Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

[Vivek_V]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

@ Sow. Happyhindu

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

I have given you the link. The so-called arya clans included viswamitra, purus, brigus etc, who are mentioned as dasyus because they were of a particular character. Now may I have the clear statement that says clans like arya or dasyu existed?

"Vedanta is not called "conclusion of the vedas"."

I am just getting up after reading "What is Advaita?" by P. Sankarnarayanan. The appendices have exactly what I had been saying - when it comes to advaita (or any school of vedanta) it is taught and thought to be the interpretations of the vedas. Its made more clear when he says "The Vedas or srutis are distinguished into two parts, the karma kanda and the jnana kanda... .... The truths of Advaita are discernible in both the parts of the Vedas". While all this while your posts only had condescending remarks in them against me, there is really little doubt of the above. Vedanta comes from "ved" and "ant" (conclusion/end). The interpretation that it was towards the end of the "vedic period" is your fabrication because such an idea as the "vedic period" is itself a recent idea, hardly makes sense for people in the past to then call it "vedanta" for that.

"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."

Texts being added makes no change to the claim that vedanta is still an interpretation of the vedas, and its philosophical conclusion.

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

Says only you =) Yet, none of the schools speak that the samhitas are about "wars".

"Philosophy comes in Vedanta."

Yes, and the claim is that the philosophy is the interpretation of the vedas. No school ever said vedas speak about an actual war, neither did any school even comment that the samhitas call dark people dasyus. If that was the case, the direct idea of the samhitas would have been present throughout Indian history. Its not. That is purely your racist idea, like it is of men like Griffith and those who followed.

"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."

And I can provide you the proof that these men were of an era when controversial ideas like Aryan Invasion had already been established and taught to them. So pointing to giants doesn't make your claim correct. The point is you are not able to say why dark skinned people were not treated like dasyus, if that is the claim you make of their description as given in the vedas.

"Rigveda mentions Rudra and does not mention 'Shiva' (that is, phallus-worship). Shiva (phallus) worship is not there in the Rigveda."

The word "Siva" is mentioned in the Rig Veda and even attributed to Indra. Rudra is the early name of Shiva and continues to be used as Shiva's name. The Mahamrityumjaya Mantra attributed to none other than Shiva is present in the Rig Veda too. The point is while you claim this "mixed culture" has come, how it came or whether it indeed is mixed, you answer only by your gross and striding assumptions of what has happened in Indian history when in truth we don't know. Saying utter nonsense like "Indra was a arya god fighting against Krishna who was a dasyu god" doesn't make sense looking deeper. If these things were laid in the ved samhitas people of India's past would have clearly made sense of it in the same manner as you and Mr. Apte, Griffith etc. did.

"However, the term "Shiva" in Sanskrit means "auspicious". So Indra was called the "auspicious" one."

Griffith et al, translated the word "Siva" to auspecious one. In the same way if "Vishnu" had been translated in the RV to English, the few hymns to Visnu would have seemed to not exist either. Siva "auspicious one" is the later name of Rudra who is indeed mentioned in the RV.

"Rig Samhita makes mention of keeping the phallus-worshippers away. "

That is because you insist on interpretting "shishnadeva" that way. Tell me, if it was that obvious how would the Shiva worshipping brahmins study the vedas or even regard any part of it? After all, every tradition in India believes that the Vedas were originally one. Also, even if they are dedicated to say Yajur, there are many who study the Rig Veda. The point is shishnadeva is wrongly understood by you as "phallus worship". The vedas don't speak about worship to Vishnu either, they merely praise - like they do Indra, Agni, Rudra in many hymns.

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

Yes, you are ignoring the fact that vedanta was always, and still is today considered as the interpretation of the vedas - the whole vedas, without exclusion of the samhitas because that too (it is claimed) is connected. Instead you fabricate this entire dicotomy between two segments of the vedas saying one is a historical war record and other is philosophy. Did anyone ever say that through Indian history? No.

Further, your idea that dark skinned people would be the description of dasysus goes against what had been observed throughout history in India where no person was considered dasyu merely for skin colour or face features. How can that be, given that the ved samhitas that supposedly mention this (as you, and other translators claim) was intact and read by numerous people throughout Indian history?

"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"

I had given you the verse where so-called "arya" clans in the Battle of Ten kings are refered to as dasyus, if only you care to read.

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

Yes, maybe they can clarify if your absurd ideas are true. Is the ved samhitas about a "killing spree"? Are dark skinned people condemned as "dasyus"?
Let them clarify. So, Sri Nara and Sarma-61 can go ahead to clarify if vedas mention a genocide of dark people in the sub-continent with its description of "dasyus are dark skinned" (as Happyhindu claims).

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Nara]

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

Dear Happy, I am not very conversant with Vedic history. So I am unable to comply.

However, I can provide a little bit of analysis that might be relevant. Suppose that 100 foreign people wandered into the Indus Valley some 5000 years ago and were quite successful over a long period of time. Do you know how big that population will now be at a modest 1/2% annual growth rate? It will be more than 6 trillion, about 1000 times the current total world population.

The point is, when we talk about AIT or some such thing, it is not as though waves and waves of foreign hoards rode into a peaceful population enslaving everyone in the wake. It is undeniable that many foreign groups came into Indian subcontinent and made it their home and assimilated over the years. In the process they changed themselves, and changed the practices of the local population as well. It is hard to neatly separate the present cultural practices, or the practices from the Vedic period, into Aryan or Dravidian. Aryan and Dravidian are inseparably mixed.

Our present social challenge is to fight and defeat, figuratively of course, the reactionary forces of all stripes. Arguments about AIT is a distraction introduced by the Hindutva forces for promoting their own narrow political ends.

In any case, I am following this thread and do value your deep knowledge on matters historical.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....Yes, maybe they can clarify if your absurd ideas are true. Is the ved samhitas about a "killing spree"? Are dark skinned people condemned as "dasyus"?

Vivek, you are relatively new to this forum. Therefore, I have no idea how well read you are in these matters. Your scholarship may be quite vast, but all I have to go by are the posts you have made in this forum. The one impression you left for me is that you are willing to have strong opinions on matters about which you readily admit you have no knowledge.

In the case of Happyhindu, once again, all I have are her posts in this forum. Since she has been around this forum for a long time, all of us have had the opportunity to observe her scholarship. In all honesty, I have to say, I am really amazed by her knowledge on matters like this, i.e. social and religious history of India. Therefore, I do not appreciate it when you characterize her ideas as absurd, or when you put words in her mouth like, "ved samhitas about a "killing spree".

I hope you ratchet down the heat and have a scholarly exchange with Happy. I am sure all of us will learn from such an exchange.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

@ Sow. Happyhindu

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

I have given you the link. The so-called arya clans included viswamitra, purus, brigus etc, who are mentioned as dasyus because they were of a particular character. Now may I have the clear statement that says clans like arya or dasyu existed?

Merely claiming the Vishamitra, Bhrigus, Purus were called dasyu will not do. Since it wud simply mean they were from the dasyu grouping. Please provide the relevant verses where they were referred to as both aryas and dasyus. AFAIK, only the clan of Sudasa were called Aryas (Indra fought on the side of Sudasa and dasyus were different from the clan of Sudasa). All others (Yadus, Ikshvakus, etc) were non-aryas.

"Vedanta is not called "conclusion of the vedas"."

I am just getting up after reading "What is Advaita?" by P. Sankarnarayanan. The appendices have exactly what I had been saying - when it comes to advaita (or any school of vedanta) it is taught and thought to be the interpretations of the vedas. Its made more clear when he says "The Vedas or srutis are distinguished into two parts, the karma kanda and the jnana kanda... .... The truths of Advaita are discernible in both the parts of the Vedas". While all this while your posts only had condescending remarks in them against me, there is really little doubt of the above. Vedanta comes from "ved" and "ant" (conclusion/end). The interpretation that it was towards the end of the "vedic period" is your fabrication because such an idea as the "vedic period" is itself a recent idea, hardly makes sense for people in the past to then call it "vedanta" for that.

Practically everyone who follows advaita makes the self-serving claim that "it is from the vedas". There are reams and reams written on it such that an untruth begins to be considered a truth. It is quite apparent that Advaita, is from "later-day vedanta".

Vedanta as we know it today did not even exist in the past. Badrayana did not live at the time when the samhitas were composed, or when the brahmanas were composed, or when the itihasas were composed or when veda vyasa lived and complied the vedas.

Badrayana lived in the post-Buddhist period. Some Buddhists beleive that Badrayana merely "borrowed" Buddhist concepts and passed it off into hinduism. Go figure.

It is even claimed that advaita is derived from the karma-kanda. If that were true Adi Shankara himself would not have preached kevala advaitha (pure advaitha without any ritualism or have rejected the karmakanda). The samhita poetry consists of verses that can suit an atheist, an agnostic as well as a theist. Any self-serving believer can pick and choose some verses and claim that advaita is from karmakanda.

It will be better if you go thru the thread "advaitha and its fallacies" and post your points in this matter on that thread instead of here.

"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."

Texts being added makes no change to the claim that vedanta is still an interpretation of the vedas, and its philosophical conclusion.

Vedanta is not the "interpretation" of the vedas. Already explained Vedanta as we know it today did not exist at the time when the Vedas (Samhitas and Brahmanas) were composed.

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

Says only you =) Yet, none of the schools speak that the samhitas are about "wars".

Says not me. Says many historians who have written about the subject.

"Philosophy comes in Vedanta."

