Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

[Vivek_V]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

@ Sow. Happyhindu - Responding to post # 30 (because you insisted)

I told you before that any alternate meanings (if they are even relevant) can't be given by me because I don't know Sanskrit at all. But since you asked me, I give my opinion. But what is most important to my point of query is the last three #. points.

Isolating verse, you may think you are making some idea of them, but reading say Book 4, hymn 30 altogether in an English translation, itself makes little sense:
1. O INDRA, Vṛtra-slayer, none is better, mightier than thou:
Verily there is none like thee.
2 Like chariot-wheels these people all together follow after thee:
Thou ever art renowned as Great.
3 Not even all the gathered Gods conquered thee, Indra, in the war,
When thou didst lengthen days by night.
4 When for the sake of those oppressed, and Kutsa as he battled,
Thou stolest away the Sun's car-wheel.
5 When, fighting singly, Indra. thou o’ercamest all the furious Gods, thou slewest those who strove with thee.
6 When also for a mortal man, Indra, thou speddest forth the Sun,
And holpest Etaśa with might.
7 What? Vṛtra-slayer, art not thou, Maghavan, fiercest in thy wrath?
So hast thou quelled the demon too.
8 And this heroic deed of might thou, Indra, also hast achieved,
That thou didst smite to death the Dame, Heaven's Daughter, meditating ill.
9 Thou, Indra, Mighty One, didst crush Uṣas, though Daughter of the Sky.
When lifting up herself in pride.
10 Then from her chariot Uṣas fled, affrighted, from her ruined car.
When the strong God had shattered it.
11 So there this car of Uṣas lay, broken to pieces, in Vipāś,
And she herself fled far away.
12 Thou, Indra, didst. with magic power resist the overflowing stream
Who spread her waters o’er the land.
13 Valiantly didst thou seize and take the store which Śuṣṇa had amassed,
When thou didst crush his fortresses.
14 Thou, Indra, also smotest down Kulitara's son Śambara,
The Dāsa, from the lofty hill.
15 Of Dāsa Varcin's thou didst slay the hundred thousand and the five,
Crushed like the fellies, of a car.
16 So Indra, Lord of Heroes, Powers, caused the unwedded damsel's son,
The castaway, to share the lauds.
17 So sapient Indra, Lord of Might, brought Turvaśa and Yadu, those
Who feared the flood, in safety o’er.
18 Arṇa and Citraratha, both Āryas, thou, Indra, slewest swift,
On yonder side of Sarayu,
19 Thou, Vṛtra-slayer, didst conduct those two forlorn, the blind, the lame.
None may attain this bliss of thine.
20 For Divodāsa, him who brought oblations, Indra overthrew
A hundred fortresses of stone.
21 The thirty thousand Dāsas he with magic power and weapons sent
To slumber, for Dabhīti's sake.
22 As such, O Vṛtra-slayer, thou art general Lord of kine for all,
Thou Shaker of all things that be.
23 Indra, whatever deed of might thou hast this day to execute,
None be there now to hinder it.
24 O Watchful One, may Aryaman the God give thee all goodly things.
May Pūṣan, Bhaga, and the God Karūḷatī give all things fair.

Should we conclude from line 3 that Indra is warring with other devas here? Or with the "aryas" in line 18? Why would "aryas" worship Indra if he was slaying men of the "arya" tribe? Ask yourself, who exactly is Indra fighting? Why are there so many verses in the vedas to Indra, yet Indra hardly finds a mention or worship by brahmins. Surely, they would have dedicated atleast one temple to him amidst all these praises? So why not?

Let us come to the "noseless" translation

(RV 5.29.10)

I found a place that actually explained the verse (in its interpretation) and even spoke of Sayana. mṛdhravācaḥ has been interpreted as being of "bad speech" (not noseless). This meaning becomes more believable due to the continuing statement "and in their home o’erthrewest hostile speakers." One link says Sayana interpretted this as "without face", which I feel could mean "without definite identity", if you compel me to say my interpretation.

Now the "bull lipped" (RV. 7.99.4)

By Griffith's translation (which I have access to) this speaks of "bull jawed". One thing is this is not reference to dasas at all - it speaks of a particular dasa (a bull-jawed dasa). Now what comes to my mind quickly is: where is another reference to a bull-like thing being killed - in the legend of Durga killing Mahishasura of course. This tells me that the bull had a symbolism perhaps, like the cow had of fertility, of "Earth". Gopala
could thus be interpretted as a cowherd, or Earth-protector.

Similarly the "dark skinned" does mention black cover (of clouds), darkness (of mind) etc.

Despite all this things like the ones below remain unasnwered, to speak of the correctness of the translated interpretation is to answer these, I believe:

1. Why doesn't any of this seem to derive vedanta philosophy. Uttara mimamsa could have been Adi Shankaracharya's school but in noway does it mean he didn't study the vedas, if he did and claimed vedanta to be its conclusion, its strange he didn't mention any of this but something entirely different.

2. With the supposed importance to Indra by veda-learners (who continue with the same verses) it is surprising how all this praise doesn't mount to one worship of him in temples. There has never even been a claim that Indra ought to be worshipped, which is again strange.

3. How would it make sense that a supposed battle between Krishna and Indra is raging while brahmins have expounded both the Vedas and the Bhagvat Gita under the same philosophy or banner?

Point 3. comes from the claim "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. "

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

@ 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

In previous posts also you kept claiming the same things.

In post # 36 you claimed that
"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".

So here i am providing links for the riks you quoted. Where in the Riks 7.6, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 and 7.18 is there a mention of any "arya" being called "dasyu"?

1) Here is Rik 7.6:
ete dyumnebhirviśvamātiranta mantraṃ ye vāraṃ naryā atakṣan |
pra ye viśastiranta śroṣamāṇā ā ye me asya dīdhayannṛtasya ||

For which Griffith provided translation as:
These have passed all in glory, who, the manly, have wrought with skill the hymn of adoration; Who, listening, have advanced the people's welfare, and set their thoughts on this my holy statute.

2) Rik 7.12 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 12
Rik 7.12 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XII. Agni.

3) Rik 7.13 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 13
Rik 7.13 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XIV Agni.

4) Rik 7.14 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 14
Rik 7.14 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XIV Agni.

5) Rig 7.18 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 18
Rik 7.18 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XVIII. Indra.

Nowhere in the above verses has any "dasyu" tribe been called as "arya".

As of today, we have several "castes' claiming all sorts of origins, with some claiming to be 'aryas' all the way from the vedic period. They are the ones who make all sorts of falsified claims, and keep mis-quoting the vedas to support their baseless claims of originating from vedic "aryan" tribes.

Merely based on the false claim that "dasyu" tribes have been called "aryas", you dismissed the translation provided in post # 30 (which btw was about the appearance of the dasyus). Atleast it is clear that there is no traditional method of deriving metaphorical meanings for aryas and dasyus as warring factions.

"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.

Repetition.

"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.

It is a surprise to see a man who has not read even a few lines from the samhitas who goes on repeating his POVs. And you seem completely confused between the samhitas and vedanta, mistaking both for one.

Who said Adi Shankaracharya brought Vedanta "as the conclusion of Vedas"? A purva mimansa follower must have claimed that and attributed his words to Adi Shankaracharya. Just like Jaimini who forbade the shudras from learning vedas and attributed his words to Atreya (who probably must be wondering in heaven why did Jaimini quote him that way, esp when Atreya mentioned in his Smrithi that janmana jayate shudra - meaning everyone is born a shudra).

Buddha completely rejected the Vedas. He did not even talk about it. Why should he even refer to fights between aryas and dasyus when they contain no esoteric meanings, and do not help in anyway to convey buddhist doctrines?

As regards Sayana, I think you based your ideas from the Dasa article from Wikipedia. Which is why it is not a good idea to depend on Wiki where anyone can write anything without quoting the sources / references. To clarify:

1) Sayana used the term putradasadin for "children of slaves, servants".
For a more detailed explanation, you can refer to Page 386 of the book "Original Sanskrit texts on the origin an progress of the religion and institutions of India", Volume 2. You can read it on Google Books: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...AEwAA#v=onepage&q=putradasadin sayana&f=false

2) Sayana also used the term mrdhavac as "injurious speech and forms". Ref: Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha in the book 'Racial Synthesis in Hindu Culture', page 40. Available for reading on Google Books: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...cQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=injurious speech&f=false

3) Sayana interpreted the word dasyu to come from the root das, meaning to cause injury. You can read more on this also from Google Books: Foundations of Indian culture - Google Books

"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?

Sorry i did fix grammatical errors, typos, etc in my posts after posting; but i must have overlooked this one. I should have phrased it as:
"Obviously if Adi Shankaracharya had concluded purva mimansa vedism to be a valid philosophy he wud not have won against mandana mishra. "

"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.

Vivek, the post was to bring home the point that sweeping generalizations against any one set of people (like westerners or brahmins) is no good. If you want to use each and every statement for Griffith-bashing, then what can one say.

 

[happyhindu]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - Responding to post # 30 (because you insisted)

Vivek, I thot i was speaking to someone who had atleast made an attempt to read the samhitas. Obviously your admission that you are interpreting mechanics without even studying mechanics came very late. On top of that, you kept / keep dismissing the translation of post # 30 without offering any explanation (except for your false claim that in mandala 7 there are some "aryan" tribes who are mentioned as "dasyus" - a claim which perhaps you made based on the wiki article on dasyus). Hence, i had expected a reply from you why the translation of post # 30 should be rejected. But not anymore.

