of Ancient Tamilakam, this shows chanting of Vedas and growing sacred fires are part of the Tamil culture. Vedas are called Maṛai or Vaymoli in parts of South India. Marai literally means "hidden, a secret, mystery". Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai mentions a yupa post (a form of Vedic altar) in the Brahmin village. Vedas are recited by these Brahmins, and even their parrots are mentioned in the poem as those who sing the Vedic hymns. People in these Vedic villages did not eat meat, nor raise fowls. They ate rice, salad leaves boiled in ghee, pickles and vegetables. Apart from the Sanskrit Vedas there are other texts like Naalayira Divya Prabandham and Tevaram called as Tamil Veda and Dravida Veda.

Authority of the Vedas
The various Hindu sects and Indian philosophies have taken differing positions on the authority of the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which acknowledge the authority of the Vedas are classified as "orthodox" (āstika). Other śramaṇa traditions, such as Charvaka, Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism, which do not regard the Vedas as authorities, are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-orthodox" (nāstika) schools.

Certain traditions which are often seen as being part of Hinduism also rejected the Vedas. For example, authors of the tantric Vaishnava Sahajiya tradition, like Siddha Mukundadeva, rejected the Vedas' authority. Likewise, some tantric Shaiva Agamas reject the Vedas. The Anandabhairava-tantra for example, states that "the wise man should not elect as his authority the word of the Vedas, which is full of impurity, produces but scanty and transitory fruits and is limited."

Though many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often "no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu," and "most Indians today pay lip service to the Veda and have no regard for the contents of the text." Some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, thereby implicitly acknowledging its importance to the history of Hinduism, states Lipner.

While Hindu reform movement such as Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj accept the authority of Vedas, Hindu modernists like Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen; and social reformers like B. R. Ambedkar reject its authority.

Western Indology
The study of Sanskrit in the West began in the 17th century. In the early 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer drew attention to Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads. The importance of Vedic Sanskrit for Indo-European studies was also recognized in the early 19th century. English translations of the Samhitas were published in the later 19th century, in the Sacred Books of the East series edited by Müller between 1879 and 1910. Ralph T. H. Griffith also presented English translations of the four Samhitas, published 1889 to 1899.

Rigveda manuscripts were selected for inscription in UNESCO's Memory of the World Register in 2007.

title: Vedas


text:
User talk:Ketsuban

I rock.

Image copyright problem with Image:Wingull.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Wingull.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wingull.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wingull.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Deathtastrophe
A tag has been placed on Deathtastrophe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Grantmap.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grantmap.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Ketsuban


text:
Frederick William Pavy

Frederick William Pavy (29 May 1829 – 19 September 1911) was a British physician and physiologist and the discoverer of Pavy disease, a cyclic or recurrent physiologic albuminuria.

Life
Pavy was born in Wroughton and educated at Merchant Taylors' School. He entered Guy's Hospital in 1847. There he worked with Richard Bright in the study of Bright's disease or kidney failure. He graduated as M.B. after five years from the University of London and M.D. the following year. He became Lecturer of Anatomy at Guy's in 1854 and of Physiology in 1856. In 1859 he was appointed Assistant Physician at Guy's and full Physician in 1871.

He was made President of the Pathological Society of London in 1893 and President of the Medical and Chirurgical Society of London in 1900. He delivered the Goulstonian Lectures in 1862 and the Croonian Lecture in 1878 and 1894 to the Royal College of Physicians. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1863.

He had married Julia Oliver in London in 1855. They had two daughter Florence Julia (1856–1902) and Maud (born 1862, predeceased her mother). Florence Pavy married Rev. Sir Borradaile Savory in 1881.

Pavy died on 19 September 1911 and was buried in a family vault on the western side of Highgate Cemetery.

Diabetes
Pavy was a leading expert in diabetes, and spent almost 20 years trying to disprove Claude Bernard's theory of the glycogen-glucose metabolic cycle. His 1862 paper "Researches on the Nature and Treatment of Diabetes" was, for many years, the definitive guide to the condition.

Pavy studied carbohydrate metabolism and dietetic treatment for diabetes. In 1873, Pavy authored A Treatise on Food and Dietetics which recommended almonds and nuts as bread substitutes. Pavy promoted a low-carbohydrate diet to treat diabetes. His diet allowed all kinds of butcher's meat (except liver), cheese, eggs, fish and some green vegetables. All sugar was forbidden including all kinds of fruit, pasta and potatoes but he allowed spirits and wines that had not been sweetened.

