• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

Status
Not open for further replies.

happyhindu

Well-known member
A good lot of discussions have gone on here about whether the term arya denotes an ethnic stock. But it appears that the word "airiya" originally denoted an ethnic stock which has, in course of history, lost that connotation in the Indian side. See here.

Hence I feel the position if we look to our scriptures alone - from the rigveda to bhagavatam, we may be able to understand this transformation better. To me the term "Arya" is like a "liger" or, closer to our religious lore, "narasimha". We will be able to trace both the tiger's and lion's (human and leonine, in the second case) characteristics.

So, I think there need not be an effort to prove that one or the meaning is only there for the word "arya".
Sangom sir,
Please elaborate on the transformation of ''airiya'' from an ethnic group to a character / characteristic thing. Here we are discussing the vedic period alone.

Also Vivek feels Adi shankara should have mentioned about aryas and dasyus. Is there any necessity why shankara should have spoken about that part of the samhitas?

The second question is on the karmakanda and advaita, and adi shankara's stand on karmakanda. Please let us have your views on it.

Regards.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
sh.nara, its right thing for me to heed to your advice now.

still i am amazed, you a person, who always goes on tooth and nail till the end, until the person exhausts, but now, you want to give this issue 'A let Go' without any conclusions. wonder if its because of the twosome or threesome

since you have once made an appeal to forum asking to voice against the threesome, let me know my view about this person, and close this matter.

when i asked happyhindu to quote the ref of posts, where she claimed that i had sought her NB identity, there was no reply to that, till now. with that,a simple sorry would have made me content. instead the person digs on to some old issues of some XYZ members,and narrate some old incidents, which i couldnt figure out the head or tail of it.

even if she was genuine in what ever context, its admitted by her that she asked those persons identity,even if its a 2 or 3 year old discussion, its very much clear,by her own admission, happyhindu was also at one point of time, seeking identity of few other members, but was not behind their points or POV. so, according to me, there is nothing wrong in sh.swami/panvalan asking her identity. may be take it as tit for tat, atleast.

thankfully, i had few PM's from members recently, suggesting me not to venture with a debate with happyhindu, stating,that she would twist & turn the topic and goes personal. now when I look back at her recent post, the same things is very much proved there. she goes on telling, may be identifying myself to some of the recently banned members or what or who, I dontknow, or may be some past issues i dont know, but she is now projecting me as if I'm carrying some old animosity.

unfortunately, i was the one who aired the support for her, when sh.RVR threw our the எச்சி இல்லை - நாய் analogy and condemned him. I was just new then, and I remember this was around last deepavali. that time, i never knew about this split personality view, and I regret now for countering sh.rvr that time, so badly.

atleast for now, hope you will understand others feelings, before voicing for allies. this is what most of those who sent PM expressed.

Freespeech/right to question/right to question until its answered , all have their own limitations based on the target audience. even in a pure democratic set up, president is always immune to prosecution, pls ponder why.

armed with the right to information, one cannot go and ask for the 'nude snap' of the prime minister.all these rights are set by the society or by the public or by the forum.. norms of these rights are not set by any individuals.

anyway, i have an interesting point to discuss with you about 'who the target audiences of tb.com' are.. this week, bit tied up, will log in this weekend and discuss.

Shiva,
Had no idea you were expecting a sorry. If that is what you want, you have it - sorry. However, I do not understand why you still invoke Pann and Swami in this regard. Nor do I understand what this is about either.

You claim you voiced support for me when RVR did his name calling. Am sorry but I do not think you voiced support for me. You were keen on questioning RVR's hypocrisy.

We have not debated on any topic so far, but you claim you received PMs from some members and also mention Nara sir for ''voicing for allies''. Well, yourself and your friends are free to hold any opinion you want .

On this thread you started off with how NBs can contribute to welfare of TBs. From there you have slowly dragged it and made this personal, which is perhaps what you intended.

As for the identity, the only time anyone's identity was in question was that of SAPR. I cudn't bother abt his identity or questioning it, bcoz it was already clear to me he was a christian. I was up against the way he used to selectively demean hinduism and skip tuf questions on christianity.

Whatever decisions were taken wrt to his identity and banning him was by the moderators.

I do not remember exactly but I think both KRS ji and Kunjuppu ji were the moderators at that time. So i request KRS ji and Kunjuppu ji to kindly share their views on this identity questioning thing.

Regards.
 