I told you before that any alternate meanings (if they are even relevant) can't be given by me because I don't know Sanskrit at all.

There you are. That is the problem. You should have mentioned this earlier. I would not have asked you the reason for dismissing the translation of post # 30.

You have not read a few riks of the samhitas, you do not know basic sanskrit, then on what basis are you conversing on this topic? Even brahmin sanskrit professors from BHU (or anywhere else) do not dispute the terminology of "aryas" and "dayus" as warring factions, yet you kept making claims (and even came up with the misleading falsity that there are 'metaphorical' meanings from some 'traditional method' of study).

But since you asked me, I give my opinion. But what is most important to my point of query is the last three #. points.

Isolating verse, you may think you are making some idea of them, but reading say Book 4, hymn 30 altogether in an English translation, itself makes little sense:
1. O INDRA, Vṛtra-slayer, none is better, mightier than thou:
Verily there is none like thee.
2 Like chariot-wheels these people all together follow after thee:
Thou ever art renowned as Great.
3 Not even all the gathered Gods conquered thee, Indra, in the war,
When thou didst lengthen days by night.
4 When for the sake of those oppressed, and Kutsa as he battled,
Thou stolest away the Sun's car-wheel.
5 When, fighting singly, Indra. thou o’ercamest all the furious Gods, thou slewest those who strove with thee.
6 When also for a mortal man, Indra, thou speddest forth the Sun,
And holpest Etaśa with might.
7 What? Vṛtra-slayer, art not thou, Maghavan, fiercest in thy wrath?
So hast thou quelled the demon too.
8 And this heroic deed of might thou, Indra, also hast achieved,
That thou didst smite to death the Dame, Heaven's Daughter, meditating ill.
9 Thou, Indra, Mighty One, didst crush Uṣas, though Daughter of the Sky.
When lifting up herself in pride.
10 Then from her chariot Uṣas fled, affrighted, from her ruined car.
When the strong God had shattered it.
11 So there this car of Uṣas lay, broken to pieces, in Vipāś,
And she herself fled far away.
12 Thou, Indra, didst. with magic power resist the overflowing stream
Who spread her waters o’er the land.
13 Valiantly didst thou seize and take the store which Śuṣṇa had amassed,
When thou didst crush his fortresses.
14 Thou, Indra, also smotest down Kulitara's son Śambara,
The Dāsa, from the lofty hill.
15 Of Dāsa Varcin's thou didst slay the hundred thousand and the five,
Crushed like the fellies, of a car.
16 So Indra, Lord of Heroes, Powers, caused the unwedded damsel's son,
The castaway, to share the lauds.
17 So sapient Indra, Lord of Might, brought Turvaśa and Yadu, those
Who feared the flood, in safety o’er.
18 Arṇa and Citraratha, both Āryas, thou, Indra, slewest swift,
On yonder side of Sarayu,
19 Thou, Vṛtra-slayer, didst conduct those two forlorn, the blind, the lame.
None may attain this bliss of thine.
20 For Divodāsa, him who brought oblations, Indra overthrew
A hundred fortresses of stone.
21 The thirty thousand Dāsas he with magic power and weapons sent
To slumber, for Dabhīti's sake.
22 As such, O Vṛtra-slayer, thou art general Lord of kine for all,
Thou Shaker of all things that be.
23 Indra, whatever deed of might thou hast this day to execute,
None be there now to hinder it.
24 O Watchful One, may Aryaman the God give thee all goodly things.
May Pūṣan, Bhaga, and the God Karūḷatī give all things fair.

Should we conclude from line 3 that Indra is warring with other devas here? Or with the "aryas" in line 18? Why would "aryas" worship Indra if he was slaying men of the "arya" tribe? Ask yourself, who exactly is Indra fighting? Why are there so many verses in the vedas to Indra, yet Indra hardly finds a mention or worship by brahmins. Surely, they would have dedicated atleast one temple to him amidst all these praises? So why not?

I think the best person to explain this to you wud be Shri Sangom. If you had read Shri Saidevo's posts also, you wud have understood the infighting part by now. How can there be temples for Indra, Varuna, Mitra, aryaman, etc who all belonged to the "non-idol-worshipping" group. The vedic aryas followed only homam / havan worship (not idol worship). Vivek, i think it is best you approach a Sanskrit teacher and clarify your doubts in a few sittings. You cannot just take a few verses out of context and interpret them anyhow. The meaning has to be consistent with the rest of the text.

(RV 5.29.10)

I found a place that actually explained the verse (in its interpretation) and even spoke of Sayana. mṛdhravācaḥ has been interpreted as being of "bad speech" (not noseless). This meaning becomes more believable due to the continuing statement "and in their home o’erthrewest hostile speakers." One link says Sayana interpretted this as "without face", which I feel could mean "without definite identity", if you compel me to say my interpretation.

Griffith had interpreted anasa as "a-nasa" for 'without-nose'. Sayana said anasa could also be split as "an" + "as" meaning without mouth. It cud even mean that the dasyu anasas did not have a section called 'brahmin' (signified by the mouth of the purusha). However, Sayana has certainly given a negative connotation for the word dasyu as a slave. How did you interpret anasa as "without definite identity"?

Sayana said that i

Now the "bull lipped" (RV. 7.99.4)

By Griffith's translation (which I have access to) this speaks of "bull jawed". One thing is this is not reference to dasas at all - it speaks of a particular dasa (a bull-jawed dasa). Now what comes to my mind quickly is: where is another reference to a bull-like thing being killed - in the legend of Durga killing Mahishasura of course. This tells me that the bull had a symbolism perhaps, like the cow had of fertility, of "Earth". Gopala could thus be interpretted as a cowherd, or Earth-protector.

Shipra is translated as lips or jaws. So vrishshipra means bull lipped or bull jawed. Synonyms for lips include adara and hosta (shiva is called mahoshta, meaning one with large lips). A synonyms for jaw is hanuh (hanuman is supposedly called so because of his large jaw).

May i know on what basis you claim that the "bull-jawed" translation of Griffith refers to "one particular dasa" ? What is the basis for such a claim?

Similarly the "dark skinned" does mention black cover (of clouds), darkness (of mind) etc.

Sure it can mean darkness of mind, if only the verse wud say krsna-manasa (for dark-mind) or krsha-megha (for dark-clouds). However, the verse specifically says krsna-tvac for dark-skinned (tvac in sanskrit, and tvacha in hindi means skin or complexion). Sayana also mentioned krsna-tvac to be dark-skinned.

Despite all this things like the ones below remain unasnwered, to speak of the correctness of the translated interpretation is to answer these, I believe:

1. Why doesn't any of this seem to derive vedanta philosophy. Uttara mimamsa could have been Adi Shankaracharya's school but in noway does it mean he didn't study the vedas, if he did and claimed vedanta to be its conclusion, its strange he didn't mention any of this but something entirely different.

It is stunning that you can actually still repeat this without even knowing the diff between samhitas and vedanta. There is no connection between veda samhitas and vedanta in content. Both belong to different schools. Adi Shankaracharya in his bhasya on brahmasutra completely rejected all ritualism. If you really want to know more about Adi Shankaracharya's advaitha (mayavada or veiled buddhism which "claimed" to use vedas as pramana), please read the following thread: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/4970-advaita-its-fallacies.html Unfortunately, Sangom sir is not here. But you could send him a private message over your inbox to clarify your doubts.

2. With the supposed importance to Indra by veda-learners (who continue with the same verses) it is surprising how all this praise doesn't mount to one worship of him in temples. There has never even been a claim that Indra ought to be worshipped, which is again strange.

Repetition. Vedic aryans were not idol-worshippers.

3. How would it make sense that a supposed battle between Krishna and Indra is raging while brahmins have expounded both the Vedas and the Bhagvat Gita under the same philosophy or banner?

Point 3. comes from the claim "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. "

Regards,
Vivek.

This is the historical "fault line". Today we have a mixed or merged culture on hands that came from centuries of amalgamation, with literature churned at various phases of the amalgamation. It is controvery-riddled topic. The best person (and the only person) who can answer such queries on this forum is Sangom Sir (who very unfortunately is not here but you cud send him a private message).

Regards.

 

[Nara]

Vivek,
I know you are very serious about what you are saying, but for the rest of us to take you seriously, you have to conclusively show:

• why all the translations you don't like are wrong?
• why the direct translations given by HH in post #30 are all wrong?
• why Sankara or any other exalted personage not commenting on something gives you the freedom to claim anything you want is serious just because it is something that "could be" without any clue as to what that could be, is?
• why whatever Sankara or anyone else said in the past, or not said, is automatically the last word?

In any case, I am really impressed with your tenacity, I have never come across anyone who admits to not knowing a whole lot and yet insists on his own inerrantcy, hats off to you.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

@ 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?

Am a novice but you have not even read stuff and yet you make claims. Atleast i did not mislead people with falsified claims of a "traditional method of study" or "metaphorical meanings" of aryas and dasyus. Do remember that people create an image of brahmins as those who "mislead", because there are quite a few of them who go around making falsified claims. On one hand you admit that you are interpreting mechanics without even reading it. On the other hand you continue to insist on your false claims. Strange really..

Seeing the way you insist on things, an tempted to ask you -- how many works of Adi Shankara have you read? After reading his commentry on brahmasutra, do you think Adi Shankara (AS) still felt the sacrifical texts of the "vedic" brahmanas (text) are a valid method of moksham? AS spent all his life spreading advaitha thru vedanta, there was no necessity for him to deal with the samhitas (with all those rubbish fights of devas versus their enemies). And yet you insist that AS should have spoken about it. If one is a physicist, he need not show interest or speak about biology just because it is also a science.