Selected publications

 * A Treatise on the Function of Digestion (1869)
 * Researches on the Nature and Treatment of Diabetes (1869)
 * A Treatise on Food and Dietetics (1874)
 * The Physiology of the Carbohydrates (1894)
 * On Carbohydrate Metabolism (1906)

title: Frederick William Pavy


text:
Forced Exposure

Forced Exposure was an independent music magazine founded by Jimmy Johnson and Katie The Kleening Lady (Goldman) (zine). It was published sporadically out of Boston from 1982 to 1993, edited by Jimmy Johnson and Byron Coley. It was printed on cheap newsprint with plain design and filled with corrosive yet humorous writing. The first issue featured Boston Hardcore band SS Decontrol on the cover.

While there were articles and reviews of various counter-culture figures in literature (Charles Bukowski, William S. Burroughs, Philip K. Dick) and film (Richard Kern, Nick Zedd), the primary focus was independent, punk, and obscure music. The tone was often sarcastic, confrontational and highly opinionated. Coley in particular wrote in a vernacular that was influential on subsequent rock journalism.

The list of contributors and interviewees includes several prominent figures in underground music from the time: Steve Albini, Mission of Burma, Sonic Youth, Lydia Lunch, Chris D., Tesco Vee, et cetera. The last issue of the magazine, #18, was released in 1993. Forced Exposure now exists as a distributor of CDs and vinyl records.

One reviewer said of the magazine, "What separates Forced Exposure from other alternative music and art magazines is the intelligence and intensity of its editorial style".

title: Forced Exposure


text:
Polikarpov

Polikarpov Design Bureau was a Soviet OKB (design bureau) for aircraft, led by Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov. Dux Factory was acquired by the USSR and became part of Polikarpov.

After the death of Polikarpov on 30 July 1944 at the age of 52, his OKB was absorbed into Lavochkin, but with some of its engineers going to Mikoyan-Gurevich and its production facilities going to Sukhoi. For a long time the Polikarpov OKB headquarters were located at Aircraft plant #1 (formerly Dux Factory) in Moscow, where its purpose-built building still stands.

Designs
Polikarpov designs:

Bombers

 * TB-2 twin-engined biplane bomber prototype, 1930
 * SPB (D) twin-engined dive bomber developed from the VIT-2, 1940
 * NB (T) medium bomber prototype, 1944

Fighters

 * I-1 (IL-400) monoplane fighter prototype, 1923
 * DI-1 (2I-N1) twin-seat biplane fighter prototype, 1926
 * I-3 biplane fighter, 1928
 * DI-2 two-seat biplane fighter developed from the I-3, 1929
 * I-6 biplane fighter prototype, 1930
 * I-5 biplane fighter, 1930
 * I-13/ANT-32 fighter project, 1931
 * I-15 Chaika biplane fighter, 1933
 * I-16 fighter, 1933
 * I-15-2/I-152 (I-15bis) prototype modernized version of I-15, 1938
 * I-15-3/I-153 Chaika biplane fighter
 * I-17 fighter prototype, 1934
 * I-180 prototype fighter developed from the I-16, 1938
 * I-185 prototype fighter developed from the I-180, 1941
 * I-190 biplane fighter prototype developed from I-153, 1939
 * I-200 (MiG-1) fighter
 * TIS (MA) twin-engined heavy fighter prototype, 1941
 * ITP (M) fighter prototype, 1942
 * Malyutka rocket-powered fighter, abandoned incomplete upon Polikarpov's death

Ground attack

 * VIT-1 twin-engined attack aircraft prototype, 1937
 * VIT-2 development of VIT-1, 1938
 * Ivanov ground attack aircraft prototype, 1938

Reconnaissance

 * R-1 unlicensed copy of the British Airco DH.9A bomber.
 * MR-1 floatplane version of R-1 with wooden floats. 124 built.
 * MR-2 (PM-2) floatplane version of R-1 with Munzel metal floats. 1 built.
 * R-2 biplane reconnaissance aircraft based on R-1.
 * R-4 biplane reconnaissance aircraft (R-1 development, not produced).
 * R-5 biplane reconnaissance aircraft, 1928.
 * SSS light bomber development of R-5.
 * R-Z reconnaissance/light bomber, developed from the R-5, 1935.

Airliners/transport

 * PM-1 (P-2) biplane airliner
 * P-5 light transport version of R-5
 * PR-5 airliner developed from R-5
 * PR-12 monoplane airliner development based on the PR-5, 1938
 * P-Z commercial variant of R-Z
 * BDP (S) transport glider
 * MP powered version of the BDP
 * Limozin (D) light transport aircraft, abandoned incomplete upon Polikarpov's death

Trainers

 * Po-2/U-2 "Mule" general purpose biplane, 1928
 * P-2 biplane trainer, 1927

title: Polikarpov


text:
User:BeOnGuard2

Sapere aude!

title: User:BeOnGuard2


text: User talk:84.154.62.233

title: User talk:84.154.62.233


text:
User talk:BeOnGuard2

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 01:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:BeOnGuard2


text:
User talk:Puffer~enwiki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 01:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Forced Exposure
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Forced Exposure, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Puffer. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Puffer~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Puffer~enwiki


text:
Serpent seed

The doctrine of the serpent seed, also known as the dual-seed or the two-seedline doctrine, is a controversial and fringe Christian religious belief which explains the biblical account of the fall of man by stating that the Serpent mated with Eve in the Garden of Eden, and the offspring of their union was Cain. This event resulted in the creation of two races of people: the wicked descendants of the Serpent who were destined for damnation, and the righteous descendants of Adam who were destined to have eternal life. The doctrine frames human history as a conflict between these two races in which the descendants of Adam will eventually triumph over the descendants of the Serpent.