S

SwamiTaBra

Guest
A good lot of discussions have gone on here about whether the term arya denotes an ethnic stock. But it appears that the word "airiya" originally denoted an ethnic stock which has, in course of history, lost that connotation in the Indian side. See here.

Hence I feel the position if we look to our scriptures alone - from the rigveda to bhagavatam, we may be able to understand this transformation better. To me the term "Arya" is like a "liger" or, closer to our religious lore, "narasimha". We will be able to trace both the tiger's and lion's (human and leonine, in the second case) characteristics.

So, I think there need not be an effort to prove that one or the meaning is only there for the word "arya".

My mother's maternal uncle used to write "Arya" after his name instead of usual "Iyer" insisting that both are same...

Rgds.
Swami
 

sangom

Well-known member
...armed with the right to information, one cannot go and ask for the 'nude snap' of the prime minister.all these rights are set by the society or by the public or by the forum.. norms of these rights are not set by any individuals.

I am sure no one in his / her right senses will do that in India at least now:laugh:
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
I am sure no one in his / her right senses will do that in India at least now:laugh:
Ah well, nothing can stop certain people from persisting or getting throughly dirty...especially if they have an old score to settle... :)
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
Sangom sir,
Please elaborate on the transformation of ''airiya'' from an ethnic group to a character / characteristic thing. Here we are discussing the vedic period alone.

Also Vivek feels Adi shankara should have mentioned about aryas and dasyus. Is there any necessity why shankara should have spoken about that part of the samhitas?

The second question is on the karmakanda and advaita, and adi shankara's stand on karmakanda. Please let us have your views on it.

Regards.

Smt. HappyHindu,

This discussion has gone on so long and in such convoluted manner that I am not at all sure if your "poorvapaksha/s" will agree that the points of issue are what you say above. Anyhow, having tried to tell that there is no point in debating whether the word "arya" denoted "cultured" or an ethnic group/s or tribes, let me continue, to the extent possible for me.

It is necessary to consider the term "āryāvarta" which is familiar to us in later literature, including the smṛtis. This is akin to the avestan "airyanəm vaējō", which denoted the original land of the "airians". Here, it may not be practical to apply the notion (both in the avestan and smṛti scenario) that the word "arya" (airiya) denoted only the cultured people and not to any tribe/s who formed the "arya" (airiya). Add to this the injunction contained in some smṛtis that any one who crosses beyond the borders of expiatory acts for those who have crossed the boundaries of āryāvarta, and it becomes clear that the idea behind āryāvarta was a land belonging to those who called themselves as āryā. Hence, IMO, it has a clear ethnic connotation.

As for Sankara and advaita, I had already said that he did not refer to rigveda at all in any of his important bhashyas, only less than 10 citations from Taittiriya samhita which may be on karma/jnaana kaanda (one has to sift out individual references before anything can be said) and relies mostly on two upanishads. But if the question is about whether sankara endorsed karmakanda, my opinion is yes. Already Shri Nara has furnished the relevant references to the effect that sankara fully endorsed caste system and said only brahmins can attain brahmajnaana. sankara has also faithfully commented on br.ar. adhyaya 6, Brahmana 4, sankara comments on various aspects of the sexual act and also endorses the eating of bull's meat to get a good son, as prescribed by the said upanishad! So, I consider sankara to have been a conformist to the scriptures, the caste system, etc., despite the manishapancakam story (I am of that opinion.) inserted into the sankaradigvijayas.

If we take "karmakanda" to mean the various rituals, yagas etc., described (mostly by YV) I think sankara had no objection to those. He has expressly opined against samkhya, yoga and perhaps, tantra only, as not means "upaaya" for liberation, not vedas or anything contained in them.
 

happyhindu

Well-known member
Smt. HappyHindu,

This discussion has gone on so long and in such convoluted manner that I am not at all sure if your "poorvapaksha/s" will agree that the points of issue are what you say above. Anyhow, having tried to tell that there is no point in debating whether the word "arya" denoted "cultured" or an ethnic group/s or tribes, let me continue, to the extent possible for me.