Yes, and the claim is that the philosophy is the interpretation of the vedas. No school ever said vedas speak about an actual war, neither did any school even comment that the samhitas call dark people dasyus. If that was the case, the direct idea of the samhitas would have been present throughout Indian history. Its not. That is purely your racist idea, like it is of men like Griffith and those who followed.

Repetition.

"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."

And I can provide you the proof that these men were of an era when controversial ideas like Aryan Invasion had already been established and taught to them. So pointing to giants doesn't make your claim correct. The point is you are not able to say why dark skinned people were not treated like dasyus, if that is the claim you make of their description as given in the vedas.

Already mentioned right at the start that am NOT talking of Aryan invasion. Already mentioned that it is about regions / states / nations / groups who fought with one another. And that these people were dis-similar in culture. No one can say if these groups were ethnically different from one another. It is much more likely that they were not ethnically different from one another than otherwise. Kanva was also dark-skinned. Lets put it this way. If one is dark-skinned himself, one will not characterise himself based on that. But if the enemy is dark-skinned, due to hatered for the enemy, everything about him will look bad enough to be characterised.

"Rigveda mentions Rudra and does not mention 'Shiva' (that is, phallus-worship). Shiva (phallus) worship is not there in the Rigveda."

The word "Siva" is mentioned in the Rig Veda and even attributed to Indra. Rudra is the early name of Shiva and continues to be used as Shiva's name. The Mahamrityumjaya Mantra attributed to none other than Shiva is present in the Rig Veda too. The point is while you claim this "mixed culture" has come, how it came or whether it indeed is mixed, you answer only by your gross and striding assumptions of what has happened in Indian history when in truth we don't know. Saying utter nonsense like "Indra was a arya god fighting against Krishna who was a dasyu god" doesn't make sense looking deeper. If these things were laid in the ved samhitas people of India's past would have clearly made sense of it in the same manner as you and Mr. Apte, Griffith etc. did.

There is no phallus-worship mentioned in the Mahamritunjaya Mantra; which is for Sri Mrityunjaya. It is only a claim that Sri Mrityunjaya is Shiva. Already clarified that the word 'Shiva' means auspicious and Indra was merely called the 'auspicious' one as an epithet. Indra has never been called a phallus-worshipper, or as someone who is worshiped in such a symbolic form.

Very clearly, the Rig Samhita mentions keeping the phallus-worshippers away from their own worship (that is, from fire-oblations to the vedic devas). Already provided the verses.

"However, the term "Shiva" in Sanskrit means "auspicious". So Indra was called the "auspicious" one."

Griffith et al, translated the word "Siva" to auspecious one. In the same way if "Vishnu" had been translated in the RV to English, the few hymns to Visnu would have seemed to not exist either. Siva "auspicious one" is the later name of Rudra who is indeed mentioned in the RV.

Vishnu cannot be translated in the same way as Shiva (already explained how translations are done - no one say that 'water" means "fire" - the derivative meanings from root sounds are fixed and cannot be changed). Vishnu has been mentioned in the Rig Samhita. He fights on the side of Indra in wars (and Indra fights on the side of Sudasa). Shiva (the character as we know from the puranas and other literature) did not exist in the Rig Samhita. Instead there was a group of people called the Sivas who fought against Sudasa (the Sivas were allies of the Pakthas, the Bhalanas, etc).

"Rig Samhita makes mention of keeping the phallus-worshippers away. "

That is because you insist on interpretting "shishnadeva" that way. Tell me, if it was that obvious how would the Shiva worshipping brahmins study the vedas or even regard any part of it? After all, every tradition in India believes that the Vedas were originally one. Also, even if they are dedicated to say Yajur, there are many who study the Rig Veda. The point is shishnadeva is wrongly understood by you as "phallus worship". The vedas don't speak about worship to Vishnu either, they merely praise - like they do Indra, Agni, Rudra in many hymns.

Praises to Vishnu has been mentioned in the Rig Samhita.

It is not me who has mentioned sishna-deva that way. Historians have. Look up any sanskrit-english dictionary. The sanskrit word for penis is sishna.

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

Yes, you are ignoring the fact that vedanta was always, and still is today considered as the interpretation of the vedas - the whole vedas, without exclusion of the samhitas because that too (it is claimed) is connected. Instead you fabricate this entire dicotomy between two segments of the vedas saying one is a historical war record and other is philosophy. Did anyone ever say that through Indian history? No.

Further, your idea that dark skinned people would be the description of dasysus goes against what had been observed throughout history in India where no person was considered dasyu merely for skin colour or face features. How can that be, given that the ved samhitas that supposedly mention this (as you, and other translators claim) was intact and read by numerous people throughout Indian history?

Repetition. Please do not put words into my mouth that someone was "considered dasyu for mere skin color or face features". I have not mentioned such a thing anywhere. It is not me "fabricating" things. Go and read works by Bhandarkar, Apte, Chaturvedi, Kashyap, etc.

"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"

I had given you the verse where so-called "arya" clans in the Battle of Ten kings are refered to as dasyus, if only you care to read.

No sir you have not given any such verse. Please provide the relevant verse here.

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

Yes, maybe they can clarify if your absurd ideas are true. Is the ved samhitas about a "killing spree"? Are dark skinned people condemned as "dasyus"?
Let them clarify. So, Sri Nara and Sarma-61 can go ahead to clarify if vedas mention a genocide of dark people in the sub-continent with its description of "dasyus are dark skinned" (as Happyhindu claims).

Regards,
Vivek.

Vivek, there is no need to put words into my mouth. I have never said dark-skinned people were "condemned" as dasyus. Or anything about a "genocide"..I do not beleive there was any invasion either. We are talking about people who ended up fighting. There are no guarantees that that there were NO fights before the period of the samhitas (fights between tribes must have existed for a long time. And no one can expect that any given group won each and every time. There can be no talk of invasion).

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu

"Merely claiming the Vishamitra, Bhrigus, Purus were called dasyu will not do. Since it wud simply mean they were from the dasyu grouping."

The claim of historians today is that these clans were "Indo-Aryan", but they have been refered to as dasyu. This itself invalidates your claim. You have still not done your half of the deal by even pointing where Sayana uses arya and dasyu as names of clans or tribe.

"Practically everyone who follows advaita makes the self-serving claim that "it is from the vedas". There are reams and reams written on it such that an untruth begins to be considered a truth."

Wow! Now you are making the claim that all the people who said what I mentioned of vedanta were liars and that somehow you and modern commentators have a better understanding of the same samhitas they read.

"It is even claimed that advaita is derived from the karma-kanda. If that were true Adi Shankara himself would not have preached kevala advaitha (pure advaitha without any ritualism or have rejected the karmakanda)."

That is just your ideas. The point is the very rituals as we know them today may have changed in meaning. The underlying claim however, that vedanta is from the vedas - the whole vedas and not just particular parts of it, is universal in our tradition and pertains to every school of vedanta.

"It will be better if you go thru the thread "advaitha and its fallacies" and post your points in this matter on that thread instead of here."

Maybe you should take a repeated look at your abusrd and racist remarks in this very thread. Does it make sense that a "killing spree" was held as a holy shruti by brahmins?

" AFAIK, only the clan of Sudasa were called Aryas (Indra fought on the side of Sudasa and dasyus were different from the clan of Sudasa). All others (Yadus, Ikshvakus, etc) were non-aryas. "

And no dicotomy like this of arya or dasyu clans exists anywhere, ever. Not mentioned by Sayana either, or any person prior to British rule who read the very same Samhitas people have throughout.

"Vedanta is not the "interpretation" of the vedas. Already explained Vedanta as we know it today did not exist at the time when the Vedas (Samhitas and Brahmanas) were composed. "

And what exactly was the point of the composition? Lets get serious here, if the vedas were about a historical account it wouldn't be put in the manner it has been. Throughout vedanta is considered the interpretation of the vedas - none of us are really fully aware of the method people like Adi Shankaracharya used, yet here you are claiming like they were all wrong, but you are right. Which is why you go to say: "Practically everyone who follows advaita makes the self-serving claim that "it is from the vedas". There are reams and reams written on it such that an untruth begins to be considered a truth.".

Lastly, its not only the claim of the advaita school - but of EVERY single school of vedanta.

""HH: There is no philosophy in the Samhitas. They are about wars (and the Rig Samhita does mention the physical description of the dasyus)."
Me: Says only you =) Yet, none of the schools speak that the samhitas are about "wars".
HH: Says not me. Says many historians who have written about the subject. "

But why didn't others through history say this of the samhitas? Historians post the British era, who learnt their ideas of even "aryan race" and "aryan invasion" in schools, which was all British government propaganda - when such an idea was non-existent in the past. That is it, even if you try and club me a Brit-hater. The point is I have not just gone through these interpretations (like you have), but have seen the nuances of the era in which they were made.

"Already mentioned that it is about regions / states / nations / groups who fought with one another. And that these people were dis-similar in culture. No one can say if these groups were ethnically different from one another."

Yes, but no nations were labelled dasyu or arya. This is the case with people through Indian history who read the exact same samhitas word to word that you or Apte, Bhandarkar, Chaturvedi or anyone has. How were arya and dasyus clans not to people in the past then?

"If one is dark-skinned himself, one will not characterise himself based on that. But if the enemy is dark-skinned, due to hatered for the enemy, everything about him will look bad enough to be characterised. "

Even in that case it would mean not mean dasyus are dark-skinned (generalized) as you claimed. I have already shown the reference to bull-lipped/jawed is also of a particular individual (even going by direct translation).