As regards Sayana, i have already clarified in the post above how he used the term "dasyu". Even Sarma-61 wrote back to you, quoting his friend who said dasa, dasi all come from one origin and mean "slave". Yet, the way you go on insisting is amazing really.

Since this thread is getting a lot of hits, i feel there are quite a few people reading up. I hope they realise the warring factions of aryas and dasyus were far too ancient for any community to claim to be arya or dasyu today. I hope the discussion also enables folks to see the futility of designating castes and varnas today based on ancient history. And to anyone reading this -- kindly do not come up with purtanical notions.

"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.

For all you know, the same neanderthal may be existing in you. Esp if your ancestors came from the eurasian steppes. There are no guarantees as yet.

You think Sayana did not say that Aryas and Dasyus were enemies, or that Dasyu is not a term for 'slave' ? Have you read books where Sayana's interpretations have been discussed? If you want to drag on your POV, you cannot be using Sayana. You will need to find some other author's work which supports your POV.

"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.

The stand-off between aryas and dasyus existed. There are no assumptions about it. I suppose you are more scholarly than the sanskrit professors of BHU or elsewhere to keep insisting that there was no stand-off between the aryas and dasyus.

This dicussion is not about nadi astrology (i have listened to enough claims from nadi astrologers). Kindly restrict the discussion to the vedas (samhitas). If you want to talk about nadi astrology, you may start a new thread on that or better still you may want to read up old threads on that subject.

"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.

No sir, you kept insisting that there is some "traditional method" of deriving "metaphorical" meanings. And when you realised there is no such thing, you now stand on your next POV, that is -- "people of the past" did not interpret it that way. And the only people you quote in this regard is Adi Shankaracharya and Sayana -- or is there anyone else you want to quote?

"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.

Vedanta has nothing to do with Samhitas. It is like telling a school boy again and again that h2o is water. Yet the school boy insists on using n2o for water just because he feels the oxygen molecule is common to h2o and n2o.

Reg Sayana, please quote Sayana's text where did he say dasyus were not enemies of the aryas?

"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".?

Adi Shankaracharya again.

"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.

This is no excuse. The former Kanchi Acharya was very famous and also had some politicians as followers. He was also prolific in talking about caste and several other aspects of vedas. Why did he not offer "metaphorical" meanings of the rig samhita? When a person speaks of caste and varna, surely he should also mention how it originated from the vedas right? In such case, he should have spoken about aryas, dasyus, asuras and all such terms mentioned in the vedas; and explained how the caste system is derived from the vedas. Forget the current swami, why no Sanskrit pundits are offering the so-called "metaphorical" meanings from your so-claimed 'traditional method' of deriving meanings ?

"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.

Since you say the "interpretation is itself not correctly done" - kindly justify why ? On one hand you say you don't know sanskrit and yet you think the translation is not correctly done. Its like saying i don't know greek, but i feel stuff on dionysus has not been interpreted correctly.

"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.

Its a mix of not just dasyu and arya cultures but of all subsequent known and unknown tribal elements. Today's hinduism certainly represents a mixed culture.

Dasyus were called "godless" because they did not rever the "devas" or offer fire oblations to them. The dasyu religion consisted of phallic (linga) worship. The Rik 7.21.5 says "na yātava indra...sa śardhadaryo viṣuṇasya jantormā śiśnadevā api ghurtaṃ naḥ", meaning, let no shisnadeva (phallus-worhippers) approach our holy worship. In Sanskrit, शिश्न (sishna) means penis. Sishna-deva translates as one who worships shishna as deva (god). In Rik 10.99.3, Indra slew the shishnadevah (..anarvā yacchatadurasya vedo ghnañchiśnadevānabhi varpasā bhūt). For more details on the fights between aryas and dasyus refer to the "Encyclopedia of Vedic Philosophy", Volume 6, by Subodh Kapoor from page 1586 to 1768.

There is some difference of opinion regarding diet though. Laumakis puts forward the theory that dasyus were vegertarians. But yesterday i came across SV Viswanatha's book which put forth verses suggesting dasyus were also meat eaters, so the diet part is not clear. However, from any book, any author who wrote on samhitas, it is clear that there were fights between the aryas and the dasyus.

"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.

Yes there is a translation which says "i am a bard, my father is a physician and mother is a grinder of corn". Am sorry i should have been clearer wrt to the time period. It is generally accepted that caste system did not exist in the vedas. However, some commentators suggest that the heredity caste system may have its orgins from the late yajur vedic period onwards, and this took firm root from the itihasa period (Refer: 'A history of Civilization' by Romesh Chandra Dutt - dutt also says ancient vaisyas followed various trades without forming a seperate sect, meaning anyone cud become a trader or choose any profession in most part of the vedic period).

You are mistaken regarding animal sacrifices and Adi Shankara. There is a Sanskrit movie titled "Adi Shankaracharya" detailing his life story (directed by GV Iyer). Even the movie portrays Adi Shankaracharya as the one who stopped animal sacrifices in homams. However, some writings not authored by Adi Shankara were passed off as Adi Shankara's works. You can look up Sangom sir's posts in that regard.

"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.

Repetition. I mentioned writers like Bhandarkar and Sharma having suggested that dasyus won in the late vedic / vedanta period. This does not mean the dasyus existed "till vedantic times". No one knows till what time the dasyus existed. However, after the vedic period came the itihaasa period in which the Yadus and Krishna won. It is therefore suggested that the dasyus (of whom Krishna was the head) sealed their victory in the itihasa period. But in the smrithi period the term Dasa was still used for a slave.

If the term arya means 'noble' shouldn't the behaviour also be noble? Instead, one power-hungry bufoon called Indra does all sorts of nonsense and he is still an "arya". This Indra strips the dasyus of their manly might (makes them shikhandis) and is still called the noble one (ahaṃ dasyubhyaḥ pari nṛmṇamā dade ghotrā śikṣandadhīce mātariśvane).

"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.

Which are "all of them"? Are you making a sweeping generalization because you do not know which schools?

There was no need for Buddha to speak of stupid fights from the samhitas when his objective was to spread buddist doctrines. Same also for Adi Shankara, there was no need for him to write about aryas and dasyus, when his objective was to spread advaita. You are simply going on repeating that Adi Shankara and Buddha did not say 'so and so'; and therefore there were no warring factions of aryas and dasyus. I do not understand what sort of logic is that. Simply because Shankara and Buddha did not mention about the arya-dasyu fights it does not mean they do not exist in the rig samhita (and the arya-dasyu stand-off is consistent with the fights of devas against their enemies in the same and yajur also).

Shri Vivek, you appear to have a POV which you want to insist on without any basis. If there was no fight between aryas and dasyus, the very many sanskrit professors of various universities who write on it would have put forth their theories by now. Maybe you should go and look up the manuscripts from here to justify your claims: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Even Sayana (who was commissioned to translate the vedas by the Vijayanagar king) puts forth the meaning for term "dasyu" as a slave and an enemy of the arya. Sayana, Madhava and Bhoganatha were brothers and each of them contributed to literature in some way or the other. You can read some part of the Sayana's contributions here: Sayana - Google Books

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Nara

"why all the translations you don't like are wrong?"

Its not that I "don't like" them. I am giving reason why I believe they are wrong because nobody in any vedantic discourse spoke of vedas like a record of war or something instead they concluded it as the vedanta philosophy. But here Happyhindu claims vedanta is unrelated to vedas when a clear look into its meaning itself says that vedanta came as a conclusion of the vedas. Further, these translations are themselves with various views. This topic would be done with if Happyhindu can explain how vedanta, which was a philosophy of mind/reality is even remotely related to all those verses of war she points.

"In any case, I am really impressed with your tenacity"

My "tenacity" in this forum is based on Happyhindu not explaining why Adi Shankaracharya didn't interpret the vedas as translators today are. Instead, she goes on to say he never spoke of the vedas when the word "vedanta" itself means "conclusion of the vedas".

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (1) - Vedanta itself means 'conclusion of the vedas'

"For which Griffith provided translation as:
These have passed all in glory, who, the manly, have wrought with skill the hymn of adoration; Who, listening, have advanced the people's welfare, and set their thoughts on this my holy statute.
2) Rik 7.12 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 12
Rik 7.12 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XII. Agni.
3) Rik 7.13 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 13
Rik 7.13 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XIV Agni.
4) Rik 7.14 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 14
Rik 7.14 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XIV Agni.
5) Rig 7.18 in Sanskrit: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 18
Rik 7.18 in English: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN XVIII. Indra.
Nowhere in the above verses has any "dasyu" tribe been called as "arya". "

The translations may have been different. The claim was indeed taken from wiki, but I had verfied this claim of the battle of ten kings earlier - where so-called "arya" clans were called "dasyu".

"As of today, we have several "castes' claiming all sorts of origins, with some claiming to be 'aryas' all the way from the vedic period. They are the ones who make all sorts of falsified claims, and keep mis-quoting the vedas to support their baseless claims of originating from vedic "aryan" tribes."

No tribe or clan ever called itself an "aryan" or "dasyu" tribe. Sayana's own reference doesn't call dasyus a tribe or a group of tribes/clan does it?

"And you seem completely confused between the samhitas and vedanta, mistaking both for one. "

Nobody ever considered vedanta to be separate from the vedas - or any part of it. Adi Shankaracharya whom you claim was of uttaram mimamsa and all, was one who did learn the vedas. Vedanta is itself a philosophy of its conclusion.