It is necessary to consider the term "āryāvarta" which is familiar to us in later literature, including the smṛtis. This is akin to the avestan "airyanəm vaējō", which denoted the original land of the "airians". Here, it may not be practical to apply the notion (both in the avestan and smṛti scenario) that the word "arya" (airiya) denoted only the cultured people and not to any tribe/s who formed the "arya" (airiya). Add to this the injunction contained in some smṛtis that any one who crosses beyond the borders of expiatory acts for those who have crossed the boundaries of āryāvarta, and it becomes clear that the idea behind āryāvarta was a land belonging to those who called themselves as āryā. Hence, IMO, it has a clear ethnic connotation.
Thankyou Sir. Aryavarta as a region is supported by quite a few authors. It is expected that those residing outside of aryavarta were called anarya (like the kikatas). But am not sure why you would think that the term Arya has a ethnic connotation.

I have been thinking that aryas and dasyus were merely squabbling groups, with no ethnic connotation attached. Malathi Shengde has written extensively on the culture of the asuras / dasyus, from which it would seem that the asuras / dasyus were quite an advanced civilization. Malathi Shangde also suggests that aryas and dasyus may have been similar in the looks department.

Please could you forget the posts on this thread, and elaborate from your end the possible scenario in the vedic period. Is it possible that people of a common kind ended up becoming seperate warring factions?

As for Sankara and advaita, I had already said that he did not refer to rigveda at all in any of his important bhashyas, only less than 10 citations from Taittiriya samhita which may be on karma/jnaana kaanda (one has to sift out individual references before anything can be said) and relies mostly on two upanishads.
Sir is there any particular / specific reason why Shankara did not refer to the Rig? As for the caste system, am aware of the references Shankara made in support of the caste system in his bhasya on brahmasutra. He carefully supported the smrithis and rejected both Jaimini and Badrayana selectively. His description on allowing meditations to be combined with rituals and such things would make a case where he (purposefully or inadverantly?) created a merger between the purvamimasa texts and meditative practices.

But if the question is about whether sankara endorsed karmakanda, my opinion is yes. Already Shri Nara has furnished the relevant references to the effect that sankara fully endorsed caste system and said only brahmins can attain brahmajnaana. sankara has also faithfully commented on br.ar. adhyaya 6, Brahmana 4, sankara comments on various aspects of the sexual act and also endorses the eating of bull's meat to get a good son, as prescribed by the said upanishad! So, I consider sankara to have been a conformist to the scriptures, the caste system, etc., despite the manishapancakam story (I am of that opinion.) inserted into the sankaradigvijayas.

If we take "karmakanda" to mean the various rituals, yagas etc., described (mostly by YV) I think sankara had no objection to those. He has expressly opined against samkhya, yoga and perhaps, tantra only, as not means "upaaya" for liberation, not vedas or anything contained in them.
One doubt on this sir.

Shankara's bhasya on brahmasutra says knowledge of Brahman is not Kratvartha, i.e., subordinate to action (sacrificial acts) but independent. In the sAdhanA adhyaya, he comments on ata Eva chAgnindhanagyanpEksha (to say agni indhanAdi anapEksha or that a sanayasin has no need for lighting fire and such rites). Yet Shankara goes on to say sarvApEksha cha yagyadishrutErashvvath (please do correct the spellings whereever they are wrong) to say that rituals are needed for knowledge: Sarvapekshadhikaranam: Topic 6 - Brahma Sutras - Chapter 3: Sadhana Adhyaya But despite saying that, he also says knowledge is not a subsidary of rites and that brahman is not dependent on sacrifical acts. Looks like he was trying hard to combine (copy ?) buddhist ideas and combine them with parts of the brahmasutra and purvamimansasutra.

In the phala adhyaya also, Shankara says there is no return for those who go to brahmalokam, but does not elaborate on the differences between pitrulokam and brahmalokam or write on the pitrukaryams therein. Anyways, according to the non-Shankara uttaramimansa mutts, the upanishads being jnanakanda do not enjoin karmakanda and hence Shankara's exposition of the brahmasutra is to be taken in that light (of rejecting the karmakanda as means of moksham). To the uttaramimansas, moksham is about going up that nerve (vide, the kathopanishad, chandogya, etc). And that does not depend on the karmakanda. What are your views on this sir?

Regards.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
"But it appears that the word "airiya" originally denoted an ethnic stock which has, in course of history, lost that connotation in the Indian side"

The word "arya" meant "noble, amicable, honourable" - which "ethnic stock" did it refer to? Again to think a connotation was lost, given that the very early material that mentions the word is not lost is a silly argument.

"So, I think there need not be an effort to prove that one or the meaning is only there for the word "arya". "

Either the lot of you are feigning ignorance for odd reasons, or you are completely unaware of the ton of political storm this word "arya" has been floating in - way before it came to academics.

