This argument is circular: it is only Western indology that defines “Vedic” as referring to “the actual Vedas” by which it means only the saṃhitā portion of the texts. The traditional Indian understanding of “Veda” is indeed that it includes both mantra (saṃhitā) and brāhṃaṇa — the latter including āraṇyaka and upaniṣad. Yes it's true that sometimes when (say) “Ṛgveda” is mentioned, in that context it may refer only to the ṛk saṃhitā, etc — but the narrow meaning is only contextual; in general one talks of which brāhmaṇa-s / āraṇyaka-s / upaniṣad-s belong to which Veda, etc.

More generally the Vedāṅgas are also considered part of the Veda, etc. When Pāṇini (whom you allude to in one of the replies here) distinguishes the older language, he uses terms like “chandasi” not "in the Vedas”. Even today when a certain practice or person is called “Vaidika” obviously it doesn't mean a certain time period, belonging to several centuries BCE.

Ultimately, to consider linguistic analysis relevant to the definition of “Vedic” and to say “to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition” is simply saying “let's make up a definition of ‘Vedic’ different from the traditional definition, under which the traditional definition can be termed incorrect” — no traditional scholar thinks of “Vedic” as referring to “the Vedic language” as referring to the language of the saṃhitās.

Edit: I have a theory for how this state of affairs came about: Western interest in Sanskrit texts took off in a big way after William Jones's (much-quoted) pronouncement of the relation between Sanskrit and Persian and Greek and Latin. So the interest started with linguists and philologists, who were naturally more interested in the oldest texts / the texts whose language was closest to the rest of the Indo-European family, and that has become the frame by which these texts are still talked about (rather than say the framing used by traditional Vaidika paṇḍita-s). This is why we see someone confidently deciding that linguistic analysis can tell us something about what “Veda” means or should mean, rather than only telling us about the language of a certain subset of texts.

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

Here's an article that gets into the differences between the Vedic hymns and the later material that grew around them (in section 2):

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol

In particular:

”Over time a body of dependent and scholastic material grew up around the poems, known loosely as 'the Veda'. Perhaps around 1000 BC (all dating in prehistoric India is only approximate), editors gathered the ancient poems together and arranged them, together with some more modern material, into ten books according to rules that were largely artificial"

In terms of subject matter, I would cite the texts themselves. The bulk of the original Vedas (meaning the Samhitas proper), though exquisite in language, poetry and description, are remarkably concrete and earthly compared to the subject matter of the Upanishads, which instead are concerned with esoteric subjects like dualism and non-dualism, and the relationship of that to individual identity and a universal consciousness. The Vedic Samhita's subject matter predominantly concerns propitiation of deified forces of nature to aid with everyday survival concerns, like food, kinship practices, and inter-tribal conflicts.

The Upanishads clearly represent the reflections of an elite of a far more "advanced" stage of society than the Samhitas.

Indeed. Many Upanishads are, in spirit, opposed to the old Vedas, and some are outright critical of the ritualism that forms the core of the Vedas.

No, they are not. Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas. There are four vedas and ten principal upanishads.

Hindu philosophy aims to be accessible and useful to everyone. In that, Upanishads offer a way for people who are unable to follow Vedic standards.

An alternative is not opposition. It’s available choice. Upanishads are not against the Vedas. They just form the latter portions of Vedas.

Eg: consider chicken eaters. Veganism is an alternative dietary choice. Veganism existed before it was considered an ‘opposition’ to consuming meat. They are all part of ‘food’ and ‘eating’. Some vegans decided that it’s position against meat eating, but that’s not it’s origin. It’s a choice And a latter interpretation that it’s opposed to meat eating. But it doesn’t mean that veganism emerged due to an opposition to meat eating to compete with it.

> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not a single coherent work of literature. They likely have dozens of authors and were composed over the span of over 1500 years. You can only describe them as "chapters" in the sense of "chapters of history", but not like "chapters" of a novel or series.

In that sense they are like the Torah and the New Testament of the Bible, which are also not books in the modern sense.

Right then. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament.

> But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

My comment was narrowly addressing the use of the term "chapters" as used in literature being applied to the texts under discussion.

I made no comment about the spiritual functional claims you made about Hinduism.

> And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament

Yes they are like the Torah in the New Testament in that they are texts that developed over thousands of years predominantly in the ancient period, and only later were canonized. This is a relatively uncontroversial comparison between the historical development of ancient religious texts.

I made no claim about the similarity of their content, if that's what you are taking issue with.

Again. What is the relevance?

You said:

> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not later chapters of the Vedas. They are entirely distinct works of literature.

This is laughably wrong. Upanishads are part of the Vedas in context and as part of a larger contextual work..then expounded separately by several authors...no one knows who or how many people wrote the Vedas.

There is literally no proof either way. Just like no one can prove the authorship of vedas or Upanishads, there is no way to prove that they are ‘entirely distinct works of literature’.

Upanishads are not fungible and are married to specific related Veda. What you say doesn’t even make basic sense.

For example: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is related to Yajur Veda and so it’s distinctly expounding upon Shukla YajurVeda. It makes no sense with Rig or Atharva or Sama Veda. So it is part of Yajur Veda.

The Vedas were orally transmitted as the language of the Brahmins and then written down much much later.

You can’t date or confer authorship on Vedas or Upanishads, but the commentaries and exposition are codified wrt the four vedas and each Upanishads is assigned to one of the four.

There is literally no basis for you to assert that ‘they are distinct works of literature’.

However: Without Vedas, Upanishads are not stand alone works. Vedas, otoh are relevant and understood without the Upanishads.

Are you claiming that ‘linguistic analysis’ by non Indians/Hindus at the university of Texas supersedes knowledge that was orally transmitted for aeons before linguistics as a term was even coined?

Plenty of Indians/Hindus conduct the same sort of linguistic analysis, beginning with a guy called Panini who lived around 800 BC. In any case, the nuance and depth of the arguments in the University of Texas article far supercedes the a priori (and apparently religiously nationalist) statements you are making here.

Historical linguistics is an evidence-based field of study that many Indian scholars also actively participate in, wherein they also analyze non Indian languages.

Where did you find ‘religiously nationalist’ statements?

I don’t understand why this has to become rude and hostile now. I don’t believe I have anything more to say to you.