Tell me how it matches any of your translations.

"Who said Adi Shankaracharya brought Vedanta "as the conclusion of Vedas"?"

Vedanta itself means conclusion of the vedas.

"Buddha completely rejected the Vedas. He did not even talk about it."

Yes, but he read it through his phase of study and even later under Arda Kalam, and other schools. While he did reject their ideas, he didn't ever mention that vedas spoke of such a thing of a past war.

"Sayana also used the term mrdhavac as "injurious speech and forms". "

You say that now Earlier you said "noseless".

"Vivek, the post was to bring home the point that sweeping generalizations against any one set of people (like westerners or brahmins) is no good."
Yes, and my point to you was that I was making no such generalization of the "people" inheritly, just the ethos of the time. To say people in England speak English is not a generalization. To say brahmins practiced casteism is not "sweeping generalization", to say racialism was rampant in British government propaganda during the raj era is not a generalization either - it all speaks of a time.

***

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (2)

"your false claim that in mandala 7 there are some "aryan" tribes who are mentioned as "dasyus" - a claim which perhaps you made based on the wiki article on dasyus). "

Yes I had wikied it. I had once read the reference to (so-called) "arya" tribes against Sudas and Indra being called "dasyus". This would then mean that the terms applied to them were not fixed. I couldn't find the hymn immediately, which is why I refered to wiki.

"Hence, i had expected a reply from you why the translation of post # 30 should be rejected. But not anymore."

The translations of post # 30 was on "noseless, bull lipped, dark skinned" for which I have given another answer. You yourself explain if bull-jawed makes sense when speaking of a person literally.

"How can there be temples for Indra, Varuna, Mitra, aryaman, etc who all belonged to the "non-idol-worshipping" group."

Which included Visnu too, who is mentioned in the Rig Veda? Explain how Visnu suddenly got temples for him. Explain why brahmins would read this "non-idol-worshipping" text and work full-time in temples with idols, worshipping them? You are now going to contend that you and your band of translators know more than everyone else who is into the tradition.

"You cannot just take a few verses out of context and interpret them anyhow."

I pulled out an entire hymn of Indra. Its you who pulled out verses.

"It cud even mean that the dasyu anasas did not have a section called 'brahmin' (signified by the mouth of the purusha)."

That makes less or even no sense if we go by the other meaning of "no face", which could mean dasyus as inner evils with no physical identity.

"How did you interpret anasa as "without definite identity"? "

The same idea of Sayana, which says "without mouth" has been used for "without face". Face is used as reference to a persons identity.

"Shipra is translated as lips or jaws. So vrishshipra means bull lipped or bull jawed."

Glad you accepted that. Translating it as bull-lipped makes insinuations to it being black people, "bull jawed" would make it appear absurd.

"May i know on what basis you claim that the "bull-jawed" translation of Griffith refers to "one particular dasa" ? What is the basis for such a claim? "

I got this from the English translation. Where it doesn't says "Dasas who are bull jawed" but mentions the "bull jawed Dasa's" (as in apostrophe and s). Like Vivek's.

"Sure it can mean darkness of mind, if only the verse wud say krsna-manasa (for dark-mind) or krsha-megha (for dark-clouds). However, the verse specifically says krsna-tvac for dark-skinned (tvac in sanskrit, and tvacha in hindi means skin or complexion). Sayana also mentioned krsna-tvac to be dark-skinned."

So Sayana according to you considered Dasa's dark skinned? Where does he say dark skinned people are dasas?

"There is no connection between veda samhitas and vedanta in content."

I am aware there is no apparent similarity in content. But it still leaves a question when vedanta itself means conclusion of the vedas. What makes you think the two should have no connection when they have clearly be linked to each other?

"Today we have a mixed or merged culture on hands that came from centuries of amalgamation, with literature churned at various phases of the amalgamation. It is controvery-riddled topic. "

But nowhere down history is there such a reference of dasyu or arya tribes. Krishna was never ever linked with "dasyus". Krishna who is considered an avatar of Visnu is infact Indra's friend in the vedas (as per the translations).

"who can answer such queries on this forum is Sangom Sir (who very unfortunately is not here but you cud send him a private message). "

Okay, we can agree on a content matter and send it to him. It would be good to get it clarified if he has read the matter.

***

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (3) - I never said Aryas and Dasyus didn't "fight", I only said they weren't tribes or fixed people that fought!

"not even read stuff and yet you make claims."

I have read "stuff" especially the verses which were used to try and prove AIT. The claims I made are made by a reason, it comes irrelevant of knowing the details of vedic hymns. Like I gave a previous analogy - if a mechanic can't get your car started after "fixing" it, it only means he hasn't fixed it. To understand that he hasn't fixed it hardly requires knowledge of the car's internal working. The idea is based on the effect. In the same way, since past people who read the vedas never considered dark skinned people as dasyus, I can conclude that such ideas are wrong or atleast questionable.

"For all you know, the same neanderthal may be existing in you. Esp if your ancestors came from the eurasian steppes. There are no guarantees as yet."

And we agreed to stay away from personal attacks I believed. What I refered to the Hindutvavadis is accurate - they are ones who present Hindu culture negatively to the world.

"You think Sayana did not say that Aryas and Dasyus were enemies, or that Dasyu is not a term for 'slave' ? "

No, Sayana didn't say Aryas and Dasyus were tribes.

"This dicussion is not about nadi astrology (i have listened to enough claims from nadi astrologers). "

Yes it is not about Nadi. But if you can explain how people of the past came to understand this from the vedas (as claimed), or if we can understand the same from your translations it would explain your point.

"you kept insisting that there is some "traditional method" of deriving "metaphorical" meanings. And when you realised there is no such thing, you now stand on your next POV, that is -- "people of the past" did not interpret it that way. "

You misunderstood everything. Both the POVs are one. What are they? They are based on how people of the past came up with different ideas, different knowledge - like Nadi, while our own translations can't see any of it in the vedas. I only say this because I have had first hand experience of Nadi.

"Vedanta has nothing to do with Samhitas. It is like telling a school boy again and again that h2o is water. "

Then why is the word vedanta made to be related to the vedas? Why is vedanta named as conclusion of the vedas when it has no connection whatsoever to it?

"Sayana's text where did he say dasyus were not enemies of the aryas? "

Dasyu and arya as not mentioned as warring tribes which is what I was saying. These fights could very mean inner enemies. What I meant is nowhere has Sayana (or anyone) used arya and dasyu as tribes which are warring. So point where dasyus were called a tribe or where aryas are called a tribe by sayana.

"The former Kanchi Acharya was very famous and also had some politicians as followers. He was also prolific in talking about caste and several other aspects of vedas. Why did he not offer "metaphorical" meanings of the rig samhita?"

Read the whole thing I posted regarding this. I spoke of how the method of discourse/debate between Madana Mishra and Adi Shankaracharya itself may be lost. In any case, did the Kanchi Acharya say dasyus or aryas were a tribe? Did he say dasyus were dark skinned? If that was the case, all dark skinned brahmins would have been sent out of the brahmin community. lol.

"Its a mix of not just dasyu and arya cultures but of all subsequent known and unknown tribal elements. Today's hinduism certainly represents a mixed culture. "

But the mix never came from dasyu or arya tribes. Arya and dasyu are both sanskrit terms, much like "good" and "bad" terms in English. They don't speak of one tribe or clan. The term Hinduism itself is a mix of what foreigners called us - Hindu (from Sindhu as the Persians called it) and -ism, from English postfix. Hinduism as we see it is a recent idea that came for a reason to club the diversity here in the face of the growing world.

" The dasyu religion consisted of phallic (linga) worship. "

Tell this to the brahmins who worship Shiva. Do you see where your point seems stupid? If this reference in the vedas was so obvious and is as you say, brahmins wouldn't have ever worshipped Shiva. If these brahmins believed in such a thing as you say, worship of shiva would have been non existent. There is again many interpretations to shishnadeva.

"Sishna-deva translates as one who worships shishna as deva (god). "

It could mean anything from lewd god. The symbol of linga as worshipped of shiva is symbolic of creation, the one refered here (shisna) could have been something else.

"However, from any book, any author who wrote on samhitas, it is clear that there were fights between the aryas and the dasyus"

Obviously! What in those claims however make it clear that these are speaking of tribes though? The "fight" is similar to what we say of "good" and "evil". To say good and evil represent two groups of fixed people is nonsensical. These references aren't real wars according to me, because you have absurd "creatures". Bull-jawed is itself an example - it doesn't refer to a person who had the jaw of a bull, but something characteristic of a bull, which is of course open to discussion.

"some commentators suggest that the heredity caste system may have its orgins from the late yajur vedic period onwards"

Even ithihaasa references don't say it was heriditary.

"You are mistaken regarding animal sacrifices and Adi Shankara. There is a Sanskrit movie titled "Adi Shankaracharya" detailing his life story (directed by GV Iyer). Even the movie portrays Adi Shankaracharya as the one who stopped animal sacrifices in homams."

Did you read my post on this? I didn't claim Adi Shankaracharya did animal sacrfices. I said just as the reference to purushamedha is agreed to be metaphorical, the idea of Ashwamedha would have also been that way before until later kings and their brahmin preists understood it as animal sacrifice.