Let us consider the facts:

1. The word arya has a meaning in sanskrit and it roughly means "noble, amicable, honourable" etc.

2. The word arya had been used as a race term in ideas of Crainometry which was a serious study in the 19th and 20th centuries to speak of "superior" and "inferior" races - spaning from (as Georges Vacher de Lapouge put it) from the "Aryan white race" to the "brachycephalicm short and broad-headed" race.

3. Truth of the matter being such description was never part of the word, which originated in the Sub-continent (and this fact is not under contention).

4. It was later used as a means of propaganda by the British and more popularly by the Nazis. After that it made its way to TN politics - which used the British-invented fictitious dicotomy of "white Aryans vs. black Dravidians" to speak of brahmins as outsiders. This has become academic material and triggered the guilt-psychosis in many individuals in our community.

The presented DMK/DK version of history that spreads this guilt psychosis has it written that brahmins contributed nothing, they were "different", they are "outsiders". Forgetting that many aspect of tamil culture is itself in good part legacy of the brahmins. Sangom, you won't bother ask brahmins to take a "lion's share" of this.

Nothing of the past - either in usage of Dravidian, or Arya even allude to such modern ideas which are purely the work of propaganda put into academics. With all due respect to Sri Sangomji and Sow Happyhindu for your seniority of membership which seemed to have made the two of you alphas here, with big "experience points" etc, you may have to read ideas of European thought concerning the idea of "race" through the 19th and 20th century to understand what I am saying, and why it is important. Compare this with arya and its meanings in ancient India, you yourself will come to understand the different. Georges Vacher de Lapouge's idea and similar ideas points to why "bull jawed" was accepted as "bull lipped", and why "anasa" was made to "noseless/snub noses" - it was to make a smart allusion to the races like those in Africa who are generally thick lipped, and snub nosed as being the destroyed dasyus. This thread started with Happyhindu supporting this racist idea.

"Thankyou Sir. Aryavarta as a region is supported by quite a few authors. It is expected that those residing outside of aryavarta were called anarya (like the kikatas). But am not sure why you would think that the term Arya has a ethnic connotation."

Aryavarta was to denote "fertile land". Words in Sanskrit change meaning when used with something else. You will also see the meaning of the described boundaries of this "Aryavarta" changing as per history, course of river etc.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:

happyhindu

Well-known member
"Thankyou Sir. Aryavarta as a region is supported by quite a few authors. It is expected that those residing outside of aryavarta were called anarya (like the kikatas). But am not sure why you would think that the term Arya has a ethnic connotation."

Aryavarta was to denote "fertile land". Words in Sanskrit change meaning when used with something else. You will also see the meaning of the described boundaries of this "Aryavarta" changing as per history, course of river etc.

Regards,
Vivek.
Where did you get that "fertile land" idea from? Please provide references where the boundries of Aryavarta have changed in history as per course of river?

Several places fall outside the aryavarta boundries, such as andhra pradesh, tamilnadu, karnataka, kerala, assam, and the northeastern states. Are all of these not fertile lands?
 

sangom

Well-known member
Thankyou Sir. Aryavarta as a region is supported by quite a few authors. It is expected that those residing outside of aryavarta were called anarya (like the kikatas). But am not sure why you would think that the term Arya has a ethnic connotation.

I have been thinking that aryas and dasyus were merely squabbling groups, with no ethnic connotation attached. Malathi Shengde has written extensively on the culture of the asuras / dasyus, from which it would seem that the asuras / dasyus were quite an advanced civilization. Malathi Shangde also suggests that aryas and dasyus may have been similar in the looks department.

Please could you forget the posts on this thread, and elaborate from your end the possible scenario in the vedic period. Is it possible that people of a common kind ended up becoming seperate warring factions?

Smt. HappyHindu,

I may not be able to readily cite references - just as you do, with your prodigious memory - but what I write is based on reading several sources. It is the sum total of impressions that I have gained. So, if you ask me for references, I may not be able to furnish immediately.