"There is no phallus-worship mentioned in the Mahamritunjaya Mantra; which is for Sri Mrityunjaya. It is only a claim that Sri Mrityunjaya is Shiva"

Yes, a "claim" made since forever ago! Don't be silly, people in the past were not blind that somehow you today read the samhitas and uncover a "history" they never saw. I never claimed phallus worship was mentioned in the Mahamritunjaya Mantra - I said a matra to Shiva exists in the RV - the same RV you claimed as the "vaishnavite text".

"the Rig Samhita mentions keeping the phallus-worshippers away from their own worship (that is, from fire-oblations to the vedic devas). Already provided the verses. "

And I already answered that this assumption of yours is based on the wrong interpretation of "shishnadeva". If you think Shiva worshipping brahmins were oblivious of this fact through history, it only means you believe you and your band of historians are above others through history.

"Please provide the relevant verse here. "

I did provide it 7.6.3, for which you said: "Merely claiming the Vishamitra, Bhrigus, Purus were called dasyu will not do. Since it wud simply mean they were from the dasyu grouping". I leave the entire forum to decide whether I pointed to the correct verse. On the other hand, you have not pointed one place were clans are classified as arya and dasyu. You say it was an ancient classification that is lost. But that argument is dubious. When the samhitas are intact, and you in the 21st century are inferring such a classification, if indeed it was true, people who read the same samhitas since centuries would have made the same claim.

"Please do not put words into my mouth that someone was "considered dasyu for mere skin color or face features". I have not mentioned such a thing anywhere"

You said dasyus were called "dark skinned, bull lipped and noseless" and that this was the description of dasyus. So that makes you claim universal of all dasyus. But a closer look at those verses revealed to me that the meanings may not be as direct and even specific to a particular individual.

"Go and read works by Bhandarkar, Apte, Chaturvedi, Kashyap"

Should I ask you to read the comments of Vivekanand, Ambedkar and P. Sankaranaryan? They never spoke of aryan race, only contrary to it. These men you mentioned, like many others, sat in classrooms when they were young and learnt British propaganda. People before British era, never, ever interpretted the samhitas the way you did. If the "historical war" meanings were obvious it would have been mentioned. But here you are claiming people of the past knew nothing and somehow something new has come to you in the 21st century merely because some people read it today. Fact is people have been reading these same material for centruries. Who said it was about a killing spree? Who said it was about dark-skin? Only modern commentators. Obviously, it raises doubts.

"Vivek, there is no need to put words into my mouth. I have never said dark-skinned people were "condemned" as dasyus."

You did claim that dasyus were mentioned as "dark skinned, bull lipped, noseless" after which I pointed that there is a variety of meanings that could be considered.

You did speak of a "killing spree". If the samhitas were everything you say they are, there is no reason people in the past wouldn't have read it the way you are reading it. To accept that you got it wrong is something beyond your abilities it would seem.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara - Lets speak of DK/DMK's political ends too.

"Arguments about AIT is a distraction introduced by the Hindutva forces for promoting their own narrow political ends. "

No you obviously haven't read about AIT starting with Thule's "root races". The idea of AIT has purely Western origin. The fact that it has been in Indian politics since British era is true, but it was not "introduced" by the Hindutva. The point is a number of political groups have been both, for and against AIT. Right from British, Germans to Indian parties. The DK, DMK used AIT to bolster their propaganda to send brahmins out of TN. Not a "narrow political end" to you?

Historians and commentators have spoken both, for and against AIT, and the very idea of arya or dasyu races or clans. The idea is recent though, no doubt of that. In all the reading of the samhitas people had of the past they always kept the same meaning. People who read the exact same samhitas centuries ago in India, that we (or Apte, Chaturvedi et al) are today never spoke of an Aryan Invasion, nor of an arya or dasyu clan. All those are post-British era interpretations which are repurcussions of British-originated idea of the AIT.

"Vivek, you are relatively new to this forum. Therefore, I have no idea how well read you are in these matters. Your scholarship may be quite vast, but all I have to go by are the posts you have made in this forum. The one impression you left for me is that you are willing to have strong opinions on matters about which you readily admit you have no knowledge."

I was being honest, unlike those who have read a few authors and claim to have the truth. Happyhindu claims all the way that everyone till now who speaks of advaita having come from the vedas are claiming something wrong. At what point is a confident claim, and arrogant one would be a good question to you. I can tell you I have read what I am posting and inferring about. But for me to claim like Happyhindu that the reading of some modern historians, or herself is better than all the others who read the same samhitas through history, would be down right arrogant.
That is why I question, as to how the interpretations are so different between people centuries ago, and those post the British era.

" all of us have had the opportunity to observe her scholarship. In all honesty, I have to say, I am really amazed by her knowledge on matters like this, i.e. social and religious history of India. Therefore, I do not appreciate it when you characterize her ideas as absurd, or when you put words in her mouth like, "ved samhitas about a "killing spree". "

So are you going to support her merely out of favoritism? Are you even reading the posts? I didn't put the word in her mouth. She claimed in her own words that ved samhitas have Indra and Vishnu going on a "killing spree" (refer post #61). Her own words: "Vishnu of the Vedas was no different from Indra who went on the killing spree."

The knowledge she has comes from any reading of history, people throughout social networking sites have such knowledge. But merely reading the translations of authors is not enough, I believe we need to read them in relation to the nuances of the times in which they were translated. I have already stated clearly then, why the claims of her or the historians she points are questionable. If you read my posts carefully you will see that my claims are NOT from nothing, but are based on the thing I mentioned in this very para.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

Shri Vivek,

Merely by repeating, insisting things do not become correct. Either there is a problem with your understanding or a problem with my writing or both.

I said vishnu like indra went on a killing spree. In simple english it means vishnu and indra went on a killing spree. It does not mean the rig samhita is all about killings.

It is quite true that rig samhita is in a large part about wars. If I wanted to say that samhitas are killing manuals i wud have said it as such. In such case i wud not have mentioned that the samhitas have verses that can be theist, atheist or agnostic. So there is no need to imagine things and put words into my mouth.

2) Your debating style which you go on repeating in every post is like this-
A) Since adi shankara did not say so, therefore the aryas and dasyus were not warring factions.
B) Sayana did not call aryas and dasyus tribes.

For A, in the previous posts i already mentioned why there is no need for shankara to have spoken about the samhitas. For B, google book links were already provided in previous posts where Sayana mentioned Aryas and Dasyus as warring factions (Sayana too uses the term dasyu as a slave). And Sayana too uses the terms anasa, krsna tvac and vrshashipra in negative connotations; as faceless, dark skinned and bull lipped respectively.

Whatever claims you are making about advaita you can post on the relevant thread ''advaita and its fallacies''.

If vedas are all about philosophy then sushruta samhita, vedic mathematics, surya siddhanta and all such subjects / branches should also come under 'philosophy'. And just 'coz Shankara did not speak of such texts ( or on such topics), does not automatically mean that such fields did not exist.

And no need to assign words like 'condemned', 'genocide', 'aryan invasion', 'race', to my posts. These apparently are your pet words which you insist on.
Apprently you are imagining that all this talk is about race and aryan invasion. If it were so i wud have mentioned it as such. In such case i wud not have clarified on looks / race or mentioned reasons why i think there was no invasion. Right at the beginning i also made it clear that the fights were between one 'vedic' region and another 'vedic region'.

I have explained things as best as i cud. I feel readers are in the best position to understand things. So there is no point continuing this discussion.

However, if you so wish, for the current discussion to move forward all you have to do is to explain where in rik 7.6.3 (or anywhere else in the rig samhita) has any group been called both aryas and dasyus.

Regards.

 

[sarma-61]

I am not much informed of this subject. But seeing the weighty arguments - many going above my head - i asked my friend what dasyu means and wrote what he says.

Now i searched google and found one book:

History of the Indigenous Indians - Google Books

page 9 to 11 of this book will confuse more both side of this strong discussion i feel. kindly read and see if it will help to come to a peace treaty!

 

[Nara]

.....So are you going to support her merely out of favoritism?

Vivek, the answer to the above question is no, not merely out of favoritism.

Yes Vivek, AIT has been around for a long time, but only after the Hindutva forces scored success in mixing religion and electoral politics it has become a sort of a litmus test issue. Everyone must have an opinion on it. If you are for it, then you are a communist, or DK type, and if you are against it, then you are BJP or Brahmin, or something of that sort.

When I was growing up, the time when DK and DMK split and DMK was slowly gaining ascendancy, nobody talked about AIT. There was a lot of talk about Aryan and Dravidian, but nobody really objected that Brahmins were considered Aryan. Brahmins considered themselves as Aryans, and made no bones about it, they even touted it in public. For example, every small town used to have an Arya Bhavan with a subtitle, ப்ராமணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம்.

This separation was quite vivid those days. There were Brahmins, and the rest were Shudras. There are many TBs of my age in this forum, ask them, they will confirm this was so. Nobody told me I was an Aryan and the rest were Dravidians, but somehow this idea of Aryan, Dravidian divide osmosed into me, as it did with millions of Tamil people. None of this had anything to do with AIT, but everything to do with Brahmins being separate from and superior to the rest. The first time AIT was presented to me as a choice I have to make was when my nephew asked me whether I believed in it or not, as if it was a matter of opinion and that everyone must have one on it.

Only systematic and scientific research can decide whether AIT is true or not, or to what degree it is true or false, or whatever. In other words, it is an academic question and answers, whatever they may be, will have to come only from academicians trained in the field. The relevant texts have no hidden esoteric meanings that will elude secular historians and will reveal itself only to some "traditional" scholars whoever they may be.