"I mentioned writers like Bhandarkar and Sharma having suggested that dasyus won in the late vedic / vedanta period. This does not mean the dasyus existed "till vedantic times". No one knows till what time the dasyus existed. However, after the vedic period came the itihaasa period in which the Yadus and Krishna won. It is therefore suggested that the dasyus (of whom Krishna was the head) sealed their victory in the itihasa period. But in the smrithi period the term Dasa was still used for a slave. "

What is this claim even based on? You have whole cultures here being spread like they are coherent with one another - yet you come out saying dasyus were lead by Krishna. The useage of Dasa is both negative and positive and should be seen from the reference.

"If the term arya means 'noble' shouldn't the behaviour also be noble? Instead, one power-hungry bufoon called Indra does all sorts of nonsense and he is still an "arya"."

Your tirade against Indra is not what this thread is about. Arya was used this way ever since the word was ever defined. No one used arya or dasyu as a tribe name until this idea came from the west propaganda to call aryas as european-looking outsiders and dasyus as dark skinned natives. Give me one reference were dasyus were called a tribe or clan.

"Same also for Adi Shankara, there was no need for him to write about aryas and dasyus, when his objective was to spread advaita."

And tell me why the vedas were even important if they are (as per you claim) with no connection to advaita vedanta? Point is all the schools of vedanata say their conclusions from the vedas. Yet you say none of the hymns of the vedas are connected with it.


Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

@ Nara

"why all the translations you don't like are wrong?"

Because other's didn't speak of them in the manner people today are. And these translations are themselves with various views. This topic would be done with if Happyhindu can explain how vedanta, which was a philosophy of mind/reality is even remotely related to all those verses she points.

"In any case, I am really impressed with your tenacity"

My "tenacity" in this forum is based on Happyhindu not explaining why Adi Shankaracharya didn't interpret the vedas as translators today are. Instead, she goes on to say he never spoke of the vedas when the word "vedanta" itself means "conclusion of the vedas".

Regards,
Vivek.

Vedanta means "end of the vedas" because it came at the end of the vedic period. Vedanta does not mean "conclusion of the vedas". You obviously have no idea of the vedanta sutras. Which is why go on harping on Adi Shankara.

Badrayana (author of Brahmasutra) was at loggerheads with Jaimini (author of Purvamimansa Sutra). There are several areas where they differed. One key area of social importance was that of varna. Badrayana did not regard varna to be by birth and his sutra considers vedas to be for all. Jaimini on the other hand rejected the right of the shudra to study vedas. Apparently what we call as the "vedanta period" was a time period when a compromise was being settled by 2 factions. And this was after the "vedic war period".

It wud appear that the Badrayana faction prevailed at that time. Because the "vedanta-sutra" came to consist of Badrayana's Brahmasutra and not that of Jaimini's Purvamimansa Sutra. Apart from the Brahmasutra, the vedanta sutras also came to consist of the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

Here there is a dichotomy. The authors of the upanishads were fairly unknown. Unlike those of the Vedas where the authors are known. Upanishads do not deal with offering oblations and praises to the vedic "devas". The import of the upanishads is realisation of the self. The veda samhitas do not speak of self-realisation. Therefore according to one pundit (which i do not know where he got from), the upanishads are considered to be of non-vedic origin (or "old aryan" origin), and this was amalgamated to become part of the vedas in the vedanta period. More than 200 Upanishads exist. Many of which typically follow the concepts of ascetism, and meditation (which were followed by the dasyus of the vedic period). Hence, some consider the upanishads to be of shaivite origin.

By the end of the vedic period a good many "mergers" and "post-merger" scenarios would have existed. The late-itihaasa and smrithi periods also are a period of post-fight "mergers". The concepts of vedanta are different from that of the samhitas. You cannot expect Adi Shankara or any Uttara Mimansa mutt to devote itself to researching or commenting on veda samhitas. It is just not their field.

The purva mimansa school reconciled the scenario this way:
a) Varna is by birth
b) Ritualism (karmakanda) has 'cleansing effect' and prepares the person for meditation. However some believe meditation is not necessary at all, and following karmakanda itself is sufficient for mukti. By following such concepts, they are actually following Jaimini's Purvamimana Sutra.

One the other hand, the uttara mimansa monks (btw, one cannot include shankara mutts in this category) completely reject karma kanda. By doing so, they are following Badrayana. They are usually kevala (pure) advaitins. They are also the mayavadas who practice kundalini and attain magical siddhis while on the path to moksham.

You are going on repeating that Adi Shankara should have mentioned about aryas and dasyus of the samhitas. But why should he? His only aim was to spread the message of advaitha and of self-realisation, which apparently are concepts that come from the vedanta-sutras not samhitas. If you deal with peadiatrics you will comment on peadiatrics, you cannot be commenting or writing on astrophysics.

Your analogy that Adi Shankara should have spoken about samhitas is totally misplaced. If you really want to understand the concepts better, obviously you will need to read thru the translations of the samhitas as well as the vedanta-sutras. And without doing that, you are just going on repeating POVs so many times baselessly that is all looking rather silly now.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

The translations may have been different. The claim was indeed taken from wiki, but I had verfied this claim of the battle of ten kings earlier - where so-called "arya" clans were called "dasyu".

Sorry, you cannot claim things just like that. May i have the verses where dasyus are mentioned as aryas?

No tribe or clan ever called itself an "aryan" or "dasyu" tribe. Sayana's own reference doesn't call dasyus a tribe or a group of tribes/clan does it?

Am amazed you go on insisting even though i already provided links for you to read on google books about sayana's interpretations. What are you made of Vivek? Are you replying to this post atleast after going thru a few pages on google books (of the links provided)?

Nobody ever considered vedanta to be separate from the vedas - or any part of it. Adi Shankaracharya whom you claim was of uttaram mimamsa and all, was one who did learn the vedas. Vedanta is itself a philosophy of its conclusion.

Tell me how it matches any of your translations.

Already explained 'vedanta' above.

Vedanta itself means conclusion of the vedas.

Repetition.

"Buddha completely rejected the Vedas. He did not even talk about it."

Yes, but he read it through his phase of study and even later under Arda Kalam, and other schools. While he did reject their ideas, he didn't ever mention that vedas spoke of such a thing of a past war.

Why should he speak of Samhitas? Unless he was a crack-pot who wanted to comment on the stupid fights between the aryas and dasyus.

"Sayana also used the term mrdhavac as "injurious speech and forms". "

You say that now Earlier you said "noseless".

Good god. I hope you know to read words. Mridhavac is about speech and anansa is about nose/face.

@ Sow. Happyhindu (2)

"your false claim that in mandala 7 there are some "aryan" tribes who are mentioned as "dasyus" - a claim which perhaps you made based on the wiki article on dasyus). "

Yes I had wikied it. I had once read the reference to (so-called) "arya" tribes against Sudas and Indra being called "dasyus". This would then mean that the terms applied to them were not fixed. I couldn't find the hymn immediately, which is why I refered to wiki.

So please mention the verses. Why do you merely make claims?

"Hence, i had expected a reply from you why the translation of post # 30 should be rejected. But not anymore."

The translations of post # 30 was on "noseless, bull lipped, dark skinned" for which I have given another answer. You yourself explain if bull-jawed makes sense when speaking of a person literally.

So it should not be taken literally according to you. Alright. Then go ahead and explain what it should mean "metaphorically". Apparently you are so greatly advanced in the study of vedic literature that you can give metaphoric meanings which even people like Rajbali Pandey, DP Chaturvedi, Devdatt Bhandarkar, Vaman Apte, and such stalwarts could not give. Now i really must say LOL. Will you stop misleading people with your ridiculous claims please?

"How can there be temples for Indra, Varuna, Mitra, aryaman, etc who all belonged to the "non-idol-worshipping" group."

Which included Visnu too, who is mentioned in the Rig Veda? Explain how Visnu suddenly got temples for him. Explain why brahmins would read this "non-idol-worshipping" text and work full-time in temples with idols, worshipping them? You are now going to contend that you and your band of translators know more than everyone else who is into the tradition.

Vishnu of the Vedas was no different from Indra who went on the killing spree.

Apparently in the post-vedic period, some people 'took over' the personage of "Krishna" (a dasyu and hence an idol worshipping group) and made him into an "avatara" of vedic Vishnu. Therefore temples started to be built for Vishnu. Much has been discussed on the avatara concept on this forum before. Instead of jabbering away, atleast you cud look up the old threads and inform yourself before making your posts.

"You cannot just take a few verses out of context and interpret them anyhow."

I pulled out an entire hymn of Indra. Its you who pulled out verses.

Yes a translated version which you claim to be against; which probably should sound funny by now. I mentioned about not pulling out verses out of context because you went on to talk of mahishasura.

"It cud even mean that the dasyu anasas did not have a section called 'brahmin' (signified by the mouth of the purusha)."

That makes less or even no sense if we go by the other meaning of "no face", which could mean dasyus as inner evils with no physical identity.

Which part of the word "dasyu" (root word / sound) even alludes to "physical identity"? Sayana's explanation of "an" + "as" (without-face) is a valid one based on the root sounds. It is an accepted interpretation. But you are cooking up "metaphoric" meanings without even knowing basic sanskrit.

"How did you interpret anasa as "without definite identity"? "

The same idea of Sayana, which says "without mouth" has been used for "without face". Face is used as reference to a persons identity.

Wow, now you are cooking up metaphoric meanings and attributing it to poor Sayana.

"Shipra is translated as lips or jaws. So vrishshipra means bull lipped or bull jawed."

Glad you accepted that. Translating it as bull-lipped makes insinuations to it being black people, "bull jawed" would make it appear absurd.