As I already stated, there is reason to believe that the word "airiya" or its proto form had its origin in the BMAC region. This is supported IMO by the following:

"The Avesta clearly uses airya as an ethnic name (Vd. 1; Yt. 13.143-44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō “Iranian lands, peoples,” airyō.šayanəm “land inhabited by Iranians,” and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; “Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā,” the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā.[15]

The term "Ariya" appears in the royal Old Persian inscriptions in three different contexts: 1) As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun; 2) as the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph) and 3) as the definition of the God of Iranian people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription.[15][16][18] For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as “An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock”.[22] Although Darius the Great called his language the Iranian language,[22] modern scholars refer to it as Old Persian[22] due to the fact that it is the ancestor of modern Persian language.[23]

The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources”.[15] Herodotus in his Histories remarks about the Iranian Medes that:

“These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; “ (7.62)" Pl. refer this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples
When the people from the airyanəm vaējō migrated towards the east, most possibly due to a religious schism (my considered view is that some people started using totems or totem poles alongside their fire rituals, as evidenced by the importance given to the yūpa, or the sacrificial pole in vedic sacrifices), they must have encountered existing population - in the sindhu region and further east as well; some of these people might have opposed the newcomers, fought and must have been defeated and subjugated by the totem worshipping "airiyas", while some others might have fled in fear or even willingly become pliant. Those who resisted were the "dasyus", those subjugated might have been "dasas" and those who willingly acknowledged the incomers might have become the Sudras. In arriving at this conjecture, I am guided by the fact that the ancient avestan society had only 3 classes - athravan (priest), rathestar (warrior) and hutox/vastriyosh (farmers/traders) - the equivalent of a sudra was absent there.

I feel if we go by the aforesaid scenario, the various doubts as to dasyu, dasa, arya, etc., will be cleared to a large extent. Anyway this is my opinion, not backed by any scholastic approval.
 
Last edited:

sangom

Well-known member
Sir is there any particular / specific reason why Shankara did not refer to the Rig? As for the caste system, am aware of the references ...

And that does not depend on the karmakanda. What are your views on this sir?

Regards.

IMO, sankara took up the propagation of gauḍapāda's views as what the 'hindu' vedas (I am using the word 'hindu' deliberately to distinguish it from buddhism) meant to proclaim, most probably because it was highly influenced by the buddhist philosophy, and was therefore sure to have a much better welcome in the minds of the buddhist scholars of his (sankara's) times. For this first he had to convince the 'vedists' who swore by the efficacy of sacrifices alone as the ultimate to be achieved by man, about his view-point. The discussion with kumārila bhaṭṭa and maṇḍana miśra, achieved this. Then he went on to vanquish many other opponents. But, all the time he had to be careful not to go overboard and fully expound something which would be buddhism, pure and simple. In this tight-rope walk, he had to say that vedas, vedic rites, etc., were not irrelevant, but ultimately sankara recommended constant "self-introspection" as the only efficient means to attain liberation.

sankara, in his various bhashyas, had a difficult time to interpret and prove that it was his "advaita" which each of the prasthānatrayī texts meant. For example in commenting on BG. 18.65, "manmanā bhava madbhakto madyājī mām namaskuru..."etc., sankara says that one should do yajnas, etc., but in the very next verse where kṛṣṇa says, "sarvadharmān parityajya..."etc., sankara also faithfully says renounce all actions. Hence, we have to take the words of sankara as that of a pure commentator, because to negate any sloka or portion of any one of the prasthānatrayī texts, saying this does not agree with my philosophy (as buddha did) would have resulted in sankara being considered heterodox if not heretic. So, my personal view is to consider only the core advaita philosophy as sankara's contribution and not to rely on the various bhashyas which can, sometimes be, misleading.

I have read somewhere but cannot recollect now, that according to sankara's tenets, the jiva in every case dissolves again into the supreme brahman but the sūkṣma or kāraṇa śarīra lingers on as a result of the accumulated vāsanas and causes rebirth. In such a case, pitṛloka is not necessary. Actually, the concept of pitṛloka is from the ṛgvedic, if not pūrvamīmāṃsa, beliefs where there was no strong belief in rebirths and the dead ancestors continue to live (for eternity) in pitṛloka. mokṣa or jīvanmukti, according to advaita, I believe, lies in the experiencing of the nirguṇa parabrahma, even while one is still alive. To be frank, I do not give much importance to the ideas about kundalini etc.
 

MG Hariharan

New member
Passing sweeping comments such as fire cannot be made from water is wrong Even today for propelling our Rockets we use H2 and O2 producing lots of fire and power
 
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sow. Happyhindu

"Where did you get that "fertile land" idea from? Please provide references where the boundries of Aryavarta have changed in history as per course of river?"