So, the reason I am more persuaded by HH is not because of mere favoritism, but because she is relying on academicians.

But, whether AIT is true or not, it is an undeniable fact that Brahmins even today feel separate from and superior to the rest. Go to any Brahminical MaThams to see for yourself how true this is. This is what I am interested in. Vivek, I am not all that interested in AIT.

Anyway, in your discussion with HH the points are so arcane, it is easy to lose track of what really each of you are saying and what the significant difference is. I know you think her ideas are absurd and silly and that HH thinks you repeat yourself without providing the references she is asking for. But beyond that, what is the point of contention here? It would be beneficial for readers like me to refocus. So, in the interest of understanding what the issues are, Vivek and HH, if you could bear with this old man, would you consider the following:

1. Please state in simple language what your main thesis is on the subject matter under discussion. Please state your view only, do not include what you think the other person is saying.
2. What sources of knowledge are acceptable for you as authentic? Please be as specific as you can, state authors if you wish.

I think this will clarify the differences and make it easy for readers to understand the differences.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

1. Please state in simple language what your main thesis is on the subject matter under discussion. Please state your view only, do not include what you think the other person is saying.

Dear Sir,

The main points of discussion are from my POV:

1) Aryas and Dasyus were warring factions. My points in this are:

• Nowhere in the Rig Samhita have Aryas been called Dasyus.
• Historians started calling Yadus (and such so-called indo-aryans) as "aryan" or "indo-aryan" people only from the post-vedic period. Such people were not called aryas in the Rig Samhita period itself.
• Aryas and Dasyus had some cultural / religious differences.
• There are no metaphorical meanings wrt the verses where aryas and dasyus are mentioned.
• Dasyus were phallus-worshippers. Aryas were not phallus (lingam) worshippers.
• No praises are offered to phallus worship in the Rig Samhita. Hence, there is no "Shiva (phallus) worship" in the Rig Samhita.
• Aryas offered fire oblations to the vedic devas. Dasyus did not.
• The physical description of Dasyus are mentioned as dark-skinned, bull-lipped and noseless (or faceless (sayana)).

2) Vedas are not all about philosophy. Vedanta is not an interpretation or conclusion of the Vedas. Reasons are:

• Vedanta as we know it today did not exist in the pre-buddhist times because Badrayan lived and wrote Brahmasutra in the post-buddhist times.
• Vedanta and Samhitas are different genres and hence Vedanta need not (and does not) speak about the Samhitas.
• Adi Shankara need not have spoken about Samhitas / aryas / dasyus since his intension was to spread Advaita.

1. What sources of knowledge are acceptable for you as authentic? Please be as specific as you can, state authors if you wish.

The sources acceptable to me are:

• Works of pre-british commentators such as Sayana, Medhatithi, Yaska, and any Sanskrit grammarian, particularly of the Nirukta discipline.
• Later day writers such as Devadutta Bandarkar, RG Bhandarkar, Vaman Apte, and anyone associated with and/or validated by the academia.
• Verses from the Vedas themselves. This I would consider most important.
• I would like to see specific verses against the ones I have offered. Example: If one wishes to refer to Sayana then he / she must offer the relevant books (with page numbers) dealing with Sayana's works; or provide relevant verses written by Sayana himself. If one wishes to prove that Sayana did not refer dasyus while talking about anasa, then he would need to provide lines contrary to what Sayana wrote. For example, Sayana wrote as follows: kim cha anaasa aasyaraahitan| aasyashabdena shabdo lakshyate | ashabdan mukhaan dasyun asuraan vadhenaayudhena vajrenamrenah ahimsih| [Taken from Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Volume 70, Page 50]. From these lines it is quite apparent that Sayana linked dasyus with anasa calling them "ashabdan mukhan". If one feels Sayana offered a positive connotation of Dasyus, then, without merely making claims, he / she would need to provide the relevant verses of Sayana.

Regards.

 

[sarma-61]

Vivek, the answer to the above question is no, not merely out of favoritism.

Yes Vivek, AIT has been around for a long time, but only after the Hindutva forces scored success in mixing religion and electoral politics it has become a sort of a litmus test issue. Everyone must have an opinion on it. If you are for it, then you are a communist, or DK type, and if you are against it, then you are BJP or Brahmin, or something of that sort.

When I was growing up, the time when DK and DMK split and DMK was slowly gaining ascendancy, nobody talked about AIT. There was a lot of talk about Aryan and Dravidian, but nobody really objected that Brahmins were considered Aryan. Brahmins considered themselves as Aryans, and made no bones about it, they even touted it in public. For example, every small town used to have an Arya Bhavan with a subtitle, ப்ராமணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம்.

This separation was quite vivid those days. There were Brahmins, and the rest were Shudras. There are many TBs of my age in this forum, ask them, they will confirm this was so. Nobody told me I was an Aryan and the rest were Dravidians, but somehow this idea of Aryan, Dravidian divide osmosed into me, as it did with millions of Tamil people. None of this had anything to do with AIT, but everything to do with Brahmins being separate from and superior to the rest. The first time AIT was presented to me as a choice I have to make was when my nephew asked me whether I believed in it or not, as if it was a matter of opinion and that everyone must have one on it.

Only systematic and scientific research can decide whether AIT is true or not, or to what degree it is true or false, or whatever. In other words, it is an academic question and answers, whatever they may be, will have to come only from academicians trained in the field. The relevant texts have no hidden esoteric meanings that will elude secular historians and will reveal itself only to some "traditional" scholars whoever they may be.

So, the reason I am more persuaded by HH is not because of mere favoritism, but because she is relying on academicians.

But, whether AIT is true or not, it is an undeniable fact that Brahmins even today feel separate from and superior to the rest. Go to any Brahminical MaThams to see for yourself how true this is. This is what I am interested in. Vivek, I am not all that interested in AIT.

Anyway, in your discussion with HH the points are so arcane, it is easy to lose track of what really each of you are saying and what the significant difference is. I know you think her ideas are absurd and silly and that HH thinks you repeat yourself without providing the references she is asking for. But beyond that, what is the point of contention here? It would be beneficial for readers like me to refocus. So, in the interest of understanding what the issues are, Vivek and HH, if you could bear with this old man, would you consider the following:

1. Please state in simple language what your main thesis is on the subject matter under discussion. Please state your view only, do not include what you think the other person is saying.
2. What sources of knowledge are acceptable for you as authentic? Please be as specific as you can, state authors if you wish.

I think this will clarify the differences and make it easy for readers to understand the differences.

Cheers!

Shri Nara Sir,

I am not having much knowledge of AIT but what you say here is very very correct, specially,

"It would be beneficial for readers like me to refocus. So, in the interest of understanding what the issues are, Vivek and HH, if you could bear with this old man, would you consider the following:

1. Please state in simple language what your main thesis is on the subject matter under discussion. Please state your view only, do not include what you think the other person is saying.
2. What sources of knowledge are acceptable for you as authentic? Please be as specific as you can, state authors if you wish."

I found long, long posts and was thinking that will give more points!

 

[VPK]

Dear vivek,

nice written.
I liked it.
Regards,
vpk

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Sir,

The main points of discussion are from my POV:

1) Aryas and Dasyus were warring factions. My points in this are:

• Dasyus were phallus-worshippers. Aryas were not phallus (lingam)
  
  worshippers.
• The physical description of Dasyus are mentioned as dark-skinned,
  
  bull-lipped and noseless (or faceless (sayana)).

• 
  
  Smt. Happy Hindu,
  
  I am only trying to learn from reading the postings here. So, excuse me for mistakes. Is it correct to say all dasyus did phallus worship? is there anything to support?it looks to me some of them did so-not all. kindly check.
  
  you have given sayan's words. i feel 'faceless' is very impractical - simple "mundams" walking about!!. may be all dasyus appeared same - like africans on first sight to others. is that so? but in our mantras, kavachams, etc., mukham is said to be mouth not face. pl. correct me if i am wrong. i read some google book page - don't remember it now - saying mouthless means not speaking or speaking something not clear.
  
  

  The sources acceptable to me are:
  
  
  

  • Works of pre-british commentators such as Sayana, Medhatithi, Yaska,
    
    and any Sanskrit grammarian, particularly of the Nirukta discipline.
  • Later day
    
    writers such as Devadutta Bandarkar, RG Bhandarkar, Vaman Apte, and anyone
    
    associated with and/or validated by the academia.
  • Verses from the Vedas
    
    themselves. This I would consider most important.

  • why british period people also cannot be taken. looks to me you are believing one
    set of people only. can we not see all people what they write, find out the logical correct things and then form opinions?
    
    I was searching web in this connection and found this book-
    
    The Aryas, facts without fancy and ... - Google Books
    
    after reading some pages i think it is a good book. don't know if you have read my first book. but looks to me from such books as if those who wrote veda remembered a lot of battles and enemies of all types. they added imagination from their side and praised gods for helping them to win all these enemies. so, AIT or no-AIT, lots of wars, fights, battles were there and we don't know in the end what happened. in some aryas could have completely killed the other side, in others aryas might have got killed (which they will not like to write and shame themselves - it is like that even in history writing is it not?). in some others the two sides might have peace treaty and so on.
    
    This is the confused picture i get. if it is correct what use discussions are going to be?

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sir,

Thankyou for participating. I hope other posters also will take part.

In this type of a topic i feel there cannot be heated discussions as we may find different things said by different people. So it will only be fair to make this an informal discussion where each of us puts forward what we have come across. That way we can learn from the other person's information-base.