What is there to accept? Any idiot who knows to look up a sanskrit-english dictionary would know that. The lips exist on the jaws after all.

Nobody can make insinuations (infact you are, by cooking up non-existent so-called "metaphoric" meanings).

"May i know on what basis you claim that the "bull-jawed" translation of Griffith refers to "one particular dasa" ? What is the basis for such a claim? "

I got this from the English translation. Where it doesn't says "Dasas who are bull jawed" but mentions the "bull jawed Dasa's" (as in apostrophe and s). Like Vivek's.

Take the hymn to a sanskrit teacher and ask him/her to explain.

"Sure it can mean darkness of mind, if only the verse wud say krsna-manasa (for dark-mind) or krsha-megha (for dark-clouds). However, the verse specifically says krsna-tvac for dark-skinned (tvac in sanskrit, and tvacha in hindi means skin or complexion). Sayana also mentioned krsna-tvac to be dark-skinned."

So Sayana according to you considered Dasa's dark skinned? Where does he say dark skinned people are dasas?

I already provided the links (google books) which deal with Sayana's interpretation. Go read up on krsna-tvac and dasyus.

"There is no connection between veda samhitas and vedanta in content."

I am aware there is no apparent similarity in content. But it still leaves a question when vedanta itself means conclusion of the vedas. What makes you think the two should have no connection when they have clearly be linked to each other?

Repetition (goodness).

But nowhere down history is there such a reference of dasyu or arya tribes. Krishna was never ever linked with "dasyus". Krishna who is considered an avatar of Visnu is infact Indra's friend in the vedas (as per the translations).

Then was the rig samhita which mentions aryas and dasyus as seperate warring groups COMPOSED by the British?

"who can answer such queries on this forum is Sangom Sir (who very unfortunately is not here but you cud send him a private message). "

Okay, we can agree on a content matter and send it to him. It would be good to get it clarified if he has read the matter.

I do not require clarifications. You do. So you communicate.

 

[happyhindu]

I have only one word for your posts (on this topic) vivek -- "utter nonsense".

Thanks for the conversation so far.

Bye and good luck with your search.

@ Sow. Happyhindu (3) - I never said Aryas and Dasyus didn't "fight", I only said they weren't tribes or fixed people that fought!

"not even read stuff and yet you make claims."

I have read "stuff" especially the verses which were used to try and prove AIT. The claims I made are made by a reason, it comes irrelevant of knowing the details of vedic hymns. Like I gave a previous analogy - if a mechanic can't get your car started after "fixing" it, it only means he hasn't fixed it. To understand that he hasn't fixed it hardly requires knowledge of the car's internal working. The idea is based on the effect. In the same way, since past people who read the vedas never considered dark skinned people as dasyus, I can conclude that such ideas are wrong or atleast questionable.

"For all you know, the same neanderthal may be existing in you. Esp if your ancestors came from the eurasian steppes. There are no guarantees as yet."

And we agreed to stay away from personal attacks I believed. What I refered to the Hindutvavadis is accurate - they are ones who present Hindu culture negatively to the world.

"You think Sayana did not say that Aryas and Dasyus were enemies, or that Dasyu is not a term for 'slave' ? "

No, Sayana didn't say Aryas and Dasyus were tribes.

"This dicussion is not about nadi astrology (i have listened to enough claims from nadi astrologers). "

Yes it is not about Nadi. But if you can explain how people of the past came to understand this from the vedas (as claimed), or if we can understand the same from your translations it would explain your point.

"you kept insisting that there is some "traditional method" of deriving "metaphorical" meanings. And when you realised there is no such thing, you now stand on your next POV, that is -- "people of the past" did not interpret it that way. "

You misunderstood everything. Both the POVs are one. What are they? They are based on how people of the past came up with different ideas, different knowledge - like Nadi, while our own translations can't see any of it in the vedas. I only say this because I have had first hand experience of Nadi.

"Vedanta has nothing to do with Samhitas. It is like telling a school boy again and again that h2o is water. "

Then why is the word vedanta made to be related to the vedas? Why is vedanta named as conclusion of the vedas when it has no connection whatsoever to it?

"Sayana's text where did he say dasyus were not enemies of the aryas? "

Dasyu and arya as not mentioned as warring tribes which is what I was saying. These fights could very mean inner enemies. What I meant is nowhere has Sayana (or anyone) used arya and dasyu as tribes which are warring. So point where dasyus were called a tribe or where aryas are called a tribe by sayana.

"The former Kanchi Acharya was very famous and also had some politicians as followers. He was also prolific in talking about caste and several other aspects of vedas. Why did he not offer "metaphorical" meanings of the rig samhita?"

Read the whole thing I posted regarding this. I spoke of how the method of discourse/debate between Madana Mishra and Adi Shankaracharya itself may be lost. In any case, did the Kanchi Acharya say dasyus or aryas were a tribe? Did he say dasyus were dark skinned? If that was the case, all dark skinned brahmins would have been sent out of the brahmin community. lol.

"Its a mix of not just dasyu and arya cultures but of all subsequent known and unknown tribal elements. Today's hinduism certainly represents a mixed culture. "

But the mix never came from dasyu or arya tribes. Arya and dasyu are both sanskrit terms, much like "good" and "bad" terms in English. They don't speak of one tribe or clan. The term Hinduism itself is a mix of what foreigners called us - Hindu (from Sindhu as the Persians called it) and -ism, from English postfix. Hinduism as we see it is a recent idea that came for a reason to club the diversity here in the face of the growing world.

" The dasyu religion consisted of phallic (linga) worship. "

Tell this to the brahmins who worship Shiva. Do you see where your point seems stupid? If this reference in the vedas was so obvious and is as you say, brahmins wouldn't have ever worshipped Shiva. If these brahmins believed in such a thing as you say, worship of shiva would have been non existent. There is again many interpretations to shishnadeva.

"Sishna-deva translates as one who worships shishna as deva (god). "

It could mean anything from lewd god. The symbol of linga as worshipped of shiva is symbolic of creation, the one refered here (shisna) could have been something else.

"However, from any book, any author who wrote on samhitas, it is clear that there were fights between the aryas and the dasyus"

Obviously! What in those claims however make it clear that these are speaking of tribes though? The "fight" is similar to what we say of "good" and "evil". To say good and evil represent two groups of fixed people is nonsensical. These references aren't real wars according to me, because you have absurd "creatures". Bull-jawed is itself an example - it doesn't refer to a person who had the jaw of a bull, but something characteristic of a bull, which is of course open to discussion.

"some commentators suggest that the heredity caste system may have its orgins from the late yajur vedic period onwards"

Even ithihaasa references don't say it was heriditary.

"You are mistaken regarding animal sacrifices and Adi Shankara. There is a Sanskrit movie titled "Adi Shankaracharya" detailing his life story (directed by GV Iyer). Even the movie portrays Adi Shankaracharya as the one who stopped animal sacrifices in homams."

Did you read my post on this? I didn't claim Adi Shankaracharya did animal sacrfices. I said just as the reference to purushamedha is agreed to be metaphorical, the idea of Ashwamedha would have also been that way before until later kings and their brahmin preists understood it as animal sacrifice.

"I mentioned writers like Bhandarkar and Sharma having suggested that dasyus won in the late vedic / vedanta period. This does not mean the dasyus existed "till vedantic times". No one knows till what time the dasyus existed. However, after the vedic period came the itihaasa period in which the Yadus and Krishna won. It is therefore suggested that the dasyus (of whom Krishna was the head) sealed their victory in the itihasa period. But in the smrithi period the term Dasa was still used for a slave. "

What is this claim even based on? You have whole cultures here being spread like they are coherent with one another - yet you come out saying dasyus were lead by Krishna. The useage of Dasa is both negative and positive and should be seen from the reference.

"If the term arya means 'noble' shouldn't the behaviour also be noble? Instead, one power-hungry bufoon called Indra does all sorts of nonsense and he is still an "arya"."

Your tirade against Indra is not what this thread is about. Arya was used this way ever since the word was ever defined. No one used arya or dasyu as a tribe name until this idea came from the west propaganda to call aryas as european-looking outsiders and dasyus as dark skinned natives. Give me one reference were dasyus were called a tribe or clan.

"Same also for Adi Shankara, there was no need for him to write about aryas and dasyus, when his objective was to spread advaita."

And tell me why the vedas were even important if they are (as per you claim) with no connection to advaita vedanta? Point is all the schools of vedanata say their conclusions from the vedas. Yet you say none of the hymns of the vedas are connected with it.


Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (1) - Adi Shankaracharya never spoke of "vedic period" the idea is new.


"Vedanta means "end of the vedas" because it came at the end of the vedic period. Vedanta does not mean "conclusion of the vedas"."

Tell me if Adi Shankaracharya spoke about a "vedic period" ! Vedanta is called "end" of the vedas, in the exact meaning as conclusion. People of the past didn't speak of "vedic period". The idea that a vedic period existed is itself recent from modern studies.

"Upanishads do not deal with offering oblations and praises to the vedic "devas". The import of the upanishads is realisation of the self. The veda samhitas do not speak of self-realisation. "

How does that explain why people would even study the vedas or consider it important aspect of philosophy?

"Many of which typically follow the concepts of ascetism, and meditation (which were followed by the dasyus of the vedic period). Hence, some consider the upanishads to be of shaivite origin."

And even shaivite brahmins give importance to the vedas! How does it explain your view then? The Upanishads are themselves considered to be the first idea of what the vedas mean.