"Abode of the Aryas" was a term clearly put to make it look like the (later) abode of a ficticious "aryan race" which was part of the European 19th and 20th century propaganda. All the references about the territorial extents of aryavarta are clear indication of the Himalayan regions and the Indo-Gangetic plane which speak about the rivers of the regions.

Check a sanskrit dictionary, the word "arya" :Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Nowhere is it a tribe name - clearly it fits the second meaning "favourable" which is because of the fertility of the region. Note none of the words have no meaning refering to a tribe from any place or a fire-cult because such an idea (which you, DMK, DK try to propogate) is a ficticious one degined to the attack the brahmins.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sri MG Hariharan

"Passing sweeping comments such as fire cannot be made from water is wrong Even today for propelling our Rockets we use H2 and O2 producing lots of fire and power"

I meant for an early people in what is today thought by academics to have been a pastoral lifestyle.

I understand what you are saying here though - that things regarded impossible have been done in later eras, I meant to make no such sweeping statement. The main point of that which I posted however, was to show that these are only apparent absurdities which certainly have a meaning which we are clearly missing.

That was my point in that sentence about Agni.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sri Sangom

"For this first he had to convince the 'vedists' who swore by the efficacy of sacrifices alone as the ultimate to be achieved by man, about his view-point. The discussion with kumārila bhaṭṭa and maṇḍana miśra, achieved this. Then he went on to vanquish many other opponents. But, all the time he had to be careful not to go overboard and fully expound something which would be buddhism, pure and simple. In this tight-rope walk, he had to say that vedas, vedic rites, etc., were not irrelevant, but ultimately sankara recommended constant "self-introspection" as the only efficient means to attain liberation"

I feel your understanding that its taken from Buddhism is incorrect. The Upanishads agreed to have been composed even before the arrival of Buddhism speak in similar notions of one Self, illusion etc. The ideas may be similar and independently reached too.

"For example in commenting on BG. 18.65, "manmanā bhava madbhakto madyājī mām namaskuru..."etc., sankara says that one should do yajnas, etc., but in the very next verse where kṛṣṇa says, "sarvadharmān parityajya..."etc., sankara also faithfully says renounce all actions."

And why would a contradiciton be that apparent? I am to admit that vedanta philosophy is quiet profound. So, first we are to make sure that we ourselves understood it. Clearly, there is a question as to why someone would place contradictions so apparent and closely. Even the BG speaks of this, it has to do with the idea of understanding that "you" being the doer of something is not a correct pov. Why does Krishna say he has renounced all actions and then go into battle as a charioteer? An understanding of these is necessary.

"Add to this the injunction contained in some smṛtis that any one who crosses beyond the borders of expiatory acts for those who have crossed the boundaries of āryāvarta, and it becomes clear that the idea behind āryāvarta was a land belonging to those who called themselves as āryā."

Yet there is no clan called arya from all the meanings.

Earliest meanings of arya come from Indian (Rig Veda) and Zoroastrian texts, these obviously have more weight than Greek accounts which are much much later. The Greek account of calling the Medes aryans comes from the fact that the Medes were the Western end civilization who had the term and addressed each other by it - and it came to be known to the Greeks.

The Airyanem Vaejo too, is actually a similar useage as Aryavarta and it too speaks of a place by the Daitya river. The meaning of Aryavarta fits in the same way.

People called "Arya" did so as a title to them and this only meant what we would roughly call "Gentleman" etc. Even in the Behistun Inscription it has been translated as a race because the race meaning was popular at the time it was excavated and translated. But in Darius' usage he is actually saying he is a Zoroastrian - and this was his designation of one who was living correctly and thus "arya".

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:

happyhindu

Well-known member
@ Sow. Happyhindu

"Where did you get that "fertile land" idea from? Please provide references where the boundries of Aryavarta have changed in history as per course of river?"

"Abode of the Aryas" was a term clearly put to make it look like the (later) abode of a ficticious "aryan race" which was part of the European 19th and 20th century propaganda. All the references about the territorial extents of aryavarta are clear indication of the Himalayan regions and the Indo-Gangetic plane which speak about the rivers of the regions.

Check a sanskrit dictionary, the word "arya" :Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Nowhere is it a tribe name - clearly it fits the second meaning "favourable" which is because of the fertility of the region. Note none of the words have no meaning refering to a tribe from any place or a fire-cult because such an idea (which you, DMK, DK try to propogate) is a ficticious one degined to the attack the brahmins.