Irenaeus (c. 180), an Early Church Father, condemned the notion of original sin as adultery between Eve and the serpent in his book Against Heresies as a 'Gnostic' heresy (possibly espoused by Valentinus (100–160) and the Gospel of Philip (c. 350). It also appeared in medieval Jewish literature, including the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.

During the 19th century, the serpent seed doctrine was revived by American religious leaders who wanted to promote white supremacy. The modern versions of the serpent seed doctrine were developed within the teachings of British Israelism by C. A. L. Totten (1851–1908) and Russel Kelso Carter (1849–1928). Daniel Parker (1781–1844) was also responsible for reviving and promoting the doctrine among Primitive Baptists. Teachers of Christian Identity Theology, which branched off from British Israelism, preached the doctrine during the early twentieth century and promoted it within the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, the American Nazi Party and other white supremacist organizations. The belief's adherents commonly use it to justify antisemitism and racism by claiming that Jews or members of non-white races are the descendants of Cain and the Serpent, who they variably interpret to be Satan or an intelligent non-human creature which lived before Adam and Eve.

The serpent seed teaching comes in several different forms. William M. Branham (1909–1965), Arnold Murray (1929–2014), Wesley A. Swift (1913–1970), and Sun Myung Moon (1920–2012) played important roles in spreading different versions of the doctrine among members of their respective groups throughout the 20th century. Around the world, there are millions of adherents of the serpent seed doctrine within Branhamism and the Unification Church. In 2000, there were an estimated 50,000 adherents of it within Christian Identity. The Anti-Defamation League and various Christian apologetics organizations have denounced racist versions of the serpent seed teaching by claiming that they are incompatible with the teachings of traditional Christianity, and they have accused their promoters of exacerbating racial divisions by spreading hate.

Doctrine
Various nuanced forms of the serpent seed doctrine have been developed over the centuries. In its most prominent modern form, it explains the biblical account of the fall of man by stating that the serpent mated with Eve in the Garden of Eden, and the offspring of their union was Cain. It claims that Eve had relations with Adam a second time, and Abel and his younger brother Seth were the two offspring who were produced by that union. Both of these events resulted in the creation of two races of people, the first event produced the wicked descendants of the Serpent who were destined for damnation, and the second event produced the righteous descendants of Adam who were destined to have eternal life. The doctrine frames human history as a conflict between these two races in which the descendants of Adam will eventually triumph over the descendants of Cain and the Serpent.

Genesis 3:14-15 is a foundational verse for the doctrine.

""

The doctrine is frequently used to demonize Jews and people who are members of non-white races and justify their mistreatment, abuse, enslavement or elimination by labeling them Satanic and sub-human. Variations of the doctrine claim that the Serpent's descendants have no souls because they are partially descended from animals and are therefore predestined for damnation. Some groups are markedly militant on the subject because of their millennial teachings, and as a result, they believe that at the end of days, a final battle will be fought in which the pure race will triumph over the impure race.

The identity of the serpent varies between groups. Some groups claim that the serpent is Satan himself, while other groups claim that the serpent is an animal which is either apelike or human-like. Some groups incorporate pre-Adamite views which state that the serpent was a non-human creature whose creation predated the creation of Adam.

The identity of the serpent's seed also varies between groups. Aryan Nations, an American anti-semitic, neo-Nazi and white supremacist group, claims that the descendants of the serpent are all people who are not of northern European descent. Other Christian Identity groups claim that the descendants of the serpent are either Jews or Africans. William Branham connected the serpent's descendants with Ham (the biblical progenitor of the African peoples), several Jewish figures, the highly educated, and society's criminals. Arnold Murray connected the descendants of the Serpent with the "Kenites", a group of people which he believed had infiltrated some part of Jewish society. In the Unification Church, the bloodline of all humanity is believed to be contaminated as a result of Eve's relations with the serpent. However, married couples can change their heritages by performing the Holy Marriage Blessing Ceremony which enables them to become the adopted children of their new Adam: Sun Myung Moon.

Mainstream Christianity
Mainstream Christianity rejects the serpent seed view. Many different Christian groups offer systematic rebuttals of the doctrine. For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry points to Genesis 4:1 in order to refute the doctrine. Because the biblical record explicitly names Adam as the father of Cain, the teaching of the serpent seed is considered incompatible with the Protestant teaching of Biblical infallibility.

"Now Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain..."

Critics argue that the doctrine foments division and fuels racism, which makes it an unhealthy belief which is incompatible with Christianity because the belief itself leads to sin. One Christian apologetics group states, "Although an idea should not be criticized when it is wrongly applied, it is appropriate to condemn an idea when it logically leads to sin. A philosophy that teaches that some races or people are universally satanic, like the serpent seed doctrine, is one such philosophy." Also writing on the topic, Rev. John Brisby stated, "The Serpent's Seed doctrine is the hallmark of most radical hate groups today. Whether it involves neo-Nazis, right-wing militias, or one of the many other white supremacist groups, most of them share this doctrine in common. How do they justify their hatred towards Jews, non-whites, and others? They believe that these people are not real people at all!"

Other criticisms of the doctrine point out the theological repercussions of blurring traditional Christianity's interpretation of the doctrine of original sin. The serpent seed doctrine characterizes original sin as a feature of genetic inheritance rather than a spiritual condition. Mainstream Christianity teaches the belief that all individuals are the spiritual children of Satan because they were born in a state of original sin. Through the act of Christian conversion, individuals can become children of God through adoption. The serpent seed doctrine undermines the basic teachings of Christian conversion by teaching the belief that only individuals who are descended from Adam are the inherent children of God, a belief which classifies them as the only people who do not need to convert to Christianity, while the Serpent's seedline is irredeemable.

Early teachings
Valentinus (100–160) promoted a doctrine which is similar to the serpent seed doctrine because it states that Eve mated with the serpent and produced Cain. In his teaching, the serpent was the manifestation of an aeon named Sophia who seduced Eve. The teachings of Valentinus were compiled in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip (c. 350) where the idea that Eve mated with the serpent, or Satan, and produced Cain, finds its earliest expression. A similar account is recorded in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John which was authored by the Sethians (c. 180).

"First adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he (Cain) was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse which has occurred between those who are unlike one another is an act of adultery."

Irenaeus recorded a portion of the teaching and denounced it as heresy in his book Against Heresies. Explaining and commenting on the teachings of Valentinus, Irenaeus states:

"[They] cunningly devised a scheme to seduce Eve and Adam, by means of the serpent ... this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery ... Such are the opinions which prevail among these persons, by whom, like the Lernæan hydra, a many-headed beast has been generated from the school of Valentinus."

Medieval Judaism
The teaching also appeared in medieval Judaica. In his 1957 book Cain: Son of the Serpent, David Max Eichhorn traces the belief that Cain was the son of the union between the serpent and Eve back to early Jewish Midrashic texts which were composed between 800 CE and 1200 CE. Eichhorn identified rabbis who wrote about the topic, including a 9th-century book titled Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer and the Zohar. In their version of the serpent seed doctrine, Adam's first wife was Lilith and his second wife was Eve. Lilith became possessed by the spirit of God's wife and rebelled against Adam and became the mother of all demons. Eve was subsequently seduced by the serpent and became the mother of a race of evil men.

A later folk-version of the serpent seed doctrine was somewhat widespread in European Christianity during the Middle Ages and it ascribed the ancestry of legendary monsters such as Grendel to Cain.

The Aramaic text Targum Pseudo-Jonathan contains passages which refer to the serpent seed concept. The targum was referenced by Rabbi Menahem Recanati (1250–1310) in his Perush 'Al ha-Torah. The age of the writing is disputed. A 2006 analysis by Beverly Mortensen dates the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the 4th century and she regards it as a manual for kohanim. Gavin McDowell's analyses suggested that the document was created in the early 1200s because it includes excerpts from writings which date back to the 1100s.

In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the serpent is an angelic being who is named Samael. "And the Woman beheld Sammael, the angel of death, and was afraid; yet she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was medicine for the enlightenment of the eyes, and desirable tree by means of which to understand. And she took of its fruit, and did eat; and she gave to her husband with her, and he did eat." And again, in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.. "And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord." So Adam knew his wife Eve/Hava, who desired the Angel (Samael), aka "The Serpent, Satan & The Destroyer" in Judaism & Talmudic Lore. And then she bore Kain. In one account Samael is also believed to be the father of Cain, as well as the partner of Lilith. The relationship between Samael and Lilith is depicted in the Sigil of Baphomet, the official insignia of the Church of Satan.

Modern origins in British Israelism

British Israelism reintroduced a version of serpent seed beginning in the mid-1800s. A small circle of ministers in the United Kingdom first began to develop what they called "seedline" doctrine in the 1790s. The seedline teaching stated that two races of people lived upon the earth: a righteous pure seedline of people and an unrighteous impure seedline of people. The early teachings of the seedline doctrine did not offer an origin story for the two groups. The original form of British Israelism taught the belief that the Anglo-Saxons were descended from the lost tribes of Israel and were therefore part of the pure seedline.

British Israelism traces its roots to Richard Brothers (1759–1824) who was one of the earliest promoters of the theology and published a tract on the topic in 1794. John Wilson (1788–1870), and Edward Hine (1825–1891) followed Brothers in promoting the doctrine in the mid-1800s and each of them also published books on the topic and acquired a large following within various Christian denominations. Elements of their teachings gradually became popular among members of the Church of England. Each of them published books on the topic and they also acquired a growing number of followers within various Christian denominations. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the earliest versions of the teaching did not seem to be racially motivated, but that began to change as the theology was introduced in the United States. The theology arrived in the United States through British Israelite evangelists in the mid-19th century. Rev. Joseph Williams (1826–1882), who immigrated from the UK to the USA, was probably the first such evangelist. He lectured on the subject in Boston from 1874 until his death in 1882. His teachings on the subject were published in two periodicals, The Trio and The Trumpet of Israel. Rev. Joseph Wild (1834–1908) immigrated from England to Brooklyn during the 1880s. He became the preeminent American promoter of British Israelism. He published multiple books on the subject and influence many white Americans with his teachings.

Daniel Parker (1781–1844) was an early American leader of the Primitive Baptist Church in the Southern United States and founder of numerous churches in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and Texas. As an elder, Parker led a group which separated from that church and formed the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists. Parker integrated the serpent seed doctrine into Calvinist Predestination. He connected the elect with the pure seedline, and he connected the non-elect with the serpent seedline. Parker published his beliefs in a tract which he entitled Views on the Two Seeds while he was living in Vincennes, Indiana in 1826. Parker's seedline doctrine identified the serpent as the father of Cain and the originator of the wicked impure seedline. Parkers initially developed and promoted the serpent seedline doctrine as a key argument in his opposition to foreign Christian missionaries. Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent. He stated that since "God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous." Parker was labeled a heretic for teaching the doctrine by mainstream Baptists. The influences on Parker's beliefs are unknown, so he may have arrived at his version of the serpent seedline doctrine independently, or he may have been influenced by early British Israel teachings. Parker's teachings coincided with the promotion of the earliest form of Polygenism in the United States by the Kentuckian Charles Caldwell, who believed non-white races could not have descended from Adam. Although it was not widely accepted, Parker's teaching became well known among Calvinistic Baptists in Kentucky. "Two-Seed Predestinarian Baptists always remained a small group. The U.S. religious census of 1906 recorded 781 members. In 1938 there were 98 members."

In the 1890s, C. A. L. Totten (1851–1908), a former professor of military science at Yale University, began to promote British Israelism. Totten began to promote the belief that Anglo-Saxons were destined by God to rule the world. Also during the 1890s, British Israelism began to develop into a formal organization which took on racial overtones. In 1886, the growing group formed the Anglo-Israel Association and in 1919, this group renamed itself the British-Israel-World Federation. The primary aim of this group was the promotion of archeological expeditions which it wished to undertake in order to discover pieces of evidence which would validate its beliefs. The group remained small, but it gained a broader base of international appeal when it began to accept all people of Germanic descent as part of the righteous seed-line of the lost tribes of Israel. By the 1930s, the movement had grown to include over 50 branches in the United States which were all under the leadership of William J. Cameron, but the British Israel movement largely faded from view both during and after World War II.

Most modern versions of the serpent seed teaching can be traced to Totten and the seedline teachings which he promoted during the early 20th century. Totten published several books and integrated British Israel theology into Adventist theology. According to Professor Jon F. Schamber, Totten's works "inspired dozens of evangelists and religious writers, including Rev. John H. Allen, a founding minister in the Church of God (Holiness); Charles Fox Parham (1873–1929), the founder of the Pentecostal Apostolic Faith Movement; Victor Morris Tyler, a wealthy industrialist and an editor of the Our Race Quarterly; Rev. Reuben H. Sawyer, a clergyman in the Christian Church and a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan; and Alan A. Beauchamp, a publisher and an editor of the Watchman of Israel."

Christian Identity theology
Rev. Russel Kelso Carter (1849–1928) was a prominent Church of God (Holiness) minister and a follower of Totten. He became the first preacher of British Israelism to offer a theory on the origin of the serpent's seedline. Carter theorized that Cain was the literal Son of the serpent in his book The Tree of Knowledge which he published in 1894. Carter believed that "the tremendous pull of the sexual appetite, aroused by the excited state of the woman" caused humanity's fall in the Garden of Eden. He believed that Satan used the seduction of Eve to destroy God's pure race "at its fountainhead". Carter stopped short of speculating on who the descendants of Cain might be, but he connected the righteous seedline with the Anglo-Saxons. Carter's teachings on the subject were subsequently integrated into the overall teachings of British Israelism and they proved to be particularly appealing to members of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists who spread the teaching during the 20th century.

Carter's theory was very similar to the theory which was first proposed by Daniel Parker, who may have been an influence on him. Carter may have also been influenced by the pre-Adamite and Polygenist theories which were being promoted in the United States during the 19th century. In 1875, A. Lester Hoyle wrote a book titled The Pre-Adamite, or who tempted Eve? In his book, he claimed that multiple creations of races had occurred, but he claimed that only the white race, of which Adam was the father, had been made in God's image and likeness. Hoyle also suggested that Cain was the "mongrel offspring" of Eve's seduction by "an enticing Mongolian" with whom she had repeated trysts, thus laying the foundation for the white supremacist bio-theology which states that miscegenation is "an abomination". Blending contemporary evolutionary thinking with pre-Adamism, the Vanderbilt University theistic evolutionist and geologist Alexander Winchell argued in his 1878 tract, Adamites and Preadamites, for the pre-Adamic origins of the human race, that Negroes were too racially inferior to be the descendants of the Biblical Adam.

According to Professor Jon Schamber, Rev. Philip E. J. Monson began to separate from traditional British Israelism and develop Christian Identity theology. During the 1920s, Monson published Satan's Seat: The Enemy of Our Race in which he adopted Carter's theory on the origin of the impure seedline and combined it with anti-Catholicism. Monson connected the work of the impure seedline to the activities of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Monson's ideas were popular among white supremacist organizations in the United States. Rev. Wesley A. Swift (1913–1970), a minister and a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, and a follower of Monson, accepted the serpent seed doctrine and Christian Identity Theology and was instrumental in promoting the teachings among white supremacists in the United States.

Swift was a minister at the Angelus Temple, a church frequently visited by William Branham. Swift later separated and started a new church, Church of Jesus Christ–Christian, which was later renamed Aryan Nations by Swift's successor, Richard Girnt Butler. Swift ordained several ministers who helped him to spread the theology. His lieutenants who helped him to spread the serpent seed teaching included two Nazis, Oren Potito and Neuman Britton, and the prominent KKK leader Connie Lynch. Swift and his fellow white supremacists began to promote the doctrine even more heavily during the desegregation period of the 1950s and 1960s. According to Swift, the descendants of the serpent were "in violation of Divine law when they started to mutate species and mix races." The serpent seed teaching was used to justify racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.

It was also during the desegregation period when William Branham (1909–1965) and Arnold Murray (1929–2014) first began to promote their versions of the serpent seed doctrine. Branham was the most successful promoter of the serpent seed doctrine, and his version of it was subsequently accepted by millions of his followers. During the desegregation era, a militant form of the doctrine was espoused, especially by Christian Identity groups, because its millennial teachings state that the pure race will wage a final battle with the evil descendants of the serpent in order to destroy them.

Butler continued to promote the serpent seed doctrine throughout his life, and it continued to be prominently featured at annual Aryan Nations World Congress meetings into the 1980s and 1990s. Butler's teachings on the subject influenced the Christian Defense League, the American Nazi Party, the Christian Vanguard, David Duke and modern KKK organizations.

William Branham

William M. Branham (1909–1965), a prominent American Pentecostal minister in the 1940s and 1950s who had links to the KKK, also promoted the serpent seed doctrine. Branham taught the belief that the serpent had sexual intercourse with Eve and their offspring was Cain. Branham also taught the belief that Cain's modern descendants were masquerading as educated people and scientists, along with the belief that Cain's descendants were "a big religious bunch of illegitimate bastard children" who comprised the majority of society's criminals. He believed that the serpent was the missing link between the chimpanzee and man, and he also speculated that the serpent was possibly a human-like giant. Branham believed that the serpent was transformed into a reptile after it was cursed by God.

According to Steven Hassan, "Branham's sermons lay the foundation to believe that black people are the inferior race." Branham used the term "hybrid" to describe anything he believed to be tainted by the serpent. Branham accused Eve of producing a "hybrid" race, and he provided a way to trace the hybrid line of the Serpent's Seed to Africans and Jews through Ham the biblical progenitor of the African peoples, King Ahab, Judas Iscariot, Roman Catholics, and the future Antichrist.

"Now, Noah and his sons, which come out, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, come out in the righteous line. How did the [serpent's] seed ever get over? The [serpent's] seed come over in the ark, just like it did in the beginning, through the woman, their wives. They carried the seed of Satan, through the ark, just as Eve packed the seed of Satan, to give birth to Cain, through the woman. ... Notice this now. And out of there, then, come Ham, Ham with his wife, and them. He had a curse put on him."

"What good would a white woman want to have a baby by a colored man making him a mulatto child? It's not sensible. ... If I was a colored man, or a brown man, or a yellow man, or a red man, I would be just as happy about it. Yes, sir. I sure would. That's the way that my Maker wanted me and that's the way I am. Right. Why does man want to tamper with anything for? When man gets into it, he ruins it. Let it alone the way God made it. Let a man be what he is; by the grace of God let him be. But he has to cause great fusses now calling our… causing riots, and big fusses, and everything else across the nations, and across the world just because he wanted to stick his head out about something. That's the ignorance of the man. That's right; hybrid again. Instead of leaving it the way God wants it, he wants to make his own way. He has to do something about it, you know. He has to make his own self a name. God be merciful to him. It's a pitiful thing."

"God is a segregationalist [sic]. I am too. Any Christian's a segregation. God segregates His people from all the rest of them. They're... They've always been a segregation. He chose a nation. He chooses a people. He is a segregationalist [sic]. He made all nations. But still, a real genuine Christian has to be a segregationalist  [sic]. Separating himself from the things of the world and everything, and come into one purpose, Jesus Christ."

Michael Barkun wrote that Branham was the most significant proponent of the racial teaching outside of the Christian Identity movement and directly influenced their theology. Branham's teachings on serpent seed was particularly significant to the development of Identity's view of the Jews as the seed of the Devil through Cain. Branham's 1958 introduction of serpent seed teaching coincided with Wesley Swift's introduction of demonic origin of the Jews through the serpent the same year.

Branham related a story in which he privately discussed the belief that blacks were descended from apes as early as 1929. Branham publicly hinted his belief in the serpent seed doctrine as early as 1953. He first began to teach serpent seed in 1958 at the height of racial unrest in the United States. Prof. Douglas Weaver believed that Branham may have become acquainted with the serpent seed doctrine through his Baptist roots. Branham was baptized and ordained at a First Pentecostal Baptist Church which was pastored by Roy Davis, a founding member and later Imperial Wizard of the second Ku Klux Klan. Branham may also have made contact with Kentucky churches which espoused Daniel Parker's two-seed doctrine. Professor Jon Schamber also reviewed Branham's serpent seed teachings and the role which he played in spreading the doctrine. Schamber also connected Branham's serpent seed doctrine to Russel Carter's teachings which were integrated into Christian Identity Theology and Daniel Parker's Two-Seed Theology. The CBC connected William Branham to the Ku Klux Klan during a 2017 investigation. Branham's embrace of the serpent seed doctrine alienated most of the members of his Pentecostal audience. According to Pearry Green, adherents of the broader Pentecostal movement consider Branham's version of the serpent seed doctrine repugnant and in their point of view, it was the "filthy doctrine ... that ruined his ministry." No other mainstream Christian group held a similar view; Branham was widely criticized for spreading the doctrine, but his followers view the doctrine as one of his greatest revelations.

There are millions of adherents of William Branham's serpent seed teachings. Voice of God Recordings reported that about two million people subscribe to Branham's teachings through the William Branham Evangelical Association. His followers continue to promote the doctrine and as a result, they have made international news for their racial views in connection to the teaching. According to Weaver, Branham's followers are very proud of his serpent seed teaching, believing it to be "his most original revelation". Many of his followers are unaware of the doctrine's true origin. When confronted with the accusations of racism, some of his followers have denied the teaching of serpent seed has any connection to white supremacy or racism. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "Not all Branham churches are racist or embrace the anti-race-mixing position," "but the theology clearly invites racism."

In 2014, Pastor Donny Reagan made news in the United States for promoting Branham's racial teachings. Several news outlets labeled Reagan as the "most racist pastor in America." Kacou Philippe, a leader of Branham's followers in Africa, was arrested in 2017 for hate speech and sentenced to one year prison after preaching in multiple African nations that blacks should be submissive towards whites. Philippe insisted decolonization of Africa was a sin, and that Africans could only prosper when in servitude to Europeans.

Arnold Murray
Televangelist Arnold Murray (1929–2014), founder of The Shepherd's Chapel and a prominent televangelist, taught the serpent seed doctrine. He accepted the belief that the Jews (Kingdom of Judah) were descended from Adam through Seth, as the Bible describes. However, he held the view that the Kenites were the offspring of Cain. He also believed that they infiltrated the northern Kingdom of Israel. Murray's teachings are disputed by Protestant apologetics ministries CARM and the CRI.

According to Southern Poverty Law, Murray was ordained a minister in 1958 by Roy Gillaspie and Kenneth Goff, two members of the KKK and early preachers of Christian Identity. Until at least 1978, Murray served as a leader in Gillaspie's Church of Jesus Christ organization, which had been founded by Wesley Swift. Murray was also connected to Goff's Soldiers of the Cross Training Institute where Christian Identity was taught. Dan Gayman, the most prominent Christian Identity Leader in the 1980s, attended the institute.

Explaining his beliefs in a 1979 Shepherd's Bible, Murray explained that the Kenites were serpent's offspring who "slipped in among the Jewish people in Jerusalem and claim to be God's chosen people, when in fact they are of Lucifer." Connecting the Kennites to the modern Jewish people, Murray explained that "in 1967 … Jerusalem fell to the Kenites during the 6 day war". In another sermon, Murray said that the Kenites "are responsible for the slaying of Christ." Although his teachings portrayed Jews as descendants of Lucifer, Murray insisted that his beliefs were not anti-semitic.

Christian Identity movement
Adherents of the white supremacist theology which is known as two-seedline Christian Identity do not believe that the Jews are the chosen people of God because in their view, only white people are the descendants of Adam and hence the chosen people of God. According to their belief, members of all other races are descended from Cain and are thus descended from Satan, especially Jews and blacks. This belief was popularized by Wesley A. Swift (Church of Jesus Christ–Christian), Conrad Gaard, Dan Gayman (Church of Israel) and William Potter Gale among others. The opposing faction is called One-Seedline Christian Identity because its adherents hold the view that all people are descended from Adam, but they believe that only Aryans (meaning Northern Europeans) are God's chosen people. Christian Identity followers "believe that they are in or are about to enter into the time of the Tribulation, a great battle between good and evil in which they will take part."

Groups which adhere to Christian Identity theology include Aryan Nations, the Christian Defense League, and the Ku Klux Klan. In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were 50,000 adherents of Christian Identity theology in the United States.

Unification Church
The Unification Church has taught a version of the serpent seed doctrine since at least 1961. Sun Myung Moon taught that the Fall of Man occurred when Eve was sexually seduced by Satan, and since then, the human bloodline has been contaminated. Moon believed that both Cain and Abel were physically descended from Adam and Eve, but taught that "Cain is in the position of Satan's son". Moon referred to secular society and religious people outside of the Unification Church as "Cain people". Members of the Unification Church believe that through their Holy Marriage Blessing Ceremony, married couples are removed from the lineage of Adam and Eve and grafted into God's sinless lineage as the adopted children of their new Adam: Sun Myung Moon. The first of these ceremonies occurred in 1961.

"Adam and Eve fell by the sin of illicit love, a transgression that violated God's ideal of true love. Prior to the fall, when they were constrained by the commandment [not to eat the fruit], Adam and Eve were in an imperfect state, that is, in their growing period. The archangel Lucifer, symbolized by the serpent, tempted Eve, and she spiritually fell with him. She then tempted Adam to eat the fruit before the time was ripe, and they fell physically. ... By this principle, God divided fallen Adam and Eve into two through their two children. Cain represented Satan, and Abel represented sinless Adam. Hence God placed Abel, the second son, in the internal position. Abel represented the second love between Adam and Eve, which contained fewer evil elements, while Cain was the fruit of the first love. God took Abel because Adam and Eve's relationship was more principled than the first relationship between Eve and the archangel. ... The religious people whom God has blessed take the role of Abel, while the secular people who do not know God and may have grudges against religion are in the role of Cain."

In World Scripture the Unification Church uses excerpts from the Koran, the Midrash Rabbah, the Bahir, the Stromata and Sigmund Freud to support their interpretation. Moon attended many different Christian churches during the 1930s and 1940s in both Korea and Japan, and was exposed to British missionaries and Pentecostals. He may have been exposed to seedline teachings during this period.

P'ikareum is a related ritual which is performed by members of several Korean new religious movements, in which a female devotee has sex with the male leader (who claims to be the messiah) in order to purify her descendants from inherited sin. The purpose of this ritual is to undo the original sin, which (as in the classic serpent seed doctrine) was believed to have been committed when Eve had sex with the serpent. British religious scholar George Chryssides also noted that there were cases in which the messianic leader was a female and the neophyte was a male. The person who is so initiated will then have intercourse with his or her spouse, and the purity which is acquired from the messianic leader will be transmitted to both the spouse and the spouse's progeny. The most notable Korean new religious movement to have faced allegations of performing p'ikareum is the early Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon; however, Chryssides notes that, aside from the use of language which involves the purifying of sinful bloodlines, there is no actual evidence that this ritual occurs within the Unification movement.

title: Serpent seed


text:
Category talk:Constellations

Discussion
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Constellations  Ian Cairns 01:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Categorising constellation articles
There is some inconsistency in the way constellation articles are categorised. Most (all?) of the current constellations have their own category, itself categorised here. Many, but not all, of them are also directly categorised here, the parent category of the individual constellation category. This isn't generally done, but can be in particular cases. Either way, it seems like it should be consistent. I'll happily edit them all, but which way should it be? Lithopsian (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after constellations
Asking here because I suspect nobody is watching at Category Talk:Wikipedia categories named after constellations. This category is clearly incomplete and hence effectively useless. There is a subcategory for every one of the 88 modern constellations, plus some. Is Category:Wikipedia categories named after constellations of any use? Should it be fully populated? Should it only contain exactly eponymous categories? Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Constellations