"Adi Shankara should have mentioned about aryas and dasyus of the samhitas. But why should he? His only aim was to spread the message of advaitha and of self-realisation, which apparently are concepts that come from the vedanta-sutras not samhitas."

The study of the vedas was in relation to philosophy and self-realization too. Adi Shankaracharya by tradition learnt the entire vedas (including the samhitas), so did many others through Indian history. But you still can't say one point where dasyus and aryas were used as tribes or clan names. Further, since the Samhitas with their usage of "arya" are intact till today, how would the meaning of the word suddenly get changed, and a mention of the supposed old meaning not exist anywhere when it was used?

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu (2)

"rig samhita which mentions aryas and dasyus as seperate warring groups COMPOSED by the British? "

It was translated by them that way. Even Sayana doesn't call arya or dasyu as tribes or clans.

"I already provided the links (google books) which deal with Sayana's interpretation. Go read up on krsna-tvac and dasyus."

Yes, and Sayana never said dark skinned people were dasyus. Speaking of tvac as cover makes perfect sense, instead of skin colour. Otherwise it would be absurd as to how every second person in India would have been called dasyu because of their dark skin.

"What is there to accept? Any idiot who knows to look up a sanskrit-english dictionary would know that. The lips exist on the jaws after all. "

So? Lips and jaws are still separate parts! Bull lipped (which you said earlier) and bull jawed (which you accepted later) are very very different.

"Wow, now you are cooking up metaphoric meanings and attributing it to poor Sayana. "

No, I am giving my idea of "without face", which fits better than "noseless" in the context.

"Apparently in the post-vedic period, some people 'took over' the personage of "Krishna" (a dasyu and hence an idol worshipping group) and made him into an "avatara" of vedic Vishnu. "

You are good in making a fancy story. But maybe you can explain why they would make their supposed "dasyu god" ("krishna") become the avatar of "vedic" Visnu?

"Vishnu of the Vedas was no different from Indra who went on the killing spree."

Yes, of course lol. Vedas is actually a manual on how to murder people lol. And explain why brahmins would regard this killing spree individual called Vishnu.

---
" Here is Rik 7.6:
ete dyumnebhirviśvamātiranta mantraṃ ye vāraṃ naryā atakṣan |
pra ye viśastiranta śroṣamāṇā ā ye me asya dīdhayannṛtasya ||"

No, this is RV 7.7, not 7.6.


Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

Shri Vivek,

I feel i am not fit for this conversation. The threshhold of my patience is low. I find it difficult to converse with someone who does not even know the difference between vedanta and samhitas but goes on insisting. The repetitiveness is causing an ennui. So kindly excuse me from this conversation. I wish you good luck.

I will conclude my participation in this thread by making a post on the beauty of temple worship (and what our gods represent) for other readers tomorrow.

Best wishes.

 

[happyhindu]

" Here is Rik 7.6:
ete dyumnebhirviśvamātiranta mantraṃ ye vāraṃ naryā atakṣan |
pra ye viśastiranta śroṣamāṇā ā ye me asya dīdhayannṛtasya ||"

No, this is RV 7.7, not 7.6.

Here is the mandala 7 for anyone to peruse: The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Rig Veda Book 7 index It has a total of 104 suktas, where no dasyu has been called arya or vice-versa. If anyone comes across a dasyu being called arya or vice-versa, please post the verse.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear all,

I had hoped to start this post with verses to show how the dasyus were old aryas; and how temple worship is an ancient system of veneration. In a discussion elsewhere, someone had produced verses which said that Indra had stripped the dasyus of the arya name. That person had also explained how this relates to people of andronovo displacing people of the BMAC (that is, stripping them of their nationality and land; which suggests that the terms arya, asura, etc referred to ancient ‘nations’). Unfortunately i was not able to spend sufficient time to locate those verses today (but will post as and when i find them).

Whatever may have been the past, it is true that the terms arya and dasyu were not based on character in the vedic period. Kindly also remember, that the history of India is far too ancient for any linguistic group, any present day caste, or just anyone to claim to be aryan or non-aryan today. Anyways, this post is not about the aryas and dasyu. It is about temples. So here we go.

In old beliefs (across greek, rome, chinese and egyptian cultures also), extraordinary kings were venerated as gods. Not all kings could become extraordinarily powerful. It is believed that a king was able to achieve extraordinary things because the powers of nature and/or God willed him to achieve those things. Such a king is said to represent the spirit of God; and/or another extraordinary king who had also achieved superhuman feats. Such special kings were preserved in their afterlife in the form of a statue.

Idol worship has existed all the way from Egypt to China in the ancient world. In India no one knows since when have village protector deities existed. We can say that temple culture has been in India since atleast 200 BC – 2 AD at the time when Manusmrithi was written (because he specifically mentions temple priests). The oldest temples of India are undated.

It is a belief that if our ancestor god is properly anointed and propitiated he will grant us our wishes. We therefore approach God with the seva bhava. The seva bhava may also be selfless in nature, for the unadulterated bliss of celebrating God. Just as much as a homam creates the ambience to make a man inward-looking, so does the spirit of service. The seva bhava accrues within us the dasa bhava, of surrendering to the divinity and to the ‘self’ with no mental blocks, ego and negative emotions. The dasa bhava is personal communion with divinity. It is quite apparent that the dasyu culture was an advanced one. Some may like to read the works of PT Srinivasa Iyengar in this regard.

Contd..

 

[happyhindu]

Just as fights between states today, it is understandable that fights in ancient states involved characterizing the enemy in exaggerated negative ways. Therefore possibly (just to spite the enemy), the practices of the dasyus, asuras, etc were characterized in the samhitas and looked down upon by the vedic religion which believed in offering yajna oblations to its devas.

As regards ancientness, we do not know how old the practices of yagna and idol worship are. The fact that the samhitas mention of them would mean that they were present before the samhitas were composed (in possibly what can be called “pre-vedic” times). We would not have known of the various practices that existed in ancient times if not for the samhitas, which have been preserved impeccably by Brahmins; for which every Hindu must be grateful.

Post fight mergers often result in amalgamation of beliefs. Such that Rudra becomes Shiva, Krishna becomes Vishnu, a Yaksha (spirit) (Murugan) becomes Deva, Skanda become Murugan, Shiva become Muruga’s father and so on. It must be some quirk of fate, that something “pre-vedic” has come to become Krishnaism today. And Shiva remains ever active in our cultural memories to bless every seeker.

Apparently post fight mergers between warring factions have also given rise to avataras. To me, they indeed signify an evolution of culture due to the amalgamation of (tribal) identities. From Varaha avatara onwards we may see the “merger” element. An avatArA must have signified peace. For He signified the “coming together” of people after a fight. A common belief is shared by many religions -- that an avatara is yet to come. He is Kalki to Hindus, Mahdi to Muslims and the second coming of Christ to Christians. Let us hope that this avatara will signify the coming together of all religions for a peaceful world.


Contd..

 

[happyhindu]

Translations

The reverence for samhitas comes from the fact that various parts of it are used for various homams / havans. However, priests too learn the samhitas by heart, usually, without knowing the meanings. The research therefore is left to teaching faculty (usually associated with universities), who often work together with priests in elucidating the meanings. I wud like to mention here that for every root sound, a specific set of associative meanings can be derived. Nobody can claim or insist anything outside of the valid set of meanings unless metaphors are supported by the rest of the text or other evidences.

There is some confusion about what the ‘vedas” consisted at different periods of time. What we know today as "Vedas" was compiled by Vedavyasa who lived in the itihAsA mahAbhAratA period. Which was obviously after the samhita war period. At this time, it is said that only few Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita existed. But Brahmasutra was not yet composed at this stage. Therefore it is hard to say if "vedanta" existed in this time-period.

Awareness

From the ongoing posts on this forum, one thing is evident. Some people have no idea what each branch of the vedas represent. Often hindus mistake that whatever Adi Shankara spoke is “vedas”. I feel every hindu must atleast try to know the name of the subject which each vedic text deals with. Otherwise people might claim that since Adi Shankara did not mention so, that is why Sushruta Samhita is a text on Namakaranam. Awareness is a must. And awareness must be spread.

Irrespective of whether anyone speaks of pre-vedic, vedic or post-vedic literature or events, we must remember that all of that is our own history – the history of every Indian. A history that speaks of the bloodiest of wars to concepts of Moksham and Samadhi. A history that covers every emotion and facet of the personality from evil to divine. A history of exquisite art forms and myriad intricacies and innumerable stories. Who could ever think of breaking away from this culture. There simply is no necessity to convert. Again, awareness is necessary.

Finally, having faith is one thing but blind belief can make people superstitious and stagnant. The spirit of enquiry, and producing suitable works of philosophy and literature is needed to adapt and grow with the times.

Regards.

 

[sarma-61]

Finally, having faith is one thing but blind belief can make people superstitious and stagnant. The spirit of enquiry, and producing suitable works of philosophy and literature is needed to adapt and grow with the times.

Regards.

Faith is trusting - unquestioning - reliance. so faith has to be blind. the moment one starts opening his eyes from faith, it stops being faith. all religions insist and survive on "faith". they don't want questions to be asked. if people start asking questions religions will be in great trouble. the universal rule is "believe and ye shall be saved"! if you are finally not saved and find yourself in hell, it is because your faith was lacking!