Regards,
Vivek.
If "arya" means "favourable", does that automatically mean "aryavarta" is "fertile land"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is your conclusion derived from some grammatical elucidation? And where did the boundries of aryavarta change as per course of any river?
 

MG Hariharan

New member
That is what I meant as sweeping. You are assuming the ancient people were not having technical knowledge. But more and more you go into works like Ramayana you will find they were very knowledgeable. Especially while using words we can misunderstand. Asimov has written 5 chapters how ancient people used Pritvi Ap vayur tejas akasam as constituting all materials We find they just meant Solids, liquids, Gas, Energy, and Space. Even today that is all we know as constituents. More can be said like this. See the political climate we are having today. 2500 years exactly the situation has been predicted by Plato as to how democracy will fare. Sometimes you think he has visited India in time machine and saw what is happening. He has written about modern fads such as going to GYM etc. can you believe it. Visit my Blog for more details
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@ Sow. Happyhindu

"If "arya" means "favourable", does that automatically mean "aryavarta" is "fertile land"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is your conclusion derived from some grammatical elucidation? And where did the boundries of aryavarta change as per course of any river?"

That is the only explaination which actually fits given that an aryan clan or tribe is actually unknown. Did you even see the link I provided? You yourself can search and see the boundaries of Aryavarta changing. Even though this has often been translated as "abode of the aryas" which actually makes no sense given that there was never any arya clan or tribe.

From wiki: "The Vasistha Dharma Sutra I.8-9 and 12-13 locates Āryāvarta to the east of the disappearance of the Sarasvati in the desert, to the west of Kalakavana, to the north of the mountains of Pariyatra and Vindhya and to the south of the Himalaya."

Note how its change has been written with respect to the disappearing river and clearly comes to describe the region of the Indo-Gangetic plain.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
OP
OP
V

Vivek_V

New member
@Sri MG Hariharan - I didn't make a sweeping statement, was speaking ON BASIS of what is agreed upon by present academics

"That is what I meant as sweeping. You are assuming the ancient people were not having technical knowledge. But more and more you go into works like Ramayana you will find they were very knowledgeable. "

Did you read my post actually? Let me requote what I said: "I meant for an early people in what is today thought by academics to have been a pastoral lifestyle. " So, I was saying here that academicians and studies that are widely accepted regard the veda composers as having lead a pastoral life - then I go forward to question how such an absurdity as Agni (associated with fire) being born of water would have been written? (as per their translation, their assumptions of life then). Thus I go to reason the meaning is not so direct. Do you understand this type of argument method?

You seem to be hinting on what I have myself read about - like the Ancient Astronaut Theory (AAT). I don't mention it because a debate should have a common (agreeing) starting point. Also, the point was not about AAT or technology, it was about apparent absurdity of the verse in for a the type of society academics widely agrees the vedic people lived in - it is through which I say it certainly is not so direct.

So I didn't make any sweeping generalization, I am very well aware of the strangest references in our texts - like the Mahabharata which mentions that 1 billion+ people (ie. 1,660,020,000) died in the war. Obviously no conventional war could have done this in 18 days. Assuming this text is true and valid, we will have have strange conclusions, but still not impossible ones.

We can argue for or against the idea of a technological past, but since revealed archeological data concerning it is not supportive and there are many controversial ideas, its best not to take the possibility of a technological past as a basis (starting point) from an argument.

Also, generally the proponents of the AAT or any scenario of a technological past are seen as dwelling in their own fantasy of things or trying to push an agenda of supremacy too. I can't deny that some things like this above reference in MhBh. are strange but most people would dismiss such accounts as fabricated. So its best to keep an open mind about what could have been unless we come across something that strongly tells us something. For now, AAT or ideas of a technological past are not agreed upon as fact, so its best to not mention anything as its starting point.

Regards,
Vivek.
 
Last edited:

MG Hariharan

New member
Let us park the fire and Water question. The idea of Aryan attack itself is unproven. Questioning the Mahabharata war on the basis of time scale and also no of persons dead etc. are difficult and no conclusion can be arrived at. Though I don’t want to quote it ( As I don’t believe it) As it is written by an artist the facts may be tampered with. See our media (They exaggerate everyting for Breaking news. Facts are of least interest). But again I am not saying the facts are wrong but may be exaggerated. That is neither here or there. We don’t have any proof either way. So let us not say Nos were exaggerated without proof, just as the numbers may seem to us to be preposterous today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks