Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

@ Sow. Happyhindu

"There was only one reason i mentioned looks of the dasyus. Because one member, Kunjuppu ji wanted to know why
amongst brahmins there is a mix of fair and dark skinned people (such a mix or odd assortment happens to be the case for
NBs too). And thru these posts i wanted to convey that the dasyus were mentioned as dark skinned people."

But are they mentioned as dark skinned? If so why didn't others of the past interpret it that way? Your efforts to explain to Kunjuppu are fine, it doesn't mean you explained it right. The idea of skin colour "mix" is itself a western one, where there existed a concept of race.

Read this carefully - there is a mix of straight noses, blunt noses, and all noses in between, curly hair straight hair and everything in between, light skin, dark skin and everything in between. Were these features by which brahmins as a community "identified" themselves? NO. Your assumption then is silly when you speak of "mix", having to assume we started as a single race or something. A mix is based on mixing of those aspects of identity which a community identifies itself by. "white people" are called so because THEY identified themselves with skin colour.

Makes no sense again. You are still stuck on race. Although i already explained there is nothing called racial difference in the vedas. Its up to you how you wish to see my posts.

You keep claiming people of the past did not interpret it that way. Have you ever read translations / works by indian writers? Better still, why don't you ask traditional priests for translations instead of going on claiming things.

"You are free to hold your POVs. You are mistaken in thinking only Griffith interpreted things in a certain way. Which is
why i asked you to atleast make an attempt to read works by indian writers / translators."

Show me translated verses from Indian writers or translators. It still doesn't answer query 1. of post # 5 because that query
is connected to the reasonable question as to why no one else came with the same interpretations of "bull lipped, black
skinned, noseless" dasyus.

Please buy books and read yourself. You can even read the hindi translated version available on the internet for free. Already told you that you can also read books on this topic from google books. Try this one by Bhandarkar: Some aspects of ancient Indian culture - Google Books Without even a basic study i wonder how you are going on talking here.

"again you are moving to the itihaasa period and make no sense wrt Indra."

References to Indra are throughout Indian scriptures! You posted this in my response to you which explained why I think
Indra may not refer to a particular person. Your argument is incoherent to me. To you vedas seem like they are
"worshipping" Indra, they do to me too. But any person read in the vedas would hardly tell you those hymns are worships
to Indra - it again points to what I have been trying to say - our interpretation based on Griffith's English Vedas are a
misunderstanding, which is why we come to the apparent contradictions/paradoxes.

Vivek ji, you are obviously a novice and a beginner wrt vedic literature. Without even an initial background study you have decided to discuss things.

Wrt to your previous post reg Indra in zoarashtrian religion, it is not just Indra, you can find other vedic 'dieties' also in the avestan religion.

Wrt to your repetedly bringing post-vedic literature into the scene, you might do well to remember that the vedic period was far too ancient to be compared with puranas, itihaasas, etc. According to historians, there is atleast a gap of a 1000 years between the vedic period and the puranic period. When historians research vedas, they take other literature (puranas, itihasas) as a corollary.

"Obviously there was a set of people who called themselves arya. Please read the rig before you venture to speak on the
subject. "

I have read it (Griffith's translation). Maybe you can explain which people called themselves "arya" as a clan or tribe name.
There exist none. The only references to such usage come from the studies on Indology that started in the 19th
century under the British Raj. The nature of the study was criticized since then, because the British tried to interpret our history from their world-view point.

Already told you identifying tribes or clans are difficult in the present time. Yet there are people who do it. There are plenty of books on this topic, which are not just in Indian context alone. There are also people finding out possible similarities between the jewish tribe Asher and the vedic Asuras. This is one example of how Asurs of chota nagpur observe navratri as a period of mourning: http://akshay-chavan.blogspot.com/2009/09/asuras-of-today-bloodline-of.html Btw, only foolish people wud expect to be descended intact from over a 3000 year period.

"Me: By "arya" preist I mean the brahmins, and the reference (as "arya") was a sarcastic one. Read it again, you will see my
point. To explain it again - the proponents of your view generally view that the varna system is "arya" and used to destroy
the "dasyus".

But when they see brahmins doing some of the so-called "dasyu" rites, they assume it was borrowed. Underlying point here
is that, we, with our English reading of vedas see a paradox in the vedas and present tradition, but other's who understand
the vedas by the traditional method don't. Clearly there is something not understood in between. It would be necessary
for us to probe that, rather than jump to conclusions like admixing of dasyu and arya tribes happened. Why then did
nobody ever associate dasyus with bull-lipped, or dark skinned? After all this is what you started with assuming Griffth's
verses.

Happyhindu: Sorry Vivek, the first para makes no sense to me. Reg your underlying point, nobody can assume, or
persume anything without studying things. But obviously we have people who go on talking about Griffith and go on
elaborating their POVs without even reading a few riks or any other verses from the vedas."
Read it again. What I am saying is pretty simple - the people who read the Vedas (from long ago, till today) and who also
do "idol/dasyu" rites in temples see no contradiction as you do. So your apparent contraditions will be answered when you
ask them. As I said earlier, things that later came out and are not mentioned in the vedas may not be "dasyu", very well
derived in times later.
"Dasa was used positively only by a specific set of people at one time (some say these people are now 'people of the east').
In Bengal there were no brahmins in the past. So also even for Kashmir at one point of time."

Whatever the case it still means Dasa did have a positive connotation in some place contrary to what you said. The answer to "why?" is
replied less convincingly by our guesses, than it is by a detailed research on the word or its usage.

Find out yourself. Methinks, the word 'pakistani' wud sound evil to an indian but not to a pakistani. The word 'dasyu' wud have sounded evil to an arya but not to a dasyu. Same goes for words like munda, dimisa, lanjia, etc (which are all names of tribes but used in spoken tamil / telugu with a negative connotation, supposedly indicating old tribal rivalries).

"The dasyu are mentioned as dark skinned people in the rig. It is true that Indra is evil in Zoarashtrian religion (an exact
opposite to the vedas)."

Yes, and do you mind to keep the Zoroastrian text chronology in mind? The role of the Daevas in Zoroastrian scriptures is one of "misled beings, freezers of man's brains" to being "demons" in Zoroastrian scriptures, the role of Asuras in Indian scriptures seems to be that of "powerful beings" to later "power hungry" and "evil, wrongdoers". I am well aware of the Ahura-Asura cognate as well as the Deva-Daeva cognate and opposite meanings. Dasyus however are not called "dark skinned" anywhere, and Dahae (cognate of Dasa) means "man" in Iranian scriptures from what I know. If Dasyus were dark skinned, and all that was the case numerous dark skinned people would have been dismissed as "Dasyus". The reason for such translations from the British, German Indologists at the time was to show that a race war is what established our civilization.

The word "krsna" is translated as "dark" everywhere. You are free to think that "krsna" does not mean "dark".

You probably didn't understand my line of reasoning, which is why I am left to make you answer the question you keep skipping: Why is it that others who actually learnt (and had discussion) in the Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings as Griffith's English translation or any translations whish speak of "bull lipped, noseless, dark skinned" dasyus did?

Repetition.

Don't accuse me of "venerating" anyone because the logic of the question is independent of what I think of the vedas. Further, neither of us has actually seen the way the vedic verses are studied or how (by what method) and interpretation is made on it. In the meantime, it makes perfect sense to speak of meanings of the word "arya" in texts that are more direct in their explaination.

Sorry Vivek ji, I think you are living in blind veneration for the vedas. And that happens to be my personal opinion based on your posts on this thread so far. You are thinking there is some metaphorical meanings for certain verses. You are going on repeting the same POVs without even a basic study. Apart from Griffith you do not seem to want to talk about anyone else (becoz Griffith is the only translation you have read). I do not know how much you understand sanskrit. I have a sincere suggestion for you. Instead of living in assumptions, it wud do you a lot good to approach a sanskrit teacher or a traditional teacher, and understand things yourself.

Why am I to assume that there was some sudden jump and change in meaning of this word from one supposed era to another? Further, there is really no reason to even assume the meaning changed because throughout Indian literature (even in the Vedas, if you don't rely on Griffith's propaganda translation) it has the same meaning.

Regards,
Vivek.

Goodness its Griffith again!!

Vivek ji, i hope you will heed my sincere suggestion of learning from a traditional teacher. Overall, i have only this to say to you -- it is better to talk after some basic study, otherwise discussing things merely for the sake of doing so is utterly non-sensical. Apparently you are in 'love' with Griffith so much that you want to keep talking about him. Or atleast that is what it seems to me after going thru your posts on this thread. You are free to keep talking about Griffith. Expect no more replies from me on this topic anymore. Best wishes for your further exploration.

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@Sow. Happyhindu - its YOU who started with race reference of dasyus.

"Makes no sense again. You are still stuck on race. Although i already explained there is nothing called racial difference in the vedas. "

No, you are stuck on the idea of race. Let me remind that it was you (not me) who made references to dasyus being "dark skinned, bull lipped, noseless". I am asking you a logical rhetroic question against your view that vedas present dasyus as "dark skinned, bull lipped, noseless" people by asking you that if this was so obvious how did people of the past miss it?

"You keep claiming people of the past did not interpret it that way. Have you ever read translations / works by indian writers? Better still, why don't you ask traditional priests for translations instead of going on claiming things."

And I really haven't come across a single notion that the matter of the vedas is understood by its direct meaning or translation.

Your statement here again repeats what I have been saying: That neither of us even know the traditional method of study, yet you insist on your interpretations.

"Please buy books and read yourself. You can even read the hindi translated version available on the internet for free."

I have read quiet a deal, if I need to mention. It still doesn't answer my question. If you don't see the logic in my question, go back to when I first posted it and try to read it closely.

"Vivek ji, you are obviously a novice and a beginner wrt vedic literature. Without even an initial background study you have decided to discuss things."

Sure, sure, and you are the expert here :- )

"Wrt to your repetedly bringing post-vedic literature into the scene, you might do well to remember that the vedic period was far too ancient to be compared with puranas, itihaasas, etc. According to historians, there is atleast a gap of a 1000 years between the vedic period and the puranic period."

The Matsya purana is dated by historians to around 800 BCE, the Vedas to 1500 BCE despite the fact that evidence would well suggest that the Vedas date to 3000 BCE. Now if this huge gap of dates is a time when Indian society stopped composing anything (as historians assume), they can probably explain how we all suddenly fell into a state of amnesia and then came up with supposedly (as claimed by you, not me) altered meanings of words.

Maybe you can explain the methodology used by historians in these datings too.

"Already told you identifying tribes or clans are difficult in the present time."

So that entitles me to claim that there was once a Superman tribe, whose names have gone out of record permanently! Oh believe me they existed lol. Point to me one tribe named dasyu. It refers to character trait and not to any particular tribe.

Fact is NEVER has dasyu, or arya represented tribe names. Such a thing that there were arya and dasyu races was the view of colonialists in India, who made every reference (which was positive) of "arya" to be linked with "european-like" and that of dasyus "native, dark" etc. You can read this in the first ideas of Thule, which spoke of its "Fifth root race".

"This is one example of how Asurs of chota nagpur observe navratri as a period of mourning"

Yes, there are even alleged descendants of Ravan, there are even alleged descendants of the Devas. The Janjua Rajputs for example, are descendants of Arjuna (who is son of Indra). But how does any of it validate your claim? The point is no tribes named dasyus or arya exist.

YOU (not me) made references to dasyus being bull-lipped, dark-skinned, noseless. Can you say at which point through India's history did anyone interpret it that way? Or if people were called dasyus by reference to their appearance. You clearly have some explaining to do on making the claim then.

Further, many tribes and their identities could have very well come later - today there is a tribe in Bhadrapura village (Banglore) which gives its people names like "Coffee", "Sugar", "Glucose", "Gramaphone", "Hotel" it hardly means they came from England.

However, I am not right away saying that it invalidates the claim of the Chota Nagpur people being descendants of Mahishasura, just it is open to research. Point is any off shot people could have assumed any identity - like that "English" village, whose info came in today's Times of India. Anyway, I don't see how this is valid to your point. Your point was the dasyus represented some "noseless, bull lipped, dark skinned" people. If your translated interpretation (from anyone, Indian or German, or British) was valid how did people of the past miss altogether it?

Sure they were stupid, while you are a ved guru. Am I right? lol.

"Find out yourself. Methinks, the word 'pakistani' wud sound evil to an indian but not to a pakistani."

Our texts define arya, dasyu were based on traits etc. References to all the asuras are not evil. There have been liked asuras too - like Bali (on whose memory Onam is celebrated). Dasyu and arya are more analogous to "lazy" people, "active" people not clans or tribes as a whole. People of our past very well understood the notion that "one man's hero is another man's villain". The references of dasyu or aryas are not that however, I can say this without reading because throughout our past nobody every interpret it that way. Today, when you or anyone does it through translated interpretation it obviously becomes questionable because it leaves a question as to how all others who read the original version missed it. Understand?

"The word "krsna" is translated as "dark" everywhere. You are free to think that "krsna" does not mean "dark"."

But the word also has many symbolic meanings in Sanskrit. You wouldn't have people reading vedas that look down on "krsna" and the same expounding krsna's Bhagvat Gita philosophy as a connection! The direct translation of Griffith or any Indians is questionable for the reason that it never was interpretted that way by people before.

That either means you give the translated version more weight than the original, or that you think thousands of years of study of vedas were bogus in comparision to "translated" interpretations. Even "tvac" is translated as skin, when it could mean "cover" or even something entirely different based on the context. There is another entire question of HOW the vedas need to be interpretted too, even if we know the many meanings of the raw words. You are hear to claim you have studied the vedas when you too have gone through translated interpretations (like me). Question is, how come people in the past got the ideas totally different from what we infer?

"Me: Why is it that others who actually learnt (and had discussion) in the Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings as Griffith's English translation or any translations whish speak of "bull lipped, noseless, dark skinned" dasyus did?

Happyhindu: Repetition."

Yes, repetition which you insist on not answering.

"You are thinking there is some metaphorical meanings for certain verses. You are going on repeting the same POVs without even a basic study. "

I repeat the POV because its very relevant given that zillion others understood the exact same verses in totally different way to what Indologists interpret. You have so far made such comments on me, without an iota knowledge of what I have gone through in this study (and Zoroastrian, Altaic references). The (valid) reason for thinking there is a metaphorical reason is because it was interpretted differently since ever ago. Its only the past few 100+ years that your translated interpretation is given weight. In all of this, the incoherence of the Sanskrit version interpretation and the English interpretation means something has been lost in translation.

If our interpretation is indeed valid or even close to valid, people who learnt the vedas would have interpretted to speak of "bull lipped, dark skinned, noseless" dasyus since long ago.

I request community members to clarify if there is really a rocket science involved in my explaination.

"Vivek ji, i hope you will heed my sincere suggestion of learning from a traditional teacher."

No that was my advice to both of us :- ) And "traditional" teacher wouldn't mean learning a translation - it would mean learning Sanskrit and then the vedas.

"Overall, i have only this to say to you -- it is better to talk after some basic study, otherwise discussing things merely for the sake of doing so is utterly non-sensical."

You have no idea that I have debated this topic of Aryan Invasion extensively with anti-brahminist, DMK proponents in Orkut for 5 years before I form my views. So merely because I don't hurl condescending statements at you, don't assume I am speaking out of "blind veneration" or stupidity.

"Apparently you are in 'love' with Griffith so much that you want to keep talking about him. Or atleast that is what it seems to me after going thru your posts on this thread. "

As long as you speak of studying from a translation, the talk of Griffith will continue.
Now please answer the queries in bold.

Regards,
Vivek.

PS: Read the points in bold and make sense of it. I request members to go through my posts to see I have repeated a valid point. If others also have a question as to what I am saying they can ask. But if its just Sow. Happyhindu, I can only ask you to go through (this) post carefully, especially the statements in bold. Especially the one of "how did people of past miss it?".

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Vivek,
You have been saying that one should hear the views of people who studied Vedha in conventional methods and hear their viewpoint.I also agree to your views.
There may be many Vedic Scholars in Tamilnadu,Andhra,Kerala & Karnataka.
I have listened to one Vedic Scholar by name JAGAT GURU ACHARYA KRIPALU MAHARAJ.He is now 87or so, gives lectures in HINDI.I have listened to his lectures in AASTA TV & SANSKAR TV.
He has written number of books in Hindi.In his lectures he not only quotes verses from different scriptures but mention the verse number and chapter number and name of Holy Scriptures.He was given the title of 'JAGAT GURU' in his younger days by KASI Pandits for his vast knowledge of Hindu Scriptures.
If the view of such eminent scholars are also taken into consideration,we may have a better perspective.
B.Krishnamurthy

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Shri.Vivek,
You have been saying that one should hear the views of people who studied Vedha in conventional methods and hear their viewpoint.I also agree to your views.
There may be many Vedic Scholars in Tamilnadu,Andhra,Kerala & Karnataka.
I have listened to one Vedic Scholar by name JAGAT GURU ACHARYA KRIPALU MAHARAJ.He is now 87or so, gives lectures in HINDI.I have listened to his lectures in AASTA TV & SANSKAR TV.
He has written number of books in Hindi.In his lectures he not only quotes verses from different scriptures but mention the verse number and chapter number and name of Holy Scriptures.He was given the title of 'JAGAT GURU' in his younger days by KASI Pandits for his vast knowledge of Hindu Scriptures.
If the view of such eminent scholars are also taken into consideration,we may have a better perspective.
B.Krishnamurthy

This Kripalu Maharaj has a rape case pending before sessions court as ordered by the supreme court. see--
Kripalu Maharaj and Rape --what actually happened at the Supreme Court - Sulekha philosophy Forums

Don't trust any of these modern gurus; most of them are frauds. so why try to get duped? if u want to pray, pray in ur house. did god say he will bless only if u go thru a godman?

 

[happyhindu]

Vivek ji,

I wished you well for your future exploration. And I hope you will wish the same for me. If you have done some background study, then good for you. You cud have mentioned the same. There is no need to get aggressive. And certainly there is no need to snigger and post LOL to tease and make fun. It does not behoove well of you. I have never claimed to be any sort of an expert. Your post is an uncalled for escalation. And is utterly avoidable. Unfortunately the only expert of this forum Shri Sangom is not here.

From your posts it is rather clear that you believe in 2 things:

1) That the verses have metaphorical meanings.
2) That the terms arya and dasyu do not refer to tribes / group of people and refers only to character.

If the verses had metaphorical meanings, then vedic pundits would have offered the metaphorical meanings by now. But they have not. Even Indian translators of Sanskrit like Apte and Chaturvedi have offered only negative meaning of the term dasyu.

There is nothing called the traditional method of deriving meanings. There is only a traditional method for mugging up to ensure that not a single word or sound is missed or lost. If you think there is a traditional method to derive (metaphorical) meanings, you are free to put it forward. So, Vivek, it is with good intensions, that i invite you to take part in a decent conversation. Btw, research is not about pushing POVs. It is about studying a subject and putting forth what one finds. It need not be correct but it always remains open to corrections.

You are free to peruse the very many posts on this topic in this forum. This is a post by Shri Saidevo for your kind understanding of terminology of aryas and dasyus and about the physical description of the dAsAs: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...aste-india-positive-aspects-19.html#post47003

I am giving a few verses with literal translations. If you think that these verses have an other metaphorical interpretation, then kindly put forth your meaning / translation.

The rigved when translated literally is itself self-explanatory. The Rig basically is full of the deva’s exploits against their enemies. At one place Indra declares that he does not allow the arya name to fall to the dasyus (rik 10.49): ahaṃ śuṣṇasya śnathitā vadharyamaṃna yo rara āryaṃ nāma dasyave.

The rig is ofcourse a storehouse of ancient history (the battle of the ten kings). Am giving 2 verses of Indra in war killing dAsAs / dAsyus (this tiny sample is to show the translation is done). For this purpose am using two riks from sukta 4.30 describing Indra in war (from here: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 4: Hymn 30 ):

1) उत दासं कौलितरम बर्हतः पर्वताद अधि | अवाहन्न इन्द्र शम्बरम ||

Transliterated:
uta dāsaṃ kaulitaram bṛhataḥ parvatād adhi | avāhann indra śambaram ||

Translated:
uta (उत) =also, dasaM (दासं) = (of the) dasa, kaulitaram (कौलितरम) =of kaulitara, brhatah: (बर्हतः) = kill, parvatād (पर्वताद) = (at the) hill, adhi (अधि) = at, इन्द्र = indra, शम्बरम = Shambara

2) उत दासस्य वर्चिनः सहस्राणि शतावधीः | अधि पञ्च परधींर इव ||

Tranliterated:
uta dāsasya varcinaḥ sahasrāṇi śatāvadhīḥ | adhi panca pradhīṃr iva ||

Translated:
उत = also, दासस्य = of the dAsA, वर्चिनः – vArchin, सहस्राणि = of a thousand, शतावधीः = hundred killed [hundred (शता) killed (वधीः)], अधि = at, पञ्च =five, इव= just so.

When fully translated the above two verses wud literally mean:
Indra also killed the dAsA Kulitara's son Shambara at the hill. And (also) the dAsA vArcin's hundred thousand अधि (at) five..

But Indra killed aryas too (possibly anyone who opposed his might). In the mandala 4 of Rig, Indra supposedly sends the dasa armies of divodasa to fight against the aryas (as he is fighting on the side of divodasa). When Indra kills aryas, the hymns clearly specify that the persons killed were AryAs. An example is sukta 30.18 where we clearly have 2 figures being called AryA, that is arnA and citraratha, whom indra killed at sarayu (uta tyā sadya āryā sarayor indra pārataḥ | arṇācitrarathāvadhīḥ).

Similarly the literal translation of dasyus is taken to be bull-lipped, noseless and dark-complexioned. Here is the rik 5.29 where the dasyus were described as noseless (anasa) (or platyrhinne like some of the northeastern indians (nagas), chinese or southeast asians of today):

परान्यच चक्रम अव्र्हः सूर्यस्य कुत्सायान्यद वरिवो यातवे ऽकः |
अनासो दस्यूंर अम्र्णो वधेन नि दुर्योण आव्र्णङ मर्ध्रवाचः ||

Translation:
परान्यच =higher, चक्रम=wheel, अव्र्हः=ascetic, सूर्यस्य = of the sun, कुत्सायान्यद= kutsa, वरिवो=granting space, यातवे= to travel, अनासो=noseless, दस्यूंर = of the dasyus, अम्र्णो=as of, वधेन=killed, नि दुर्योण = in residence, मर्ध्रवाचः=harsh speech

Here literally अनासो is noseless (a-nasa, without-nose), and मर्ध्रवाचः is one of speech (वाचः) that is मर्ध्र or not understandable or alien, or harsh. This verse in conjunction with the preceding verse addressed to Indra means that the “higher wheel of the sun granted space and set the ascetic Kutsa free to travel and Indra killed the noseless dasyus of harsh speech in their homes”. Maharishi Kutsa has been mentioned in other verses also (apparently Surya set him free while Indra went on to kill the (other?) dasyus).

Similarly, rik 7.99 with the word वर्षशिप्र is also translated as vrsha=bull, shipra=lips and the verse to Vishnu (दासस्य चिद वर्षशिप्रस्य माया जघ्नथुर नरा पर्तनाज्येषु) would mean that Vishnu slayed even the magical (mayavadas?) bull-lipped dasyus. Looking at such verses one might even think that the stand-off between the vaishnavas and the shaivas may have been an ancient one. In most recent times, there was Chaitanya Prabhu who came down upon the mayavadis (advatins accused of practicing veiled buddhism) not in war, but in ideology.

So, Vivek, i have given you the literal translation of 2 verses (rik 5.29 and 7.99). If you want to offer any other (metaphorical) meaning for the above 2 verses please do so. Do remember that the context of the Vedas is rather consistent wrt to fight b/w different tribes. So far no one has taken a single verse out and provided a metaphorical meaning for it, esp if it is not consistent with the rest of the text or with the other vedas, yajur and sama.

Anyways, the context of the presence of such verses wud seems similar to the ancient kings who depended on others to energise them (kindly follow the thread “Brits are to Blame”). For a recap, we had discussed Hart’s works on the culture in tamilakam wherein the tamil kings depended on the former untouchables to energise them; but later shifted to the vedic homams to create energy for them (to win battles). The Vedas could seem rather similar in such sense. The incantations were to eulogize (and describe the battlescene) and glorify the king.

 

[happyhindu]

@Sow. Happyhindu - its YOU who started with race reference of dasyus.

"Makes no sense again. You are still stuck on race. Although i already explained there is nothing called racial difference in the vedas. "

No, you are stuck on the idea of race. Let me remind that it was you (not me) who made references to dasyus being "dark skinned, bull lipped, noseless". I am asking you a logical rhetroic question against your view that vedas present dasyus as "dark skinned, bull lipped, noseless" people by asking you that if this was so obvious how did people of the past miss it?

Vivek, i think i have been rather patient with you. But i have to be rough and clear when i say this -- you need not go on haranguing that i am talking of race when i mentioned the looks of dasyus. I already clarified that looks do not amount to race. If you still want to keep insisting on this, then good luck with your asadgraha (foolish whim).

"You keep claiming people of the past did not interpret it that way. Have you ever read translations / works by indian writers? Better still, why don't you ask traditional priests for translations instead of going on claiming things."

And I really haven't come across a single notion that the matter of the vedas is understood by its direct meaning or translation.

Your statement here again repeats what I have been saying: That neither of us even know the traditional method of study, yet you insist on your interpretations.

I have not insisted on "my intepretations" -- am not giving interpretations of my own. Because there are none. Anyways, that apart, please explain what is the "traditional method of study".

"Please buy books and read yourself. You can even read the hindi translated version available on the internet for free."

I have read quiet a deal, if I need to mention. It still doesn't answer my question. If you don't see the logic in my question, go back to when I first posted it and try to read it closely.

"Vivek ji, you are obviously a novice and a beginner wrt vedic literature. Without even an initial background study you have decided to discuss things."

Sure, sure, and you are the expert here :- )

Do not reduce yourself to the level of poking fun at others. You may live to regret it someday.

"Wrt to your repetedly bringing post-vedic literature into the scene, you might do well to remember that the vedic period was far too ancient to be compared with puranas, itihaasas, etc. According to historians, there is atleast a gap of a 1000 years between the vedic period and the puranic period."

The Matsya purana is dated by historians to around 800 BCE, the Vedas to 1500 BCE despite the fact that evidence would well suggest that the Vedas date to 3000 BCE. Now if this huge gap of dates is a time when Indian society stopped composing anything (as historians assume), they can probably explain how we all suddenly fell into a state of amnesia and then came up with supposedly (as claimed by you, not me) altered meanings of words.

Yes there have been time periods when nothing was composed. Same also for tamil literature. No one kept composing the divyaprabandhams all the way into the colonial period. Nor did anyone compose a masterpiece like manimegalai at a later date.

Maybe you can explain the methodology used by historians in these datings too.

Dating is based on philological evidence, lingusitic evidence and so on.

"Already told you identifying tribes or clans are difficult in the present time."

So that entitles me to claim that there was once a Superman tribe, whose names have gone out of record permanently! Oh believe me they existed lol. Point to me one tribe named dasyu. It refers to character trait and not to any particular tribe.

Fact is NEVER has dasyu, or arya represented tribe names. Such a thing that there were arya and dasyu races was the view of colonialists in India, who made every reference (which was positive) of "arya" to be linked with "european-like" and that of dasyus "native, dark" etc. You can read this in the first ideas of Thule, which spoke of its "Fifth root race".

Sure you can claim that there was a superman tribe. Except that no one will take you seriously.

"This is one example of how Asurs of chota nagpur observe navratri as a period of mourning"

Yes, there are even alleged descendants of Ravan, there are even alleged descendants of the Devas. The Janjua Rajputs for example, are descendants of Arjuna (who is son of Indra). But how does any of it validate your claim? The point is no tribes named dasyus or arya exist.

Unfortunately the terminology of dasyus and aryas are available all acorss the vedas.

YOU (not me) made references to dasyus being bull-lipped, dark-skinned, noseless. Can you say at which point through India's history did anyone interpret it that way? Or if people were called dasyus by reference to their appearance. You clearly have some explaining to do on making the claim then.

Well they just happen to be mentioned that way in the rig. If you think there is some other way of interpreting the verses, go on and provide them.

Further, many tribes and their identities could have very well come later - today there is a tribe in Bhadrapura village (Banglore) which gives its people names like "Coffee", "Sugar", "Glucose", "Gramaphone", "Hotel" it hardly means they came from England.

However, I am not right away saying that it invalidates the claim of the Chota Nagpur people being descendants of Mahishasura, just it is open to research. Point is any off shot people could have assumed any identity - like that "English" village, whose info came in today's Times of India. Anyway, I don't see how this is valid to your point. Your point was the dasyus represented some "noseless, bull lipped, dark skinned" people. If your translated interpretation (from anyone, Indian or German, or British) was valid how did people of the past miss altogether it?

True, people have always assumed identities. No identity came by its own. It is all man-made. So also for some of those who claim to be brahmins today. Even from colonial works you can find groups of people (of various castes) functioning as priests. There is no guarantee that these did not pass themselves off as brahmins. It does not take too much to make a varna cross over.

Sure they were stupid, while you are a ved guru. Am I right? lol.

Refrain from personal attacks. It wud only show one's "insides".

"Find out yourself. Methinks, the word 'pakistani' wud sound evil to an indian but not to a pakistani."

Our texts define arya, dasyu were based on traits etc. References to all the asuras are not evil. There have been liked asuras too - like Bali (on whose memory Onam is celebrated). Dasyu and arya are more analogous to "lazy" people, "active" people not clans or tribes as a whole. People of our past very well understood the notion that "one man's hero is another man's villain". The references of dasyu or aryas are not that however, I can say this without reading because throughout our past nobody every interpret it that way. Today, when you or anyone does it through translated interpretation it obviously becomes questionable because it leaves a question as to how all others who read the original version missed it. Understand?

You don't have to harangue. I have underlined 2 things above. It sounds...???

"The word "krsna" is translated as "dark" everywhere. You are free to think that "krsna" does not mean "dark"."

But the word also has many symbolic meanings in Sanskrit. You wouldn't have people reading vedas that look down on "krsna" and the same expounding krsna's Bhagvat Gita philosophy as a connection! The direct translation of Griffith or any Indians is questionable for the reason that it never was interpretted that way by people before.

That either means you give the translated version more weight than the original, or that you think thousands of years of study of vedas were bogus in comparision to "translated" interpretations. Even "tvac" is translated as skin, when it could mean "cover" or even something entirely different based on the context. There is another entire question of HOW the vedas need to be interpretted too, even if we know the many meanings of the raw words. You are hear to claim you have studied the vedas when you too have gone through translated interpretations (like me). Question is, how come people in the past got the ideas totally different from what we infer?

You are free to offer your interpretations. Please go ahead and do so.

"Me: Why is it that others who actually learnt (and had discussion) in the Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings as Griffith's English translation or any translations whish speak of "bull lipped, noseless, dark skinned" dasyus did?

Happyhindu: Repetition."

Yes, repetition which you insist on not answering.

I do not know on what basis you claim that those who learnt Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings. Please go ahead and ask traditional priests for the meaning. I did and got no reply. It appears that some temple priests know the verses byheart but they do not know the meaning.

"You are thinking there is some metaphorical meanings for certain verses. You are going on repeting the same POVs without even a basic study. "

I repeat the POV because its very relevant given that zillion others understood the exact same verses in totally different way to what Indologists interpret. You have so far made such comments on me, without an iota knowledge of what I have gone through in this study (and Zoroastrian, Altaic references). The (valid) reason for thinking there is a metaphorical reason is because it was interpretted differently since ever ago. Its only the past few 100+ years that your translated interpretation is given weight. In all of this, the incoherence of the Sanskrit version interpretation and the English interpretation means something has been lost in translation.

I do not know what you have gone thru. You cud have mentioned what you did (quoted the authors you read, or the book). Am sorry but your posts truly did not seem to be of someone who has done sufficent study or gone thru the translations of the avestan texts. There is no need to fly the handle for merely mentioning so. I may have been wrong, but you cud have decently explained what you had read or come across. Anyways, please do let us how the verses were interpreted differently before.

If our interpretation is indeed valid or even close to valid, people who learnt the vedas would have interpretted to speak of "bull lipped, dark skinned, noseless" dasyus since long ago.

I request community members to clarify if there is really a rocket science involved in my explaination.

"Vivek ji, i hope you will heed my sincere suggestion of learning from a traditional teacher."

No that was my advice to both of us :- ) And "traditional" teacher wouldn't mean learning a translation - it would mean learning Sanskrit and then the vedas.

It was not an advice, just a friendly suggestion. Btw, i do have some working knowledge of sanskrit. But my vocabulary is very limited and i do not know the language enuf to the extent of interpreting things on my own and therefore depend on sanskrit teachers).

"Overall, i have only this to say to you -- it is better to talk after some basic study, otherwise discussing things merely for the sake of doing so is utterly non-sensical."

You have no idea that I have debated this topic of Aryan Invasion extensively with anti-brahminist, DMK proponents in Orkut for 5 years before I form my views. So merely because I don't hurl condescending statements at you, don't assume I am speaking out of "blind veneration" or stupidity.

"Apparently you are in 'love' with Griffith so much that you want to keep talking about him. Or atleast that is what it seems to me after going thru your posts on this thread. "

As long as you speak of studying from a translation, the talk of Griffith will continue.
Now please answer the queries in bold.

Regards,
Vivek.

So translation equates to Griffith??

PS: Read the points in bold and make sense of it. I request members to go through my posts to see I have repeated a valid point. If others also have a question as to what I am saying they can ask. But if its just Sow. Happyhindu, I can only ask you to go through (this) post carefully, especially the statements in bold. Especially the one of "how did people of past miss it?".

Yes you please tell us how did people of the past miss it? If it indeed came intact from the composers of the vedic period to the present day reciters they should also know to provide the appropriate meanings, right? But apparently some know things byheart but do not know the meanings. So you please go ahead and provide the metaphorical meanings from the "traditional method of study" (whatever that means).

Vivek, all that this conversation requires for you to do is to provide metaphorical meanings. So i have started with 2 verses in the post above. Please go ahead and interpret them.

Regards.

 

[sarma-61]

One small doubt. is there a dasyu race anywhere else? does it not mean 'defeated'?

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Sarma61,
When Nityananda's case was shown in Sun TV, a write up came in Yahoo News about all Hindu saints who are involved in rape cases.The name of Acharya Kripalu Maharaj was also there.This person has also an ashram in USA where number 2 swamiji has been arrested for misbehaviour with a young girl(American Girl) and came on bail by giving heavy security amount.
CBI has registered a case of murder in Satya SAI ASHRAM for murder and a case is pending from 1993.Even the HOME minister of INDIA(not the present one)and other high dignitaries ofGovernment of India often visit SATYA SAI BABA and take his blessings.Kanchi Sankaracharya is attending court to defend himself against murder charge.
According to me no human being (including myself) is pure and perfect.Every person has good qualities and bad qualities.Let us admire the good qualities and ignore the Bad qualities.A relative of JAWAHARLAL NEHRU has written a book (I have forgotten his name) which I happen to read long time back.According to him none is honest in the world.At some point in everyone's life dishonesty manifests for sometime and then disappears.
Please do not be carried away by such 'News'.For your kind information right from my father's time we have imbibed certain values in life.We do not go to any 'Conventional orthodox Guru" or 'Modern Guru"
Please visit the ashram of Acharya Kripalu Maharaj or listen to his discourses in TV or read his books and judge the person.I admire him only for his knowledge.
I think you are aware of an old saying 'not to see the origin of RIVER,A LADY and A SANYASI but accept them as they are when you see them.I think you know the past life of ARUNAGIRINATHER who composed
"TIRUPPUGAZ" Songs.I am now 77 years and try to see only positive side of People.

 

[Vivek_V]

@Sri Sarma-61

"One small doubt. is there a dasyu race anywhere else? does it not mean 'defeated'?"

The term dasyus is not a race according to me, and it is not based on one's appearance. But the claim from those who read English (or other language) translations and take them as correct is that it speaks of a people of "noseless, bull lipped, dark skin" appearance and who were an enemy of the "arya". Similarly the English translations also speak of aryas as european looking conquerors. Both the ideas, that arya or dasyu refer to a race or appearance is false according to me and was first made to appear that way by European indologists. Sow. Happyhindu can offer her side of the argument to you.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (1)

"If you have done some background study, then good for you. You cud have mentioned the same."

In any debate, nobody goes assuming what others have read they merely ask. This is why I found your comments offensive. I apologize for anything that sounded condescending from my side. I agree that we both refrain from personal comments.

"From your posts it is rather clear that you believe in 2 things:
1) That the verses have metaphorical meanings.
2) That the terms arya and dasyu do not refer to tribes / group of people and refers only to character."

2) - correct, it could refer to a culture, but not any labelled groups based on their appearance. 1) - I don't know, it "could" have metaphorical meanings.

But the most important thing I am pointing is that our interpretations are questionable because none of the people in the past came up with an interpretation you, or any of the translators did. Neither did they (in the past) in vedantic philosophy give Indra any importance, despite the fact that most hymns are given to him. It thus raises a question, doesn't it on how they viewed the whole matter?

"If the verses had metaphorical meanings, then vedic pundits would have offered the metaphorical meanings by now. But they have not. Even Indian translators of Sanskrit like Apte and Chaturvedi have offered only negative meaning of the term dasyu. "

I didn't say present day Indian translators haven't been influenced by previous views in the British raj, they well may be.

"There is nothing called the traditional method of deriving meanings."

How can you say this with certainity?

"There is only a traditional method for mugging up to ensure that not a single word or sound is missed or lost. If you think there is a traditional method to derive (metaphorical) meanings, you are free to put it forward."

I can't put it forward, I haven't learnt it. But if anyone among those who have read the vedas can explain how something like Nadi was derived from the vedas, or how it came out at all - I would say they have a better understanding of the matter.

"The rigved when translated literally is itself self-explanatory. The Rig basically is full of the deva’s exploits against their enemies."

Is it? And why didn't Adi Shankaracharya interpret it that way? How did Adi Shankaracharya happen to read of the "deva's exploits" and go into something unrelated (Vedanta)? The vedas are given an importance even when there is hardly any temple or worship dedicated to Indra. You, and most modern commentators tell that this is because worship of devas "was done in the past" (past tense), yet the schools that have taught vedas for centuries, never saw a contradiction. Vedanta doesn't speak of worshipping Indra, neither did Indra gain prominance at any point for the temples dedicated to deities. What does it tell you? It tells me, we have got it wrong.

"But Indra killed aryas too (possibly anyone who opposed his might). In the mandala 4 of Rig, Indra supposedly sends the dasa armies of divodasa to fight against the aryas (as he is fighting on the side of divodasa)."

I have translations of many verses like this. In the battle of ten kings, where you say he killed "aryas" is the one in which the enemies including viswamitra and many so-called "arya" tribes are mentioned as "dasyus".

This is what makes your translated interpretation method stumble upon itself too.

"Looking at such verses one might even think that the stand-off between the vaishnavas and the shaivas may have been an ancient one. In most recent times, there was Chaitanya Prabhu who came down upon the mayavadis (advatins accused of practicing veiled buddhism"

The stand-off between vaishnavas and shaivas seems much more open even in legends. But when we find something like this, or the opposite ideas of deva-daeva, asura-ahura in Sanskrit and Zoroastrian texts, are we to assume things like war? We need to get a better understanding at all to even comment.

"The incantations were to eulogize (and describe the battlescene) and glorify the king."

And yet, none of the early schools that interpreted the vedas said this! I hope you see what I am coming to. We need to ask ourselves the relevant question as to why our understanding of the vedas is so radically different from those of vedantic schools. I haven't gone to the thread "Brits to Blame", if you could point out which posts I should refer to, to see your POV it would be great.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sow. Happyhindu (2)

"you need not go on haranguing that i am talking of race when i mentioned the looks of dasyus. I already clarified that looks do not amount to race."

Yet the world primary did speak of looks when speaking of race. Let's see - black skin, thick lipped are all features of "black race". Appearance was indeed the earliest idea of race, and was the case when Griffith translated the vedas. And it is with that idea that early translators made references to the supposed appearance of the dasyus. But maybe you can explain why none of the early ideas of vedic philosophy bother about certain "dasyus", or even about "worshipping Indra", or mention that it speaks of a "history".

"Anyways, that apart, please explain what is the "traditional method of study". "

The method of discourse, in the manner any schools of vedas taught. The blatant question is, everything translators or yourself claim which includes, "dasyus being black, bull lipped, noseless", "worshipping Indra", "record of a history of war", "praise of kings" never, ever found a place in the discussions on the philosophy of the vedas. You told me to ask "traditional preists" for meanings, I will do that perhaps in the future. Its worthwhile that we understand all methods of study regarding this.

"Do not reduce yourself to the level of poking fun at others. You may live to regret it someday."

Poking fun is when you said I was a "novice". But as I apologized earlier, it would be good if we don't make this a platform for personal comments. But hope you understand that my areligious stance on this matter doesn't come from "veneration" - it just comes from the incoherence of ideas between what vedic schools said 1200 years ago, and what we find today through translations. It clearly tells me something has happened in between. Further, when something like Nadi supposedly came out from vedas (as claimed), unless someone is able to explain how or replicate the method, it would could mean (either):

1. They haven't understood the vedas in the manner earlier people did. OR...
2. Nadi has another origin (in which case, I would be interesting in finding that out).

Similarly the case with knowledge on anatomy like Marmam. Because these are not some fancy ficticious things, they actually exist, with no one able to explain how they came to existence or the understanding of an early people.

"Yes there have been time periods when nothing was composed. Same also for tamil literature. No one kept composing the divyaprabandhams all the way into the colonial period. Nor did anyone compose a masterpiece like manimegalai at a later date. "

You are speaking about a masterpiece or specific literature. I am speaking about nothing at all being composed for atleast 500 to 600 years. Which seems highly improbable to me.

"Dating is based on philological evidence, lingusitic evidence and so on. "

Yes, but by asking you "methodology" I was asking you to explain the procedure. For instance, we have not yet found the PIE language. Also, with the idea from geologists that the Saraswat river dried up by supposed time of 1500 BCE, any reference to it would mean vedas was composed earlier. The question is, on what basis did the idea 1500 BCE come? Was it a presumed date, on what basis was it presumed?

"Sure you can claim that there was a superman tribe. Except that no one will take you seriously."

And why should anyone take it seriously when neither dasyu nor arya has been mentioned as a tribe or a clan? Infact, the "superman tribe" the british wanted to convince us of was the ficticious group called "the aryans". They fabricated the idea well, because it would seem to glorify white-people, in our (Indian) literature.

"Unfortunately the terminology of dasyus and aryas are available all acorss the vedas."

If it was that straight, how did others fail to mention such tribes like "dasyu" or "arya" existing? Even Buddhism that came against the tradition of readin the vedas and practices of brahmins in the time, doesn't mention such usage of the words. Gautama (who became Buddha) had read the vedas through his life never spoke of dasyu tribe or arya tribe.

Even going by the translation, the battle of ten kings which you mentions the tribes that warred against Sudas as "dasyu" - these "dasyus" included clans considered "arya". (RV 7.6, 12-14, 18). All this clearly would mean that even going by translation dasyu, arya don't mean clans or tribes but are based on character.

"True, people have always assumed identities. No identity came by its own. It is all man-made. So also for some of those who claim to be brahmins today. Even from colonial works you can find groups of people (of various castes) functioning as priests."

Being a preist didn't define a brahmin in the past. Brahmin was a person of learning, and this was the case even for Buddhist references. The definition of brahmin in our text doesn't speak of preisthood, but knowledge. The vedas are themselves attributed as knowledge and not "worship to Indra", "history" or "praise to kings" or anything you have spoke of. The fact that vedas would be attributed to knowledge, when translations make it look like it refers to other things, itself raises a doubt.

Claiming to be brahmin today is merely based on which family you belong to, it ignores the definition of brahmin given and agreed in by people in our past. In general, it meant a person of a certain learning and discipline.

"You are free to offer your interpretations. Please go ahead and do so."

My interpretation are inscignificant, the point of my posts is to get the understanding that we have got it wrong in the first place. What you are asking me to do, is answer a question right, when what I am doing is pointing out why the popular view is questionable or wrong.

"I do not know on what basis you claim that those who learnt Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings."

haha.. Yes, please tell me if any of the vedanta philosophy spoke about praising Indra, were any temples built for Indra? Does vedanta speak about bull lipped enemies? These are the obvious reasons I feel the mainstream view has got it wrong.

"Btw, i do have some working knowledge of sanskrit. But my vocabulary is very limited and i do not know the language enuf to the extent of interpreting things on my own and therefore depend on sanskrit teachers). "

Just tell me why none of the vedanta schools which interpretted the vedas came up with their idea that it represented a history which you claim to have uncovered in the same texts they read (the vedas). Why do none of them speak about Indra's exploits but instead speak of some philosophy of mind and reality?

"So translation equates to Griffith?? "

Yes, because it refers to the same/similar method. That method is questionable because nobody interpretted it before in the same manner - say in vedantic schools.

"Yes you please tell us how did people of the past miss it? "

Is it fair you ask me my question? :- ) This question, btw is a rhetoric one.

To explain: By asking you "how did people of the past miss it?", I am saying "They knew something you/modern-day translators didn't because if the meaning was this obvious they would have said the same thing you are". Indra himself would have had a "more important" position if it was as obvious as the translations. You are claiming they mugged it, but people like Adi Shankaracharya learnt it by a method and concluded it to be a philosophy. How could it mean that he merely mugged it?

Regards,
Vivek

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - a Jist.

Since this has gone on and on, with few points of agreement, let me type a jist of what I am saying.

1. I believe that British indologists (like Griffith) purposely translated and misinterpretted the vedas to make us believe that India's origin started from a white-people's invasion (whom they called "the aryans"). They made us believe that vedas praise the supposed white-people invasion, this was done to justify their own invasion here.

2. The words dasyu and arya have never spoke of a clan or tribe. To support this, I gave reference which pointed even in a translation, "arya" enemies of Indra and Sudas (Battle of Ten Kings) being called "dasyu". Throughout Indian literature too, there is no claim of dasyus or aryas having so and so skin colour, or nose shape or anything or being a particular clan.

3. I think all the of translations of Griffith or any others, which conclude that vedas speak of: "(real) war between aryas and dasyus", or "a history", or "a eulogy of kings", or "in praise of Indra" are questionable because vedantic schools never interpretted them that way having read the exact same matter which is the vedas. Further, vedanta philosophy, which is considered as derived from the vedas, never even worshipped Indra, despite the fact that the translations of hymns make it seem that way. Vedanta philosophy instead speaks of a philosophy of mind/reality etc.

4. I don't know the matter of the vedas, so I am not in a position to give interpretations. One doesn't need to know a matter to know that its been done wrong - if your car doesn't run, it means the mechanic got the solution wrong, you can interpret a mistake has been made, without knowing the matter. In the same way, my realization that present day views are questionable come from point 3. where there is an absolute mismatch between the conclusion of vedantic schools say 1200 years ago, and today's modern interpretation by those who claim to study the vedas by translation etc. Despite that, both these groups read the same exact text, right?

5. I have had first hand experience of Nadi, and there are more than one claim from non-superstitious, rational people who claim techniques like marmam exist. All this, the practicers claim came from the vedas. So my interest exists in finding out how it came out and if indeed there is a method for it. If indeed it didn't come from the vedas, it definitely did from some where, so my interest would go there.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

.....
"From your posts it is rather clear that you believe in 2 things:
1) That the verses have metaphorical meanings.
2) That the terms arya and dasyu do not refer to tribes / group of people and refers only to character."

2) - correct, it could refer to a culture, but not any labelled groups based on their appearance. 1) - I don't know, it "could" have metaphorical meanings.


[....]


I can't put it forward, I haven't learnt it.

Vivek,

I may have misunderstood you, if so, please clarify.

From the above I understand that you have not "leanrt" the metaphorical meanings, and you are not even sure whether such meanings exist, all you say is it could exist. So, what are you arguing about? There could be some other interpretation that only a traditional master would know is a very weak case. You have an obligation to put up, or as they say, pardon me, "shut up".

In my experience, the traditional masters are of two kinds, (i) those who have memorized the Shakhas that have come down their family lineage and (ii) those who have tried to study the Bhashyams of different schools of Vedanta. The first group, while real masters in regurgitating the Vedic verses backwards and forwards -- I have attended some contests and their skill in memory gymnastics is a wonder to behold --, they have absolutely no idea about even the apparent meaning of the verses, let alone metaphoric ones. The second group is concerned only with Vedanta, not interested in any meaningful research that may yield new insights into the early stirrings of Indian civilization.

Validity of AIT must be left to the academics to settle. But, with the resurgence of Hindutva in India it has become a political issue. Everyone has an opinion, TBs particularly -- they oppose AIT with a vengeance, I don't know why? What earthly difference does it make. We all are mixed. Genetic studies show the highest Brahmin to the lowest Dalits share a high degree of commonality of X chromosome pattern in the DNA showing descent from common pool of mothers. Such studies also seem to suggest some high-caste Hindus and Muslims share common patriarchy with central Asian tribes or something close. Well, all this means, if you take at random a highly observant TB and a common Dalit, it is very likely that we could trace both of them back to some common ancestors within India.

On a practical level, I know that TBs in general feel a kind of separateness from everyone else -- less so among the younger gen and more so among the older ones. For a TB, everyone else is a Shudra. TBs routinely behaved for centuries as though they were different from everyone else in Tamil Nadu. Finally, all the NBs joined together and agreed, yes you are different, as AIT says so, you guys invaded us. Now TBs are upset. They say AIT is what the Britishers used to divide the ever so harmonious social landscape that existed pre-British.

AIT whether proved conclusively to be true or false, it is not going to change much in our day-to-day lives. But, fully assimilating and becoming an indistinguishable and integral part of Tamil society will make all our lives better. So, I feel it is best to leave AIT research to the academicians and strive to shed the differences and become one with everyone else.

Cheers!

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Nara (1) - On the Interpretations

"From the above I understand that you have not "leanrt" the metaphorical meanings, and you are not even sure whether such meanings exist, all you say is it could exist. So, what are you arguing about? There could be some other interpretation that only a traditional master would know is a very weak case."

There could be metaphorical meanings, and I have my own understanding of the translations. But having understood that vedantic schools never did any similar interpretation (neither mine, nor Sow. Happyhindu's, nor anyone else's), I am certain now that the method and study has a different nature itself.

Its not a "weak case", because my point is itself that the present interpretation is wrong. By pointing that vedantic philosophy doesn't mention anything we do, I believe it strengthens my argument. What I am arguing about is the falsity of a claim and a realization that we need to re-learn it for the very reason that we have got it wrong.

"they have absolutely no idea about even the apparent meaning of the verses, let alone metaphoric ones."

That is what I am questioning - is the message of the vedas even contained in its words? We can come up with metaphorical meanings (which is why I say they "could" exist), but is that relevant in the correctly interpretting the verse in the manner it was meant to be understood is another question.

"The second group is concerned only with Vedanta, not interested in any meaningful research that may yield new insights into the early stirrings of Indian civilization."

Forget the fact that they are not interesteding in "early stirrings of Indian civilization". There are other more conclusive methods to understand about Indian civilization. The first question is how did the early men of vedanta derive it from the vedas and how come none of it speaks of worship to Indra or eulogy of kings? After all those things seem to plainly come from the translation, if it was so obvious, it is what any interpretation of vedas would have been about. But they aren't.....

 

[Vivek_V]

Nara - the remaining reply to your post I feel is connected to another issue of TBs in tamil society. So I have started a new thread on that:

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5639-political-social-issues-concerned-tbs.html

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (1)

"If you have done some background study, then good for you. You cud have mentioned the same."

In any debate, nobody goes assuming what others have read they merely ask. This is why I found your comments offensive. I apologize for anything that sounded condescending from my side. I agree that we both refrain from personal comments.

"Do not reduce yourself to the level of poking fun at others. You may live to regret it someday."

Poking fun is when you said I was a "novice". But as I apologized earlier, it would be good if we don't make this a platform for personal comments.

Your apology is well accepted. However, i am taken aback with your allegation that i have made offensive comments. Which comments of mine were offensive?

I am a novice and a beginner wrt vedic literature. It is merely a fact. What is offensive about it?

There is no necessity for anyone to assume things. I felt you are a novice based on the content of your posts. If indeed you were someone who had studied atleast some amount of vedic literature this is not the way you wud have conversed. Instead of making fun of me, you wud have put forward what you have come across and validated your POVs. I have not been derisive with you. Yet your post #27 swerved in that direction. And now you allege that i have made offensive comments.

"From your posts it is rather clear that you believe in 2 things:
1) That the verses have metaphorical meanings.
2) That the terms arya and dasyu do not refer to tribes / group of people and refers only to character."

2) - correct, it could refer to a culture, but not any labelled groups based on their appearance. 1) - I don't know, it "could" have metaphorical meanings.

But the most important thing I am pointing is that our interpretations are questionable because none of the people in the past came up with an interpretation you, or any of the translators did. Neither did they (in the past) in vedantic philosophy give Indra any importance, despite the fact that most hymns are given to him. It thus raises a question, doesn't it on how they viewed the whole matter?

"If the verses had metaphorical meanings, then vedic pundits would have offered the metaphorical meanings by now. But they have not. Even Indian translators of Sanskrit like Apte and Chaturvedi have offered only negative meaning of the term dasyu. "

I didn't say present day Indian translators haven't been influenced by previous views in the British raj, they well may be.

"There is nothing called the traditional method of deriving meanings."

How can you say this with certainity?

Even during the british raj, there were sufficient hinduphiles who had become political (RSS). Forget british times, even now if Indian translators want to, they can put forward the metaphorical meanings. If anyone has translated anything wrongly, then there are sufficient hindu-philes to fix them.

As regards Nadi astrology and temple (idol) worship, they may have their origins in the lost shakhas of the atharva. However, nobody has put forward research (as yet) on nadi astrology or the presence of idol-worship from the currently available shakhas of the atharva. And so we cannot claim things on it for now. Anyways, however, this has nothing to do with the translations and with the stand-off between the aryas and dasyus.

"There is only a traditional method for mugging up to ensure that not a single word or sound is missed or lost. If you think there is a traditional method to derive (metaphorical) meanings, you are free to put it forward."

I can't put it forward, I haven't learnt it. But if anyone among those who have read the vedas can explain how something like Nadi was derived from the vedas, or how it came out at all - I would say they have a better understanding of the matter.

If you are not able to put it forward then do not keep claiming there is traditional method to derive metaphorical meanings, esp in the context of aryas and dasyus. It is like fooling the readers into believing that there is something called “traditional method” of deriving meanings of vedic verses where AryAs and dAsyus have been mentioned.

"The rigved when translated literally is itself self-explanatory. The Rig basically is full of the deva’s exploits against their enemies."

"Anyways, that apart, please explain what is the "traditional method of study". "

The method of discourse, in the manner any schools of vedas taught. The blatant question is, everything translators or yourself claim which includes, "dasyus being black, bull lipped, noseless", "worshipping Indra", "record of a history of war", "praise of kings" never, ever found a place in the discussions on the philosophy of the vedas. You told me to ask "traditional preists" for meanings, I will do that perhaps in the future. Its worthwhile that we understand all methods of study regarding this.

I have underlined something. Please do that and post the meanings here. Until then there is no need to go on claiming that "people of the past" did not come up with such an interpretation.

Is it? And why didn't Adi Shankaracharya interpret it that way? How did Adi Shankaracharya happen to read of the "deva's exploits" and go into something unrelated (Vedanta)? The vedas are given an importance even when there is hardly any temple or worship dedicated to Indra. You, and most modern commentators tell that this is because worship of devas "was done in the past" (past tense), yet the schools that have taught vedas for centuries, never saw a contradiction. Vedanta doesn't speak of worshipping Indra, neither did Indra gain prominance at any point for the temples dedicated to deities. What does it tell you? It tells me, we have got it wrong.

Better still, why did not the Kanchi Acharya Chandrashekhara Swami provide metaphorical meanings for vedic verses where AryAs and dAsyus are mentioned? Adi shankarAcharya did not live at a time when the british translated the vedas. So brahmins faced no social pressure at that time. Moreover Adi shakarAchaya belonged to the uttara mimansa vedAnta school not the pUrva mimAnsa school. And therefore he dealt with Vedanta and spread advaita and not the vedas. So we can still let him go. But the kAnchi AchAryA lived at the time when the DK was in full swing. The “invasion” theory had become a political one and vindictive at that. In the face of all that, why did not the kAnchi AchAryA provide metaphorical meanings?

"But Indra killed aryas too (possibly anyone who opposed his might). In the mandala 4 of Rig, Indra supposedly sends the dasa armies of divodasa to fight against the aryas (as he is fighting on the side of divodasa)."

I have translations of many verses like this. In the battle of ten kings, where you say he killed "aryas" is the one in which the enemies including viswamitra and many so-called "arya" tribes are mentioned as "dasyus".

This is what makes your translated interpretation method stumble upon itself too.

Instead of merely claiming my translation stumbles upon itself, please provide your metaphorical meanings for the verses in post #30. I would like to see a reply from you on post # 30.

Did you read the post by Shri Saidevo and subsequent discussions on that thread http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...aste-india-positive-aspects-19.html#post47003 ? Here is another relevant thread on varnas: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2222-purushasuktam-varna.html

If you had hung around this forum for a longer time, by now you wud have understood that there was a fight between nations or tribes of people who had some cultural differences. On this thread too i already mentioned that the dasyus were ‘old aryas’. The dasyus are said to have been vegetarians, idol-worshippers, with a system where anyone cud choose their varna and become ascetics. In the avestan religion too varna is said to be a personal choice. On the other hand, the practitioners of the vedic religion sacrificed animals to appease the devas, were non-vegetarian, did not worship idols, and followed a system where the son followed the father’s profession. From books by Bhandarkar and Ram Sharma it may appear that there was a fight between aryas headed by Indra and dasyus headed by Krishna. During the vedic period, the aryas won and during the Vedanta period the dasyus appear to have triumphed. The "aryas" appear to have self-titled themselves that way (as "aryas", although we do not know what was really noble about them).

"Looking at such verses one might even think that the stand-off between the vaishnavas and the shaivas may have been an ancient one. In most recent times, there was Chaitanya Prabhu who came down upon the mayavadis (advatins accused of practicing veiled buddhism"

The stand-off between vaishnavas and shaivas seems much more open even in legends. But when we find something like this, or the opposite ideas of deva-daeva, asura-ahura in Sanskrit and Zoroastrian texts, are we to assume things like war? We need to get a better understanding at all to even comment.

"The incantations were to eulogize (and describe the battlescene) and glorify the king."

And yet, none of the early schools that interpreted the vedas said this! I hope you see what I am coming to. We need to ask ourselves the relevant question as to why our understanding of the vedas is so radically different from those of vedantic schools. I haven't gone to the thread "Brits to Blame", if you could point out which posts I should refer to, to see your POV it would be great.

Which are the “early schools” that did not interpret Vedas in certain ways? Please let us know which are the early schools you are talking about? Pasupatas? Kalamukhas / kapalikas? Agama followers? Why do you go on claiming things without providing the background basis for such claims? And that too without explaining the "metaphorical meanings" or explaining what is the "traditional method" of deriving meanings?

 

[sarma-61]

@Sri Sarma-61

"One small doubt. is there a dasyu race anywhere else? does it not mean 'defeated'?"

The term dasyus is not a race according to me, and it is not based on one's appearance. But the claim from those who read English (or other language) translations and take them as correct is that it speaks of a people of "noseless, bull lipped, dark skin" appearance and who were an enemy of the "arya". Similarly the English translations also speak of aryas as european looking conquerors. Both the ideas, that arya or dasyu refer to a race or appearance is false according to me and was first made to appear that way by European indologists. Sow. Happyhindu can offer her side of the argument to you.

Regards,
Vivek.

When I read the posts here - very long and difficult - I asked my friend who is sanskrit M.A. he only told me that dasyu, dasa, dasi are all from onr origin and mean conquered, defeated, slaved, slave, etc. Hope you people will know more.

 

[happyhindu]

Sow. Happyhindu (2)

"you need not go on haranguing that i am talking of race when i mentioned the looks of dasyus. I already clarified that looks do not amount to race."

Yet the world primary did speak of looks when speaking of race. Let's see - black skin, thick lipped are all features of "black race". Appearance was indeed the earliest idea of race, and was the case when Griffith translated the vedas. And it is with that idea that early translators made references to the supposed appearance of the dasyus. But maybe you can explain why none of the early ideas of vedic philosophy bother about certain "dasyus", or even about "worshipping Indra", or mention that it speaks of a "history".

Just because appearances were the initial idea of race, it does not mean they were correct. Everything ancient or old need not be correct.

"Yes there have been time periods when nothing was composed. Same also for tamil literature. No one kept composing the divyaprabandhams all the way into the colonial period. Nor did anyone compose a masterpiece like manimegalai at a later date. "

You are speaking about a masterpiece or specific literature. I am speaking about nothing at all being composed for atleast 500 to 600 years. Which seems highly improbable to me.

You are free to live in your "improbablity". Even today nobody is into composing things in Sanskrit. Times change, cultures change. Even ennui could become a reason for the downslide in literature output.

"Dating is based on philological evidence, lingusitic evidence and so on. "
Yes, but by asking you "methodology" I was asking you to explain the procedure.

For instance, we have not yet found the PIE language. Also, with the idea from geologists that the Saraswat river dried up by supposed time of 1500 BCE, any reference to it would mean vedas was composed earlier. The question is, on what basis did the idea 1500 BCE come? Was it a presumed date, on what basis was it presumed?

You expect me to explain the procedure of finding linguistic evidence, philological evidence, archeological evidence ? Are you kidding Shri Vivek? Surely you can ask some historian friends or read books on dating methods and help yourself. True a lot of research is yet to be done, many new things, even diametrically opposite, cud come up. That however does not mean people can "presume" things and date anything just like that.

"Sure you can claim that there was a superman tribe. Except that no one will take you seriously."

And why should anyone take it seriously when neither dasyu nor arya has been mentioned as a tribe or a clan?

Ofcourse aryas and dasyus have been mentioned as groups of people in the rig. Unlike you who is making mere claims without even looking into the content matter of vedas, they have put forth things after atleast basic research / studies.

Infact, the "superman tribe" the british wanted to convince us of was the ficticious group called "the aryans". They fabricated the idea well, because it would seem to glorify white-people, in our (Indian) literature.

All i see on this forum is a concentrated attack on anyone "western". If one wants to categorize ALL westerners as evil people with vested interests, then DK too cud be right in categorizing ALL brahmins in a certain light. Any sane person would see that both are not right. Merely being western or brahmin does not make a man with vested interests. No one can paint any set as a whole in a certain light with a broad stroke of the brush.

There are researchers (both indian and western) who put forward what they find without a pre-fixed bias. Westerners like Staal do their research with traditional priests. Not a single traditional priest has put forward metaphorical meanings. Yet you insist that there is something called "traditional system of study" and "traditional way of deriving meanings". You yourself do not know if there is something like that, yet you insist that there "could" have been such a system.

"Unfortunately the terminology of dasyus and aryas are available all acorss the vedas."

If it was that straight, how did others fail to mention such tribes like "dasyu" or "arya" existing? Even Buddhism that came against the tradition of readin the vedas and practices of brahmins in the time, doesn't mention such usage of the words. Gautama (who became Buddha) had read the vedas through his life never spoke of dasyu tribe or arya tribe.

There is no need to compare with post-vedic literature and buddhism / jainism. As culture changes / adapts / gets modified with time, terminology or usage of words tend to change.

Even going by the translation, the battle of ten kings which you mentions the tribes that warred against Sudas as "dasyu" - these "dasyus" included clans considered "arya". (RV 7.6, 12-14, 18). All this clearly would mean that even going by translation dasyu, arya don't mean clans or tribes but are based on character.

Already explained above. During the vedic period the terms aryas and dasyus were not based on character. They were appellations used by warring factions.

"True, people have always assumed identities. No identity came by its own. It is all man-made. So also for some of those who claim to be brahmins today. Even from colonial works you can find groups of people (of various castes) functioning as priests."

Being a preist didn't define a brahmin in the past. Brahmin was a person of learning, and this was the case even for Buddhist references. The definition of brahmin in our text doesn't speak of preisthood, but knowledge. The vedas are themselves attributed as knowledge and not "worship to Indra", "history" or "praise to kings" or anything you have spoke of. The fact that vedas would be attributed to knowledge, when translations make it look like it refers to other things, itself raises a doubt.

Claiming to be brahmin today is merely based on which family you belong to, it ignores the definition of brahmin given and agreed in by people in our past. In general, it meant a person of a certain learning and discipline.

You are giving the vedanta definition of attaining brahman and being born again (becoming a dvija). It would be better if you were to ask traditional priests and the orthodoxy if they agree with the views you have stated. You could also browse thru various threads on this forum on the same topic. This one wud answer a lot of things: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/3410-caste-system-weakness-hinduism.html

"You are free to offer your interpretations. Please go ahead and do so."

My interpretation are inscignificant, the point of my posts is to get the understanding that we have got it wrong in the first place. What you are asking me to do, is answer a question right, when what I am doing is pointing out why the popular view is questionable or wrong.

If that be the case you should also provide metaphorical meanings and explain what is "traditional method" of deriving meanings. You should also explain with suitable verses from the vedas why aryas and dasyus should not be considered warring factions of people. Without doing so, there is no point merely repeating your POVs.

"I do not know on what basis you claim that those who learnt Vedas for centuries didn't get the same meanings."

haha.. Yes, please tell me if any of the vedanta philosophy spoke about praising Indra, were any temples built for Indra? Does vedanta speak about bull lipped enemies? These are the obvious reasons I feel the mainstream view has got it wrong.

"Btw, i do have some working knowledge of sanskrit. But my vocabulary is very limited and i do not know the language enuf to the extent of interpreting things on my own and therefore depend on sanskrit teachers). "

Just tell me why none of the vedanta schools which interpretted the vedas came up with their idea that it represented a history which you claim to have uncovered in the same texts they read (the vedas). Why do none of them speak about Indra's exploits but instead speak of some philosophy of mind and reality?

Have you read the vedanta sutras? What do you think it contains? What is the need to laugh when it is so apparent that vedanta sutras are so different from the vedic samhitas? It is like expecting a physician to explain how the motor of a car works. Possible you are not aware of the difference between the samhitas and vedanta texts.

"So translation equates to Griffith?? "

Yes, because it refers to the same/similar method. That method is questionable because nobody interpretted it before in the same manner - say in vedantic schools.

"Yes you please tell us how did people of the past miss it? "

Same method? Now will you please come down from the high platform and explain to novices and simpletons like me what is the "traditional method" of deriving "metaphorical meannings? If you cannot explain that, why do you go on insisting and repeating your POVs ?

Is it fair you ask me my question? :- ) This question, btw is a rhetoric one.

To explain: By asking you "how did people of the past miss it?", I am saying "They knew something you/modern-day translators didn't because if the meaning was this obvious they would have said the same thing you are". Indra himself would have had a "more important" position if it was as obvious as the translations. You are claiming they mugged it, but people like Adi Shankaracharya learnt it by a method and concluded it to be a philosophy. How could it mean that he merely mugged it?

Regards,
Vivek

It was obviously rhetoric. That was clear. And you are now claiming that Adi Shankaracharya mugged up vedas and concluded it to be a philosophy. Unlike you, am not laughing. Anyone who knows the difference of content between the samhitas and vedanta sutras wud not say this. So its obvious you are not aware of the difference between the two. Obviously if Adi Shankaracharya had concluded purva mimansa vedism to be a valid philosophy he wud not have lost to mandana mishra.

Instead of going on repeating 'how people of the past missed it', you please go and speak to the most traditional priests in india (why, you cud even go to your family gurus or travel to vedapatshalas or to mutts). And then let us know what is the traditional method of deriving meanings wrt to verses on aryas and dasyus.

 

[happyhindu]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - a Jist.

Since this has gone on and on, with few points of agreement, let me type a jist of what I am saying.

1. I believe that British indologists (like Griffith) purposely translated and misinterpretted the vedas to make us believe that India's origin started from a white-people's invasion (whom they called "the aryans"). They made us believe that vedas praise the supposed white-people invasion, this was done to justify their own invasion here.

Repetition. Am no fan of griffith nor do i have a soft corner for the colonialists. Yet this whole attitude of leading (fooling) people into believing that anything western has vested interests or that Griffith's translation is wrong will not make any sense, unless you provide the 'traditional' or 'metaphorical' meanings.

Griffith may have had vested interests, but if his translation is wrong, why are not indian writers (esp of the saffron brigade) coming out with the "metaphorical meanings" wrt aryas and dasyus ?

2. The words dasyu and arya have never spoke of a clan or tribe. To support this, I gave reference which pointed even in a translation, "arya" enemies of Indra and Sudas (Battle of Ten Kings) being called "dasyu". Throughout Indian literature too, there is no claim of dasyus or aryas having so and so skin colour, or nose shape or anything or being a particular clan.

Repetition. The physical description of dasyus is clearly mentioned in the rigveda. And so is the fact that aryas and dasyus were warring factions (already mentioned that the dasyus are considered to be old aryans). If you cannot provide your 'metaphorical' meanings then just close this conversation. As such this conversation has merely become a circus circle of repetitions.

3. I think all the of translations of Griffith or any others, which conclude that vedas speak of: "(real) war between aryas and dasyus", or "a history", or "a eulogy of kings", or "in praise of Indra" are questionable because vedantic schools never interpretted them that way having read the exact same matter which is the vedas. Further, vedanta philosophy, which is considered as derived from the vedas, never even worshipped Indra, despite the fact that the translations of hymns make it seem that way. Vedanta philosophy instead speaks of a philosophy of mind/reality etc.

I think only a man who knows absolutely nothing about the samhitas wud say this. Are you aware of the difference in content between the samhitas and vedanta? It is obvious that vedanta has nothing to do with devas' exploits. Whereas the rig samhita is full of the exploits of the devas against their enemies. They belong to different streams / deal with different subject matters.

4. I don't know the matter of the vedas, so I am not in a position to give interpretations. One doesn't need to know a matter to know that its been done wrong - if your car doesn't run, it means the mechanic got the solution wrong, you can interpret a mistake has been made, without knowing the matter. In the same way, my realization that present day views are questionable come from point 3. where there is an absolute mismatch between the conclusion of vedantic schools say 1200 years ago, and today's modern interpretation by those who claim to study the vedas by translation etc. Despite that, both these groups read the same exact text, right?

I have underlined something in bold. That should answer your own fallacies. All this posts on this thread are unnecessary in the face of the fact that you decided to interpret mechanics without even studying it !! If a chemist tries to interpret the technique of a heart bypass surgery without even studying cardiology (just because he knows some chemistry), what wud one say about such a person? Crazy?

5. I have had first hand experience of Nadi, and there are more than one claim from non-superstitious, rational people who claim techniques like marmam exist. All this, the practicers claim came from the vedas. So my interest exists in finding out how it came out and if indeed there is a method for it. If indeed it didn't come from the vedas, it definitely did from some where, so my interest would go there.

Repetition. Already explained in a post # 41.

Vivek ji, unfortunately for me, your posts are mere repetitions of the same assumptions / POVs. I would therefore like to withdraw from this conversation.

According to you, you have formed your views after 5 years of debating on orkut. Merely spending an amount of time means nothing, and that too without even knowing basic content matter of the vedas. Knowledge is not knowledge if it does not allow itself to learn or be modified based on new information.

I conclude with this:

It is a fact that the terms arya and dasyus did refer to groups of (warring) people in the vedic period. It is also a fact that the physical description of dasyus has been mentioned in the rigveda.

The public need not be fooled into thinking that there is some "traditional" method of deriving "metaphorical" meanings wrt the verses on aryas and dasyus.

Regards.

 

[Nara]

......There could be metaphorical meanings, and I have my own understanding of the translations.

Vivek, you are repeating the same argument again, namely,

• you know the translations are wrong
• there could be metaphorical meanings

Please let us know why all the translations are wrong. Further, there could be other meanings is not a serious argument. The flip side of this "could be" argument is, there could be no other meaning than the apparent one given in translations. There is no reason for your could be to be stronger than the could be of the flip side.

You have to state the metaphorical meanings you claim exist and make a case for it, then only a reasonable discussion can happen. Simply claiming there could be metaphorical meanings takes us nowhere.

Its not a "weak case", because my point is itself that the present interpretation is wrong. By pointing that vedantic philosophy doesn't mention anything we do, I believe it strengthens my argument.

There are two problems with the above.

• The points under discussion are from poorva mimamsa, but Vedanta is about Uttara mimamsa.
• Not mentioning something is not a proof of the existence of its opposite.

What I am arguing about is the falsity of a claim and a realization that we need to re-learn it for the very reason that we have got it wrong.

Yes, you are arguing about the falsity of literal translation without offering any proof other than some nebulous nefarious design of the western scholars. That may very well be, but your case will remain weak unless you provide an alternative interpretation with sufficient supporting evidence.

Forget the fact that they are not interesteding in "early stirrings of Indian civilization". There are other more conclusive methods to understand about Indian civilization. The first question is how did the early men of vedanta derive it from the vedas and how come none of it speaks of worship to Indra or eulogy of kings?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying Vedanta does not speak of worship of Indra, and therefore any poorva mimamsa verse that talks of worship of Indra must have some esoteric meaning and must not be taken literally? Why? I can't think of any logical reason to come to this conclusion. If you have any please state them.

After all those things seem to plainly come from the translation, if it was so obvious, it is what any interpretation of vedas would have been about. But they aren't.....

Vivek, you have to give some examples of this. So far you have repeatedly claimed there could be inner hidden meanings with nothing but your hunch as evidence. That won't do. You have to do better than that for a serious discussion.

Cheers!

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Recently I read extracts of letters written by Max Mueller to his mother and others close to him in"Face Book" under the caption "The BHARAT SWAMBHIMAN' that the entire hindus can be converted as 'Christians"
Can we take the translation of such westerners on their face value or with a pinch of salt!.It appears their intentions were not sincere but with ulterior motives they intrepreted the contents of our sacred books.
It is really sad that Scholars among Hindus do not take that much interest in explaining the real version or any hidden meaningsin the vedas or other sacred literature of Hindus.
Recently I was going through a book on 'World Religions' brought out by Encyclopedia Brittanica.Only very few pages have been devoted to 'Hindu Religion', while pages after pages have been devoted to 'Christianity' and
'Islam'.We have number of HINDU Gurus spreading their influence on westerners but do not find time to highlight our religion in such books.Hindus stand to loose in this process.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Nara

"Please let us know why all the translations are wrong. Further, there could be other meanings is not a serious argument."

I have clearly explained the reason as to why it is wrong. Please read my posts again or read the jist I provided. If I were to agree your argument is right, I would have to agree that all the people from Adi Shankaracharya to Sayana were blind.

"The points under discussion are from poorva mimamsa, but Vedanta is about Uttara mimamsa."
Whatever the case its a study from the vedas as per the claim. Clearly the question as to why no other vedantic school spoke of everything modern day commentators speak of is a valid question.

"Not mentioning something is not a proof of the existence of its opposite."

I did mention something through - the interpetation of people 1200 years ago on the vedas. That is radically different. If the meanings were that obvious, things would have been different.

"That may very well be, but your case will remain weak unless you provide an alternative interpretation with sufficient supporting evidence. "

But what makes you think I, or you, or Happyhindu are qualified to be ready with a "sufficient supporting evidence"? Merely because I state "could" and another claims things with a tone of certainity doesn't mean I have it wrong. I have already given the case, even going by translations, were arya and dasyu are not race terms. But you are mistaken when you say I have not made a claim - my very claim is that your method of translatory interpretation is fallacious - and for that I offer evidence by speaking of the difference it has with others who studied the vedas. This is the very point that strengthens my claim.

"You have to state the metaphorical meanings you claim exist and make a case for it, then only a reasonable discussion can happen."

Sure, I can give you those. I have infact already given the case of the battle of ten kings. My claim of your falsity is not weakened, it is only strengthened when you are unable to explain the incoherence of conclusions between vedantic schools and modern methods. Are we to believe they were doing timepass? Or all of them just mugging it all up?

"repeatedly claimed there could be inner hidden meanings with nothing but your hunch as evidence. That won't do. You have to do better than that for a serious discussion"

I am serious about this discussion, which is why reply to your posts with the same answers .

And merely because I claim your's or Happyhindu's claims are incorrect, it doesn't necessarily entitle me to come up with my own idea of it. If you explain why past people who read the vedas (take even Sayana) didn't come up with ideas like Griffith or other translators did, it would strengthen your argument. The fact that you don't strengthens my claim that something has been lost/misunderstood in between.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu

"I am a novice and a beginner wrt vedic literature."

Yes, that is why asking "Why did Sayana or Adi Shank get this different?" is a good question to ask yourself isn't it?

"then there are sufficient hindu-philes to fix them. "

The "hinduphiles" you speak of are a belligerent group of neaderthals who have an iota of knowledge of "Hindu" traditions in general. Their movement came out as a basis of Hindu nationalism, and is political. Why do you feel they are relevant? Who are relevant here are Sayana, and all the people who studied the vedas for so many years, whose ideas we choose to ignore.

"Anyways, however, this has nothing to do with the translations and with the stand-off between the aryas and dasyus. "

You mean the "assumed stand off" no study of the vedas spoke about in the past.

You speak of nadi like you have full knowledge of it, when what I state is from the claim of people who actually practice it.

"It is like fooling the readers into believing that there is something called “traditional method” of deriving meanings of vedic verses where AryAs and dAsyus have been mentioned. "

Whatever you or I called the method is irrelevant, fact is people of the past didn't interpret it like you do so it probably means you think they were blind, clearly. Otherwise you would have understood the logic of my simple question.

"Until then there is no need to go on claiming that "people of the past" did not come up with such an interpretation. "

Because they didn't ! Please come up with one idea in vedanta or Sayana's commentary that speaks that dark skinned people are dasyus enemies to support your claim.

"Adi shakarAchaya belonged to the uttara mimansa vedAnta school not the pUrva mimAnsa school. And therefore he dealt with Vedanta and spread advaita and not the vedas"

He learnt the vedas though clearly and the very claim and meaning of vedanta is conclusion of the vedas. In none of it, not in any discourse or dialogue do we come across what you or Griffith say. "Bull lipped enemies".?

"In the face of all that, why did not the kAnchi AchAryA provide metaphorical meanings?"

Seeing today's Shankaracharya I don't regard him as a man of discipline, because I feel the method of discourse/debate (as was done between Adi Shankaracharya and Madana Mishra) has been lost. The present Shankaracharyas will obviously have an opinion though, even if they may not want to get into explaining it openly. Unlike me, they probably don't see point or reason to have to justify themselves either.

"Instead of merely claiming my translation stumbles upon itself, please provide your metaphorical meanings for the verses in post #30. I would like to see a reply from you on post # 30. "

What logic exactly dictates that someone who points your mistake should be ready with an answer? I have read some translationed verses and have an idea of them, but I feel that interpretation is itself not correctly done.

"If you had hung around this forum for a longer time, by now you wud have understood that there was a fight between nations or tribes of people who had some cultural differences. On this thread too i already mentioned that the dasyus were ‘old aryas’. The dasyus are said to have been vegetarians, idol-worshippers, with a system where anyone cud choose their varna and become ascetics. In the avestan religion too varna is said to be a personal choice."

So this would mean according to you the present manner of Hindu religion is "dasyu by nature" ? How does it then find coherence with the claim of translations which call dasyus godless? But tell me where you get references of dasyus choosing any varna and becoming ascetics.

"On the other hand, the practitioners of the vedic religion sacrificed animals to appease the devas, were non-vegetarian, did not worship idols, and followed a system where the son followed the father’s profession."

There is a specific translation in the RV which tells that the profession of a father is not that of his son. There are references to brahmins having ate meat once - like the story of Agastya, Ilvala and Vatapi. There is a reference to Purushamedha and Ashwamedha, while the former is accepted today to be metaphorical, the latter is considered literal. Though this ritual of slaughter did happen among many kings in India, again, Adi Shankaracharyas ideas don't mention them - he did read/learn the vedas.

"During the vedic period, the aryas won and during the Vedanta period the dasyus appear to have triumphed. The "aryas" appear to have self-titled themselves that way (as "aryas", although we do not know what was really noble about them)."

What makes you assume this LOTR scenario? What makes you assume tribes like arya and dasyu existed? You are right now claiming they existed till vedantic times (meaning CE 800?). If that was really the case, I think we would have come across such a clan, or group of clans. There is a complete lack of any thing you are speaking of (arya and dasyu clans/tribes). The "aryas" didn't write vedas as sef-praise; the people who wrote the language (Sanskrit) used the word "arya" in the same sense as you would use "gentleman" or (in other usage) "fertile". Attributing "good" nature to a "gentleman" or a "fertile land" then, hardly means you are prasining yourself.

"Which are the “early schools” that did not interpret Vedas in certain ways? Please let us know which are the early schools you are talking about? "

All of them ! Every discussion about vedas has said it was about a philosophy. Vedanata is itself derived from the vedas as per the claim, yet you are saying here that Adi Shankarachrya didn't speak of vedas. By tradition, he learnt it by he was eight. If the interpretations were as obvious as yours or Griffith's he or many others would have surely noted them. Even people who started nastika schools (like Buddha) and rejected the vedas as taught by brahmins of their time, read the vedas. Buddha too never mentions invasion of a "bull lipped, noseless, dark skinned" people who were invaded. Dr. Amedkar who had done research on brahmins and Buddhism himself denied the idea and was one of the first to see the ploy of the British government.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Krishnamurthy Sir,

There are several sanskrit teaching institutions all over India. The famous Sanskrit department of the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) was established in 1919 and has produced a number of stalwarts. Amongst the popular ones today are the Sanskrit College of Mylapore, and the Shankaracharya Sanskrit University in Kerala. There are atleast a 100 sanskrit teaching institutions affiliated with the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Most people who did higher studies in sanskrit and research in vedas were / are brahmins.

None of the above have offered any 'traditional method' of deriving 'metaphorical meanings' from the vedas wrt aryas and dasyus. A number of manuscripts of and on the vedas, itihaasaas, puranas are available at BHU. Nowhere has anyone contradicted the fact that once upon a time ages ago there was a fight between aryas and dasyus, and that sometimes aryas and dasyus teemed against an enemy common to both of them. Indra has never been called dasyu for bad behavior. The term arya specifically was used by a group as a self-designation, while undoubtedly the dasyus were an iranian tribe.

Under the colonial rule it was possible to suspect the intentions of western translators (to justify their own invasion of india) . Same case remains with missionaries till today who misuse the findings of researchers for their stupid conversions.

However to dub ALL western indologists and historians as people with vested interests makes no sense. It is like a lame excuse to circumvent discussion on the vedas into british-bashing. In same manner one cud also dub ALL brahmins as casteists with vested interests. Such sweeping generalizations are obviously not true.

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu

"Instead of merely claiming my translation stumbles upon itself"

But it does stumble upon itself. Explain why "arya" tribes are called as "dasyu" in the references to the battle of ten kings


"Nowhere has anyone contradicted the fact that once upon a time ages ago there was a fight between aryas and dasyus"

And never did such an idea even exist ever before, neither any reference to an "arya" clan or a "dasyu" clan.

"It is like a lame excuse to circumvent discussion on the vedas into british-bashing."

Its not british-bashing. This thread would be concluded if you can point out why Adi Shankaracharya or Sayana never spoke of treating "bull lipped, dark skinned, noseless" people as enemies or even mention anything remotely close. The two did indeed learn the vedas and brought Adi Shankaracharya brought vedanata as the conclusion (of the vedas). Buddha who read the vedas never mentioned of early people having destroyed "dark, bull lipped, noseless" enemies either.

"Obviously if Adi Shankaracharya had concluded purva mimansa vedism to be a valid philosophy he wud not have lost to mandana mishra. "

He didn't "lose". Where did you get this from?

"All i see on this forum is a concentrated attack on anyone "western". If one wants to categorize ALL westerners as evil people with vested interests, then DK too cud be right in categorizing ALL brahmins in a certain light."

This is a strawman. I agree many are really trying unbiased research. But my comment on Griffith is based on the mindset that existed amongst British government and the population in general at one time. The translation of Vedas are used as a method to spread their propaganda. It is as similar to saying brahmin community was following caste discrimination. It doesn't go on to say all brahmins are evil.

Regards,
Vivek.