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Sow.Happy Hindu,
Wonderful post.I could get to know some basics of our Pre-Vedic,Vedic, and Post-Vedic period.
In 1961 immediately after my marriage, my mother took me and my wife to our ancestral village.First we were taken to a PALMYRA Tree on the side of 'Varrappu'(border passage between two sides of agricultural lands).
One elderly gentleman from Dalit community officiated as priest and performed POOJA and offerd Karpura Harathi to the TREE,then gave us VIBUTHI prasad and Jaggery water.Then we worshipped in 'ELLAI Amman Koil' where the priest is from'POOKKATTI community( selling Flower).He did abhisekham, Pooja and offered us'Sweet pongal prasad'. Then we went inside the village and offered worship in SIVA Temple where the priest was a TB.
In my subsequent visits to the village,I am unable to locate the Palmyra tree.None was able to explain why we were worshipping a tree.It could be a form of worshipping nature and a method of communal harmony.
Recently I was witnessing'Pradosa Abkhisekam' in THIRUVANAIKOIL SIVA TEMPLE.One foreigner who was present asked me as to why they are wasting large quantity of milk on an IDOL when lot of INDIANS are below poverty.I told him that this is a way of honouring 'Nature and thanking God' for providing all our requirements which we get from Nature.He was not convinced.
I was wondering what will be his reaction if he has witnessed'MILK ABHISEKAM to large cutouts of our TAMIL CINEMA HEROES by their Fans mostly youngsters.

You are very knowledgeable.My request to YOU is: In FACEBOOK I go through the following TOPICS 1.ANCIENT INDIA AWAKENED(mostly spiritual), 2.GLOBAL HINDUS 3.THE BHARAT SWABHIMAN(contains positive and negative).I am not an expert in "saving,Cutting and pasting".So I am unable to highlight some good information to the FORUM members.If time permits you may consider undertaking this task.
With My Best Wishes,
B.Krishnamurthy

 

[sarma-61]

...
Recently I was witnessing'Pradosa Abkhisekam' in THIRUVANAIKOIL SIVA TEMPLE.One foreigner who was present asked me as to why they are wasting large quantity of milk on an IDOL when lot of INDIANS are below poverty.I told him that this is a way of honouring 'Nature and thanking God' for providing all our requirements which we get from Nature.He was not convinced.
I was wondering what will be his reaction if he has witnessed'MILK ABHISEKAM to large cutouts of our TAMIL CINEMA HEROES by their Fans mostly youngsters.

Shri Krishnamurthy Sir,

It is difficult to justify milk abhisekam for idols using many many litres of milk and making them waste. not only foreigner, even tbs like me - born brought-up and very much in india do not approve this. same applies to other costly items like honey, panchamrutam (fruits, jaggery, ghee), rosewater (now only fake rosewater is sold in temple shopd, so let the bhaktas benefit the market and, if god in the idol gets offended by the itching caused by synthetic rosewater-get his curse also, very deserving!

in future water (not pure water, only acquagard will give-temples don't use that, i find) will become scarce but we will continue to do abhisekams. in slang tamil here among tbs of kerala "kuluppattaratu" means also cheating somebody of his money-so in a way we are kuluppaatting god himself/herself, so intelligent we are!

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu


This is hymn 7.7 of RV which is the Battle of Ten Kings, mentions the enemies as "Dasyus" (line 3). The enemies of Sudas were many so-called "arya" clans. If the arya-dasyu dicotomy was so obvious, given that the vedas are intact till today were would have definitely found one reference to Dasyu, or Arya clans/tribes. Such a claim however doesn't exist in any earlier interpretation of the scriptures - even Sayana didn't speak of an Arya or Dasyu clan. The meanings then, correspond to characters traits.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07006.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv07006.htm

----------------

If you can explain why Vedanta is called "conclusion of the vedas" it would make meaning to your argument. You seprate ved samhitas and sutras, when the entire vedas were considered to have formed vedanta.

Your claims are absurd for the simple reason that if it was as merely saying the vedas judge people by their skin colour, then nothing you say is what vedic philosophy is about. Why would Shankaracharya not speak about samhitas? The point is there is no distinction to him when he spread his message. Nobody claimed vedas speak of history - but you do. Nobody claimed dark skinned people were dasyus - but you do. Nobody claimed Krishna was a "dasyu" god who fought against "arya" Indra or that there was such a dicotomy - but you do. Nobody ever said arya and dasyu were tribes - but you do, and fail to point anyone who called arya or dasyu as tribes. The word

Further, all the Siva-worshipping brahmins who read the vedas (samhitas and everything) would be senseless if they were to agree with your idea that dasyus were destroyed for lingam worship by Indra, given the fact that they still do worship the lingam as a symbol of Siva.

I don't have an interest of continuing this either. But when you say "vedanta is called end of vedas because it was at the end of vedic period" it only means you are ignoring what was said of it for a very long, and without reason.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri B.Krishnamurty

"One foreigner who was present asked me as to why they are wasting large quantity of milk on an IDOL when lot of INDIANS are below poverty.I told him that this is a way of honouring 'Nature and thanking God' for providing all our requirements which we get from Nature.He was not convinced."

Yes, and it is times like these when we dishonour ourselves by presenting ourselves as a stagnant, superstitious, ritualistic community. Along with that these practices are detrimental to our own society. And these are the exact reason we need to question such practices (without having to wait for foreigners to tell us). The point is let us not justify something merely because we are born into that culture. Would you agree? We need to shape our own culture, not accept it merely like its been presented to us. We should understand our culture and try to say what needs to be part of it, not mimick it merely because someone said so.

This event, and many others are degrading to our society, and also present our society and community very badly.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

This is hymn 7.7 of RV which is the Battle of Ten Kings, mentions the enemies as "Dasyus" (line 3). The enemies of Sudas were many so-called "arya" clans. If the arya-dasyu dicotomy was so obvious, given that the vedas are intact till today were would have definitely found one reference to Dasyu, or Arya clans/tribes. Such a claim however doesn't exist in any earlier interpretation of the scriptures - even Sayana didn't speak of an Arya or Dasyu clan. The meanings then, correspond to characters traits.

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 7: HYMN VI. Agni.

The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 6

I have underlined the relevant sentence. May i have the verses where they are called aryas?

If you can explain why Vedanta is called "conclusion of the vedas" it would make meaning to your argument. You seprate ved samhitas and sutras, when the entire vedas were considered to have formed vedanta.

Vedanta is not called "conclusion of the vedas".

Badrayana did not live in the itihasa period. Hence Brahmasutra did not even exist during the time of Mahabharat. Therefore it is futile to claim that 'vedanta' as we know it today existed at that point of time.

Even the Brahamanas (texts) were composed in the Kuru regions - they were added to the "Vedas" after the Samhita period. Nobody even knows how many brahmana-texts existed at the time of the epic age mahajanapadas. We do not even know if some shakhas like Kapisthala had a Brahmana text.

Overall, one thing is clear -- what we know as a generalized term called "vedas" today was not the same in the past (since texts were added / appended to them over time).

Your claims are absurd for the simple reason that if it was as merely saying the vedas judge people by their skin colour, then nothing you say is what vedic philosophy is about.

There is no philosophy in the Samhitas. They are about wars (and the Rig Samhita does mention the physical description of the dasyus). Philosophy comes in Vedanta.

Why would Shankaracharya not speak about samhitas? The point is there is no distinction to him when he spread his message.

Repetition.

Nobody claimed vedas speak of history - but you do. Nobody claimed dark skinned people were dasyus - but you do. Nobody claimed Krishna was a "dasyu" god who fought against "arya" Indra or that there was such a dicotomy - but you do. Nobody ever said arya and dasyu were tribes - but you do, and fail to point anyone who called arya or dasyu as tribes. The word

The 'claims' are not made by me. Historians who have studied the texts have mentioned them.. Already told you to read the works of Vaman Apte, Devdutt Bhandarkar, etc. Already provided enuf google books links.

Further, all the Siva-worshipping brahmins who read the vedas (samhitas and everything) would be senseless if they were to agree with your idea that dasyus were destroyed for lingam worship by Indra, given the fact that they still do worship the lingam as a symbol of Siva.

Well, we have a mixed culture on our hands today. Rigveda mentions Rudra and does not mention 'Shiva' (that is, phallus-worship). Shiva (phallus) worship is not there in the Rigveda. Hence some claim that Rigveda is a Vaishnavite text (based on the fact that most brahmins who follow rigveda today are vaishnavites afaik). However, Indra was the King of Gods in the Rig, not Vishnu (so dunno why the claim exists that Rig is a Vaishnavite text). On the other hand the Yajur is more commonly followed amongst Shiva worshippers afaik. I hope other posters can throw more light on this.

Some people claim that in the Rigveda, Indra was called Shiva. However, the term "Shiva" in Sanskrit means "auspicious". So Indra was called the "auspicious" one. It is one among the many epithets given to Indra (as also the praise that he (Indra) is as strong as a Bull, and so on).

But on thing is clear -- the Rig Samhita makes mention of keeping the phallus-worshippers away.

I don't have an interest of continuing this either. But when you say "vedanta is called end of vedas because it was at the end of vedic period" it only means you are ignoring what was said of it for a very long, and without reason.

Regards,
Vivek.

Sorry Vivek, i cannot understand your claim that i am "ignoring what was said of it for a very long, and without reason".

Anyways, i would have been willing to accept your stand if you had come up with supporting verses and basis to validate them. But that was not done. Instead there is only repetition of POVs. Therefore as mentioned earlier, Vivek, i have no interest in continuing the discussion with you.

Through this post (and the points mentioned herein), i request other posters to kindly come forth with their views.

I hope Nara sir and Sarma-61 sir will enrich us with their information on the rigveda.

Regards.