Also, i wish to state this right at the start:
I am one of those millions who does milk abhishekham to Shivalingam whenever posible and celebrates Shivaratri. Just because some group in the vedic period said something it will not change my faith. Also, i remember Krishna in my prayers everyday. I cannot be bothered if Krishna was a dasyu god, aryan god, or whatever.

I also do not beleive in race theories nor do i think there was any sort of "invasion" - either aryan or otherwise. They were just tribalistic wars and squabbles and that is all there is to it.

Smt. Happy Hindu,

I am only trying to learn from reading the postings here. So, excuse me for mistakes. Is it correct to say all dasyus did phallus worship? is there anything to support?it looks to me some of them did so-not all. kindly check.

Sir, i request you to excuse any mistakes i have made (or will make) in this thread. I may be wrong but so far as i understood from Rig 7.21.5 it would seem that dasyus were phallus-worshippers. In Rig 10.99.3 Indra slew Shishnadeva (or Shishna).

From Intra-text i am able to find that Shishna (the word as such) occurs twice in the Rig while words associated with Shishna (like Shishnathad, Shishnatham, Shishisnatho, etc) occur a total of 8 times. Rig Veda (Sanskrit): Alphabetical: S - IntraText CT And from Apte's dictionary the synonyms for शिश्नः shishna are all synonyms of penis (s.लिंगं, उपस्थः, मेद्रः, मेहनं, शेफस् n., चर्मदंडः). From Cologne dictionary Shishna is said to be "fr. %{znath} , `" to pierce "') a tail , (esp.) the male generative organ RV". Spoken Sanskrit gives the following meanings (phallus and penis) for Shishna: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A8&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

Sir, if you feel there are metaphorical meanings wrt the verses where shishna has been mentioned please do present them.

you have given sayan's words. i feel 'faceless' is very impractical - simple "mundams" walking about!!. may be all dasyus appeared same - like africans on first sight to others. is that so? but in our mantras, kavachams, etc., mukham is said to be mouth not face. pl. correct me if i am wrong. i read some google book page - don't remember it now - saying mouthless means not speaking or speaking something not clear.

Sir, Vivek likes to quote Sayana and hence i included Sayana in this discussion. However, what matters is that sayana also did not give a positive connotation for the word dasyu. Sayana mentioned dasyus as enemies of the aryas (Ref: The Modern review, Volumes 13-14, P.607). Something on Sayana: The Encyclopaedia Of Indian ... - Google Books

why british period people also cannot be taken. looks to me you are believing one
set of people only. can we not see all people what they write, find out the logical correct things and then form opinions?

Personally, i do not think all westerners had / have vested interests. And those associated with the academia can be taken as references. But since Vivek is not comfortable with westerners, i have not included their views for this discussion.

I was searching web in this connection and found this book-

The Aryas, facts without fancy and ... - Google Books

after reading some pages i think it is a good book. don't know if you have read my first book. but looks to me from such books as if those who wrote veda remembered a lot of battles and enemies of all types. they added imagination from their side and praised gods for helping them to win all these enemies. so, AIT or no-AIT, lots of wars, fights, battles were there and we don't know in the end what happened. in some aryas could have completely killed the other side, in others aryas might have got killed (which they will not like to write and shame themselves - it is like that even in history writing is it not?). in some others the two sides might have peace treaty and so on.

This is the confused picture i get. if it is correct what use discussions are going to be?

Thankyou for the book link. The working link for others to read: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...m=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dasyu&f=false

I do not know of what use the discussions are to others, but to me, it is just the exploration of the past. Its about understanding from where some of our present day notions come; and the sense of trying to figure out what really happened. And perhaps in future to tell all sides of the story to the younger generation in a balanced mature manner, such that they will regard the past with grace and dignity, not divisiveness.

Regards.

NOTE: Vivek, this post is not for you. Request you to stay out of it. Am not interested in reading posts which are full of the same old POVs (repeated without any references / basis). I expect that the conversation with you is completed (unless you provide verses from the Rig Samhita where aryas have been mentioned as dasyus). Thanks.

 

[sudeshwer]

I am afraid we have to grow. unparliamentary language should be avoided. please let us learn to be more polite to one another. certainly. I learn quite a bit, but such conversation shakes me.

 

[happyhindu]

I am afraid we have to grow. unparliamentary language should be avoided. please let us learn to be more polite to one another. certainly. I learn quite a bit, but such conversation shakes me.

Sri Sudeshwar,

Am sorry to read your note. Being polite is unfortunately a 2-way traffic. Its not possible to expect one side to be polite all the time when the other side does not respond in the same manner.

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - Show me where Sayana or any commentator calls Arya and Dasyu as CLANS/TRIBES.

"•Aryas offered fire oblations to the vedic devas. Dasyus did not."

Yes, and Brigus, Purus and the other clans which were enemies of Sudas and who were called "Dasyu" in Rig 7.6.3 do just that in their traditions which you call "arya". Speaking of "warring factions" is one thing because the words "arya" and "dasyu" have never been used for factions (to say clans or tribes). The described war is itself an "inner war" about character traits.

"•Vedanta as we know it today did not exist in the pre-buddhist times because Badrayan lived and wrote Brahmasutra in the post-buddhist times."

Yes, you say "Vedanata as we know it". But no one even in Adi Shankaracharya's time said he came up with something new, it was a revival. No narration of vedanta be it from even modern writers like P. Sankaranarayan, or Swami Parthasarthy say that vedanta is not from the vedas, or that it only came from a "part of it".

"•Adi Shankara need not have spoken about Samhitas / aryas / dasyus since his intension was to spread Advaita."

But nobody throughout history though has spoken that the samhitas refer to "bull liped, noseless, dark skinned" people as dasyus. Did Sayana say people with dark skin were dasyus, or did he say dasyus were a tribe or clan? No. Everyone read the same samhitas that are present today, yet somhow you claim the "meanings got changed". Yet nobody ever mentions that this change happened anytime.

"•Works of pre-british commentators such as Sayana, Medhatithi, Yaska, and any Sanskrit grammarian, particularly of the Nirukta discipline."

Yes, and where does Sayana say arya and dasyu are warring factions (clans)? The "war" between aryas and dasyus (which I don't deny is mentioned) is not a war of actual clans. The vedas wouldn't require to mention such a thing, otherwise it would have to mention zillion other actual wars that took place. Sayana DOESN'T mention arya or dasyu as a clan or tribe - that is my point.

"If one wishes to prove that Sayana did not refer dasyus while talking about anasa"

I didn't say that, I said Sayana (nor anyone) refered to Dasyus as "noseless". And a deeper study shows that he didn't because "anasa" itself can be interpretted in many ways. The fact that translators like Griffith made it "noseless" was to potray an allusion to african-like black people, in order to show falsely that a race war exists in the vedas. You obviously have read authors and translations but are oblivious of the nuances of the era in which they translated or spoke.

"Vivek likes to quote Sayana and hence i included Sayana in this discussion. However, what matters is that sayana also did not give a positive connotation for the word dasyu. "

I never said he did give a "positive connotation"! I am only saying he NEVER mention arya or dasyu as a tribe or clan. Your claim was that they were such clans. The truth is clans had names like Brigus, Yadu, Ikshvaku, Kuru etc. - these are clans. Arya and Dasyu were given more like "servile minded", "honourable", "good" etc (character traits).

"Personally, i do not think all westerners had / have vested interests. And those associated with the academia can be taken as references. But since Vivek is not comfortable with westerners"

"Not comfortable with westerners"? funny. Not all westerners (today) spread ideas like Griffith did, but the fact that Max Müller, T.H. Griffith and many others were in part of a propaganda to spread a message that Hinduism was about racism, is a fact of its time - similar saying brahmins practiced caste discrimination. Stating that doesn't mean one is "not comfortable" its just fact. In the same way many writers, like B.G. Tilak, Apte, Chaturvedi accept views from these foreign men because they lived in a time when they studied the propaganda, they felt pride in associating with Europeans.

Even today NCERT teaches Aryan Invasion as a 100% correct material even when numerous inconsistencies have risen of the theory which tells a lot about our education board and "academia". You yourself deny aryan invasion, but its still academically accepted.

"I also do not beleive in race theories nor do i think there was any sort of "invasion" - either aryan or otherwise. They were just tribalistic wars and squabbles and that is all there is to it. "

Sure, now that is going against academics of men like Max Müller isn't it? Should this be taken as reference because it is "associated with academia"? Bottomline is you fail to see the nuances of these theories but merely accept them because so and so person said so. There are texts that define "arya" too. Given that the people who defined the word clearly read the veda samhitas too, its absurd to think they missed the original meaning which you or Apte, et al supposedly have found in the veda samhitas which changed in the "itihassa period" without mention of its original meaning of an arya or dasyu tribe or clan.

"I said vishnu like indra went on a killing spree. In simple english it means vishnu and indra went on a killing spree. It does not mean the rig samhita is all about killings."

Sure, just that no one else mentioned that the samhitas were about killings. If you can't understand what I am "repeating" (which I am indeed), it only means you haven't understood anything I am saying.

"Although it is quite true that it is in a large part about wars."

And why would you believe thousands of people who read the samhitas before you, or Chaturvedi or Apte, or Griffith missed this? Did Sayana ever say samhitas are "large part about wars"? Did anyone. You claim they didn't need to comment on it, but even people who have wrote about the vedas and claim vedanta to be derived from the vedas, not just a part, don't claim it was "large part about wars".

" So there is no need to imagine things and put words into my mouth. "

I put nothing in your mouth, only quote the very words you use. "Killing spree", "large part about wars".

"For B, google book links were already provided in previous posts where Sayana mentioned Aryas and Dasyus as warring factions (Sayana too uses the term dasyu as a slave)."

Yes, I never denied that dasa had connotations. What I did deny was that arya, dasa and dasyu were tribes. No one, not even Sayana ever mention arya or dasyu as being a tribe or a clan. So you have not answered B.

"For A, in the previous posts i already mentioned why there is no need for shankara to have spoken about the samhitas."

What becomes relevant is that no one spoke of the samhitas as an account of war, except for modern writers, at and after the British era. The book I mentioned by P. Sankaranaryana mentions vedas as relevant to the vednata philosophy entirely, not just in part.

"If vedas are all about philosophy then sushruta samhita, vedic mathematics, surya siddhanta and all such subjects / branches should also come under 'philosophy'. And just 'coz Shankara did not speak of such texts ( or on such topics), does not automatically mean that such fields did not exist."

Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to say since the start. Read my first post of this thread which mentions that it was likely philosophy of epistomology. The fact is not just Adi Shankaracharya, NOBODY in the past called some one dasyu because of skin colour or shape of nose or anything like that, despite the fact that they read the exact samhitas you are reading.

"if you so wish, for the current discussion to move forward all you have to do is to explain where in rik 7.6.3 (or anywhere else in the rig samhita) has any group been called both aryas and dasyus. "

Mentioned in the first reply of this post =)

"Arya" becomes clear in the Mahabharata too, and it needn't be ignored merely because it was of the "itihassa" time - fact is people of that time too had the veda samhitas in the exact words we do today. So why would they go wrong or not even mention an oiriginal meaning? Your definition of an arya tribe you gave (at top if this post of mine) is exactly what clans like Brigus, Purus had, the fact that they were called dasyu was my very claim which I showed in RV 7.6.3. The point is nowhere is it said, so and so clans are arya or so and so are dasyu. They are given on a character trait basis. In the mahabharata too, the Pandavas, regarded as "arya" are called "anarya" after killing Drona by deceit. It hardly means their clan name changed something, it was so because of their character. Now the very people who wrote that verse were not oblivious of the veda samhita references either, which enforces my point that arya and dasyu are not clans.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Naraji - My explaination, sorry for the length

"Vivek, the answer to the above question is no, not merely out of favoritism.
Yes Vivek, AIT has been around for a long time, but only after the Hindutva forces scored success in mixing religion and electoral politics it has become a sort of a litmus test issue. Everyone must have an opinion on it. If you are for it, then you are a communist, or DK type, and if you are against it, then you are BJP or Brahmin, or something of that sort.
When I was growing up, the time when DK and DMK split and DMK was slowly gaining ascendancy, nobody talked about AIT. There was a lot of talk about Aryan and Dravidian, but nobody really objected that Brahmins were considered Aryan. Brahmins considered themselves as Aryans, and made no bones about it, they even touted it in public. "

My own parents studied aryan invasion in school and believe it for the primary reason that the brahmin population in TN lighter skinned in general, even though there are dark skinned brahmins. Brahmins of the recent past too, bought this idea of British propaganda and I myself believed it firsthand when I studied it in school. Though Happyhindu says she is against the AIT idea, the idea of dasyu or arya tribes is itself non-existent in any Indian text. The AIT propaganda was spread by the British when ideas of Indian nationalism were becoming stronger. We all studied this in school if you recall, because the Indian educational board doesn't accept the fact that this "theory" has numerous inconsistencies. Even the Germans who spread it at one time, have updated their idea that it was a propaganda of Europe at a past era.

If you read works of Thule's "root races" (H.P. Blavatsky), or Max Max Müller or familiarize yourself with the so-called "Nordic theory" which had many people involved through the 19th, and 20th century, you will see the propaganda that took shape right from the 1850s till the Nazi's use of Swastika in WW2. Post independence this idea became a good tool of propaganda against the brahmin populations in the south . We too saw and see this theory as a fact because we are lighter skinned in general and tend to accept the view thus.

Seeing history through, there is NO reference to an "aryan" clan or a "dasyu" clan or any invasion of one over the other. Nor were brahmins ever called foreigners in TN society. But then why are the brahmins of south India lighter skinned? Because they came from offshot N. Indian brahmin and even NB populations in more recent times (like that of the Vijayanagar Empire) when the south became centers of Hindu civilization and learning. In any case, innumerous "foreigners" came into Indian ethos through our history and in time probably even became brahmins (as they became so many other castes too). It still doesn't goes to say there was an "invasion" because the earliest account of what can be found regarding the culture was found no further than Sindh, Pakistan region. Historians infact consider the usage of "arya" in the Rig veda even older than the Zoroastrian accounts of the word. "Arya" doesn't refer to a lineage or tribe either, but to a character trait.

Instead, what parties like DMK would like us to believe is that we were an out of India foreign culture that invaded. The idea becaomes believable because it makes allusions to the colonial and slave history of countries like USA where the white people came as foreigners, and native people were destroyed. A large part of this propaganda is espoused by local (Indian) party like DK/DMK because of the hate against brahmins. That hate itself started because of the manner brahmins lived and treated others in society at one time (basically the social situation).

Finally, in no place - neither Hindu nor Zoroastrian, has the word "arya" been made to refer to a particular tribe or a people with so and so appearance. Nor the case with "dasyu". These are fabricated meanings to fit the Nordic theory originally from Europe, espoused by a party like DMK because it fits their propaganda view. Its this AIT's idea which eventually became the popular Nazis idea of "Aryan race of blond haired, white skinned" people. References to "bull lipped, dark skinned, noseless" by men like Griffith are overtones to refer to a supposed "african-like black" people were supposedly invaded in India by Europeans labelled in the propaganda as "aryans". This of course gained root in DMK's propaganda because brahmins were high castes and evidently lighter skinned too. The Hindutva doesn't have any intellectual dimension to it to be frank, but they defend against AIT merely because they feel they need to save the idea of their culture as being native. While many parts of "Hindu" culture may have been of foreign origin, the idea that the vedas were is absurd because the language and the philosophy it supposedly derives are unique to India's ethos. Lastly, not one account exists of an "arya-dasyu" war. Even the Sindhi locals who helped men like Charles Masson discover IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) told him their legends, after which he started excavations. Fact is, these people had legends of IVC actually, which was the hint to Masson. But they too never said the area was destroyed by "aryan" invaders, or never said there was an arya-dasyu war. But Griffith and others wanted to spread that notion.

"1.Please state in simple language what your main thesis is on the subject matter under discussion. Please state your view only, do not include what you think the other person is saying."

My claim is that this idea that arya or dasyus were clans or tribes is an absurd idea because nobody in India's past very well aware of the veda samhitas gave the meanings Happyhindu is. Our entire history and its authors don't know of any "arya clans" or "dasyu clans". Word like "arya" is infact even defined - and the people who defined it had read the same veda samhitas we do today. So my inquiry is how could they have got it supposedly wrong or a different meaning after "the itihassa period", when they read the same veda samhitas? It goes to thus reason that what we have today is a twisted interpretation which is invalid. Also, I give some weight to nuances of the time - the fact that British authors of the British era were politically motivated to spreading an idea. Other authors like Apte, Chaturvedi et al have studied the same matter when it entered academics.

Further, I find it intriguing that something like Nadi, has a claim of coming from the vedas, when the vedas are supposedly as dry as a bunch of hymns which mean nothing more than their direct meaning. I had experienced some stranger telling my name by merely looking at my finger print, surely this method has a source and its practicers claims its source is the vedas. Thus my idea is its definitely something more than a direct reference to what's written. Philosophies like all the schools of vedanata too claim to have come from the vedas - without exception of the ved samhitas.

"2.What sources of knowledge are acceptable for you as authentic? Please be as specific as you can, state authors if you wish."

The sources of what Happyhindu is stating, or contrary for it exist in academic circles. For instance, Ambedkar argued on lines I am - that there is no arya or dasyu race ever mention. The commentators of vedanta unanimously agree that vedanta is indeed a conclusion of the vedas and they don't say it has nothing to do with the ved samhitas - but say it has everything to do with the vedas entirely, period. Happyhindu is quoting people who support the idea and claiming their knowledge as absolute. But even they haven't pointed where a dasyu or arya tribe is mentioned throughout the Indian scriptures - there exists none.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri VPK

Thanks a lot. =)
I really appreciate it because I take time to post my points as clearly as I can, and I am sure so does Sow. HH and others who post. Its nice to know members are reading, and appreciate the views.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[sarma-61]

Further, I find it intriguing that something like Nadi, has a claim of coming from the vedas, when the vedas are supposedly as dry as a bunch of hymns which mean nothing more than their direct meaning. I had experienced some stranger telling my name by merely looking at my finger print, surely this method has a source and its practicers claims its source is the vedas. Thus my idea is its definitely something more than a direct reference to what's written.

Shri Vivek Sir,

Just like the Nadi jyotsyar you are saying, there are few astrologers, palmists and all who will tell a few things about your past (only) and impress you. then you fall into a trap of complete belief. your brain becomes fuddle.

I came to know from a good friend that these such people usually have "kuttichaatthaan Sevai", or "karnayakshi sevai" meaning they do some black-magic like things in secret and get some evil spirits to help them tell some sure things about the past of the persons coming to them for advice on their horoscope and all that. but it is only past and that impresses because past cannot be changed, you see, it has already happened. As an example even if you note down some very silly thing like number of idlis you ate on such-and-such date morning, sometimes the astrologer/palmist will give correct answer because the evil spirit reads your mind. My friend showed one book containing karnayakshi mantram and how to go about it also.

very recently i came to know of a case. a tb boy more than 30 years, no good job, no girl saying yes for marriage. he sent thumb impression to Nadi jyotsyan. A card came after 10 days giving appointment about a month later, particular date and time. Just as you say the nadi fellow astounded this boy (youth) telling his name, parents' names, only brother - no sister, brother has one son, their names and all that, and some other items from past. This TB youth got completely purchased by that nadi man, gave him hefty fees and also spent lot of money going to so many of navagraha temples in Thanjavur side and performing all poojas which Nadi man told him to do. According to the nadi prediction, the marriage should happen in this month. Anyway no indication till today.


I asked him if there can be a big fraud in this because the Nadi man got about more than a month's time to make enquiries through some local contacts.

Does he remember if the so-called predictions were unknowingly blurted out by himself and later told as if the Nadi man is predicting-for this the young man did not give clear reply as he could not remember everything clearly.

This Nadi man also says it is all from vedam, or some Nadi grantham like Sukra nadi, agastyar nadi and all. many of these Nadi people have outstation branches who will book orders from say, mumbai, pune, etc., give appointment on which day the real nadi man will come to that centre and give predictions. this here also same magic of telling about family, parents' names and some small past incidents - probably collected by the out-agency fellows or through kuttichathan, helps them.

I don't think nadis can be linked to vedas by any stretch of imagination, unless some good person deciphers one complete set of a Nadi grantham and finds out how it contains lives of thousands of people including those who have gone to permanently live abroad(in their case also they predict, you see!) and how it uses veda.

 

[Nara]

Vivek,

First, I thank you and Happy for taking me seriously and giving your response. Let me try to summarize your answers to the two questions I posed.

1. What is your position?
Happy:

• Aryas and Dasyus were warring factions, and,
• Vedas are not all about philosophy. Vedanta is not an interpretation or conclusion of the Vedas.

Vivek:

• [the] idea that arya or dasyus were clans or tribes is an absurd idea.
• [...] what we have today is a twisted interpretation which is invalid.
• Nadi, has a claim of coming from the vedas, my idea is its definitely something more than a direct reference to what's written. Philosophies like all the schools of vedanata too claim to have come from the vedas - without exception of the ved samhitas.

Vivek, I asked you to state your thesis without getting into what Happy was saying. But you start out by saying her views are absurd! Do you have to do that?

In any case, let us examine where we are with respect to the matter under discussion. The title of this thread is, "Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpreting Scriptures". From what you two have written, it seems AIT is not what is at dispute, the dispute is only about interpreting scriptures.

In this subsection, "Interpreting Scriptures", there are two points of contention, (a) Who are Arya and Dasyu? and (b) What is Vedanta?

For (a) Happy has given lots of academic references. These academic references are not acceptable to you (more on this later). Under this condition we have to leave this as is, unresolved. People can make up their mind based on the materials presented so far, no further discussion is warranted.

Next, about Vedanta, let me paraphrase what I think is your case, correct me if I am wrong.

You have personal experience that Nadi has special power, Nadi people claim their source of knowledge is Vedas, so the claim of Vedanta people that their knowledge is from Vedas could/must be true.
​

While this may make perfect sense to you, for an average person this is far from persuasive.

Brahmnical schools consider the whole of Vedas as immutable and aupurusehya. So, it is not surprising that Brahminists claim their Vedantam, whether A, or VA, or D, is the unadulterated truth, extracted out of Poorvamimamsa. You are taking this orthodox Brahminical approach, which is fine.

Happy, on the other hand, sees no direct link between the highly intellectual musings found in Vedanta -- Upanashads, and the mundane ramblings of rituals, wars, and even some vulgar passages that Shri Sangom cited and explained. So, her stand that Vedanta is not an interpretation or some sort of logical conclusion of the mundane, and to me inane, ritualistic poorva mimamsa, is a valid one -- may not be acceptable to you, but nevertheless a valid one.

Once again we have an unbridgeable gap, both of you have had your say, now it is time to just leave it to the readers to make up their mind in whichever way they want.

2. Acceptable source of knowledge
Happy:

• Pre-british commentators such as Sayana, Medhatithi, Yaska, and any Sanskrit grammarian, particularly of the Nirukta discipline.
• Later day writers such as Devadutta Bandarkar, RG Bhandarkar, Vaman Apte, and anyone associated with and/or validated by the academia.
• Verses from the Vedas themselves. This I would consider most important.

Vivek:

• Not what Happyhindu is stating
• Ambedkar

First about Ambedkar, he was a constitutional lawyer and a true intellectual giant. He spent his life fighting for social justice for all human beings. His views must be given due consideration and weight. But you cited him only to bolster your objections on AIT, on which there is no dispute as far as I can tell.

You cite no other authority except that you do not accept those that Happy accepts. So, it is clear that no common ground can be found when there is not even scope for a sliver of intersection between what you two can agree as authoritative knowledge. So, there is better chance of hell freezing over than either of you convincing the other.

Vivek, one last thing, you stated you were being honest when you admitted you have no knowledge on this subject. I do think this is commendable. Nobody can be knowledgeable in every field. For every 1 field in which you lack knowledge, probably there are 10 fields that I lack knowledge in. Lacking knowledge is not a vice, and admitting it sure is a virtue.

What I am objecting to is not the lack of knowledge part or the honesty part, I appreciate that. But, it is your persistence on having strong unshakable opinion on that same topic that is untenable. You are also going further and deriding Happy repeatedly on those same topics, and this is unacceptable.

Alright Vivek, I am done, now that we have had a full airing of our views let us move on to other equally pointless time pass .

Thank you ....

 

[happyhindu]

I thank Nara Sir for the post above.

I would like to inform the readers that there is not a single Sanskrit professor, including those of the elite BHU, who have claimed that "the described war is itself an "inner war" about character traits". Kindly do not be misled by such falsity.

Am done with Vivek. It wud be foolishness on my part to go on replying to repetitions made without references / basis. Therefore am moving on.

I thot of making this post because i feel some people may be mislead about Sayana.

This book describes the physical description given by Sayana for Dasyus as faceless and having defective organs of speech. Sayana also interpreted the verse containing krsna-tvac to mean a demon named Krsna, who was defeated and stripped of his skin by Indra: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anyways, Sayana basically defines Aryas to be
1) stotarah, those that sing hymns (Comm. on R.V.i.103),
2) karmayiiktSni, practising fire-rites (Comm. on R.V.vi.22.10),
3) karmanushthSLtrit-vena sreshtani, most excellent through doing fire-rites (Comm. on R.V.vi.33.).

Sayana defines Dasyus to be
1) anushthatrinam upakshapayitarah s'atravah, that is, enemies who destroy the observers of fire-rites, (Comm. on RV.i.51.8).
2) karmaaSm upakshapayitrih, that is, destroyers of rites (Comm. on RV.vi. 25).
3) karraahinah, that is, riteless (Comm.on RV.vi.60.6).

Shri PT Srinivasa Iyengar has written about the above definations given by Sayana and has also summed up the differences between Aryas and Dasyus as below: [Taken from Read the ebook History of the Indian people. Life in ancient India in the age of the mantras by P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar ]

A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasa and Dasyu occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These words occur mostly in the Rig Veda Samhita, where ' Arya ' occurs about 33 times in Mantras which contain 1,53,972 words on the whole. This rare occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves " Aryas " were not invading tribes that conquered the country and exterminated the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its achievements constantly.

The word 'Dasa' occurs about 50 times and 'Dasyus' about 70 times. The comparatively more frequent occurrence of these two words is due to their use in some of these passages, the first in the sense of slave or servant, and the second of robber. Where these words are not used in these meanings they refer either to demons or to men who were opposed to the Aryas.

The word Arya occurs 22 times in hymns to Indra and 6 times in hymns to Agni; (and) Dasa, 45 times in hymns to Indra, twice in hymns to Agni; and Dasyu 50 times in hymns to Indra and 9 times in hymns to Agni. The constant association of these words with Indra clearly proves that Arya meant a worshipper of Indra (and Agni) and Dasa or Dasyu meant either demons opposed to Indra or the people that worshipped these demons.

That the Aryas worshipped Indra and he helped them in their cattle-raids and other quarrels is the constant burden of the Mantras where the word Arya occurs. The Aryas offered oblations to Indra, through Agni and next to Indra, Agni was their great helper (RV.vii.18.7, viii.92.i, etc).

The Dasyus or Dasas were those who were opposed to the Indra-Agni cult and are so explicitly described in those passages where human Dasyus are clearly meant. They are avrata, without (the Arya) rites (RV.i.51.8,9,i.132.4, iv.41.2, vi. 14. 3), apavrata, (RV.V.42.9), anyavrata, of different rites (R.V.viii.59.11, x.22.8), anagnitra, fireless (RV.189.3), ayajyu, ayajvana, non-sacrificers (RV.i.131,4.i.33,4,viii.59.11), abrahma, without prayers (or also not having Brahmana priests) (R.V.iv.16.9, X.105.8), anrichah, without Riks (R.V.x.105.8), brahmadvisha, haters of prayer (or Brahmanas), (RV.V. 42. 9), and anindra, without Indra, despisers of Indra (R.V.i.133.i, v.2.3, vii.18.6, x.27.6, x.48.7).

They pour no milky draughts; they heat no cauldron (R.V.iii.53.4). They give no gifts to the Brahmana (R.V.V.7.10). Men fight the fiend and seek by rites to overcome the riteless foe (R.V.vi.14.3). Their worship was but enchantment (R.V.iii.34.3), sorcery (R.V.iv.16.9), unlike the sacred law of fire-worship (R.V.v.12.2), (and consisted of) wiles and magic (R.V.v.31.7, vi.20 4) (and) godless arts of magic (R.V.vii.i.10). Contrariwise the Aryans were those who worshipped Indra and Agni [Indra- Agni].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is due to the cultural differences between the aryas and dasas that commentators and historians have frequently used the term "tribes" and "cults", to refer to the arya (cult / tribe) and dasyu (cult / tribe).

A lot of people including Shri PT Srinivasa Iyengar have debunked the racial difference between dasyus and aryas.

Each time we blame Griffith for mentioning race, we must also remember that the co-author of Griffith's works was Jagdish Lal Shastri.

Both the men, Ralph Griffith and Jagdish Shastri took the help of Sayana's interpretations / translations while doing the English translation of the Vedic literature.

Griffith and Shastri utilized Sayana's bhasya to convey that aryas and dasyus were seperate races. Interested readers can read more about the usage of Sayana's commentary in the translation of Griffith and Shastri here: The hymns of the R̥gveda - Google Books

It is unfortunate that the english equivalent of words like Vamsha (lineage), Gotra (lineage), Kula (clan), Jaata (birth group), etc, have been translated as "race".

Intead of blaming Griffith alone, we may wish to take an alternate view regarding, why some Brahmins during the colonial period allowed such a (racial) view to pass off as popular view. It is quite possible that some Brahmins in the colonial period were keen to have an exclusive image of themselves and hence did not oppose the race theories at that time itself.

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu - You still didn't point Arya or Dasyu tribes.

"I would like to inform the readers that there is not a single Sanskrit professor, including those of the elite BHU, who have
claimed that "the described war is itself an "inner war" about character traits". Kindly do not be misled by such falsity."

But there is not a single "Sanskrir professor" prior to the British era who even spoke of a war between Dasyu and Arya
tribes. How so? If I was to take references in vedas as literary, please explain what a "bull jawed" person looks like - a
figment of fiction? I would like to inform readers that Happyhindu's claims are completely picked out of literature of propaganda that flourished in the British era, and post British era.

"Sayana basically defines Aryas to be
1) stotarah, those that sing hymns (Comm. on R.V.i.103),
2) karmayiiktSni, practising fire-rites (Comm. on R.V.vi.22.10),
3) karmanushthSLtrit-vena sreshtani, most excellent through doing fire-rites (Comm. on R.V.vi.33.)."

"Sayana defines Dasyus to be
1) anushthatrinam upakshapayitarah s'atravah, that is, enemies who destroy the observers of fire-rites, (Comm. on
RV.i.51.8).
2) karmaaSm upakshapayitrih, that is, destroyers of rites (Comm. on RV.vi. 25).
3) karraahinah, that is, riteless (Comm.on RV.vi.60.6)."

Yes, and viswamitra who did all the "arya" things in his life (as per his own story) was an enemy of Sudas in the Battle of
Ten Kings refered to as Dasyu in RV 7.6.3 ! You have already made contradiction in this thread by claiming RV is a "vaishnavite text" when I showed it contains Mahamrityumjaya Mantra to Rudra/Shiva.

Anyway, this above claim is wrong because Sayana (and nobody) "defined" it that way, you are merely picking what was said of them. For instance, saying "Vivek is typing" doesn't mean a Vivek is defined as a person that types. That is why it requires you to point out where a tribe called itself an "Arya" tribe or any tribe that was called a "Dasyu" tribe/clan through Indian history which you fail to do. Are the many clans classified as Arya and Dasyu? Such a classification is itself non-existent.

Arya is used in a moral sense which is clear in the Mahabharata scene of the Pandavas killing Dronacharya. The people who wrote that part in the Mahabharata were clearly aware of the ved samhitas too.

Vivekananda when speaking of a "spiritually born child" was speaking of just this (moral meaning) of arya too. The vanars
for instance, like Sugreeva is called arya by Ram. Sugreeva never did fire-rites, but was called Arya. In short: all these that
Sayana mentions are references to peity - which was considered "arya". Aryas however are not defined by this. Perhaps Nara should consider Vivekananda's views too, even if he thinks Ambedkar's is not academic enough.

"The Dasyus or Dasas were those who were opposed to the Indra-Agni cult and are so explicitly described in those passages where human Dasyus are clearly meant. They are avrata, without (the Arya) rites (RV.i.51.8,9,i.132.4, iv.41.2, vi. 14. 3), apavrata, (RV.V.42.9), anyavrata, of different rites (R.V.viii.59.11, x.22.8), anagnitra, fireless (RV.189.3), ayajyu, ayajvana, non-sacrificers (RV.i.131,4.i.33,4,viii.59.11), abrahma, without prayers (or also not having Brahmana priests) (R.V.iv.16.9, X.105.8), anrichah, without Riks (R.V.x.105.8), brahmadvisha, haters of prayer (or Brahmanas), (RV.V. 42. 9), and anindra, without Indra, despisers of Indra (R.V.i.133.i, v.2.3, vii.18.6, x.27.6, x.48.7)""

Yes, and all of these have alternative meanings, you yourself put it correctly in outside and inside bracket in one term "without prayers" (or also not having Brahmana preists). Which one is it? Vrata for instance doesn't mean religious rites as we know today - but religious discipline in general (from the etymology). Other references are said of dasyus but don't define them - like I said of "bull jawed" or "krnsa" - these are references to particular dasyus - not a definition of them.

" The constant association of these words with Indra clearly proves that Arya meant a worshipper of Indra (and Agni) and
Dasa or Dasyu meant either demons opposed to Indra or the people that worshipped these demons. "

Yet in another place you tell Indra killed aryas too if he wanted. Its time to even get your erraneous ideas straight =)

"The Dasyus or Dasas were those who were opposed to the Indra-Agni cult"

And maybe you can prove this by pointing an "Indra-Agni" cult in Indian history. Your claims are all like this:
You point something in translations, when I ask you to point it out in actual history, you say its been washed by the sands
of time.

Considering that the samhitas are intact, where does Sayana or anyone speak of a "cult". Why would brahmins in their
rightful mind read these verses you point to, and still work in temples, and have a "mixed culture" without even
mentioning it?

"Each time we blame Griffith for mentioning race, we must also remember that the co-author of Griffith's works was
Jagdish Lal Shastri."

Yes, who like so many Indians were convinced that they were brahmins because of their alleged "aryan" linkage to
Europeans like Griffith.

"Ralph Griffith and Jagdish Shastri took the help of Sayana's interpretations / translations while doing the English translation
of the Vedic literature. "

Yet Sayana doesn't speak that a historical war between clans called "dasyu and arya" happened! Nor does he call so an so clans Arya or Dasyu - he was refering to peity, sense of moral etc (within people/an individual) - NOT category of clans or tribes. Why was arya used to people and not to clans in history? "Arya"bhtta, "Arya" Samaj - has nothing to do with the fact they do "fire rites".

Your stance is to point that the classification of tribes through Indian history was that of "Arya" and "Dasyu" - which you have failed to do.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Nara

"Vivek, I asked you to state your thesis without getting into what Happy was saying. But you start out by saying her views
are absurd!"

I have given my point in my post. I had to state HH's claims because part of my point itself is that HH's claims are wrong
as they fall correctly into the type of propaganda DK, DMK and British had/have us believe.

"(a) Happy has given lots of academic references. These academic references are not acceptable to you (more on this
later)."

Happyhindu herself doesn't accept the Aryan Invasion theory, yet what she is proposing (an idea of arya and dasyu
"warring factions") is a version of the theory that has come out of the original propaganda.

"You have personal experience that Nadi has special power, Nadi people claim their source of knowledge is Vedas, so the
claim of Vedanta people that their knowledge is from Vedas could/must be true."

The issue of vedanta is completely different - nothing to do with my personal experience but the claim of the people. I am
still familiarizing myself with Vedanta philosophy. The very question here that I am asking is "Why would men like P.
Sankaranaryan even claim that even their modern day commentaries on Vedanta come from the Vedas?". If it merely
means modernity of view to ignore what has been said through history, such a view can't be taken as accurate merely
because its new.

"So, her stand that Vedanta is not an interpretation or some sort of logical conclusion of the mundane, and to me inane,
ritualistic poorva mimamsa, is a valid one -- may not be acceptable to you, but nevertheless a valid one."

And when did I claim vedanta was a "logical conclusion of the mundane"? Consider these question: If vedas are all about rituals, what part of it even gets the name from vedas? "vedanta". Who ever mention samhitas were to be separated in this consideration? Happyhindu wishes to have us believe that all the men right from Adi Shankaracharya to P. Sankaranarayan had wrong ideas of their literature, while herself and some post British era historians got it right. How is that valid to you?

"•Verses from the Vedas themselves. This I would consider most important."

What is even more important is the commentary others have on the samhitas. Even "Sayana, Medhatithi, Yaska, and any
Sanskrit grammarian, particularly of the Nirukta discipline" who HH speaks of never called arya or dasyu tribes or clans, nor as classification of tribes or clans. You never have any thing saying Dasyus lived in so and so region or Aryas lived in so and so region.

The wars in the vedas, were never considered to be between two warring factions or an invasion or a tribal war by these
people. This is why I asked Happyhindu to point out where Dasyu tribe or clan exists, where an Arya clan or tribe exists. Its never been spoken of in history, despite the fact that the samhitas have been the exact ones we are reading.

"Vivek, one last thing, you stated you were being honest when you admitted you have no knowledge on this subject."

I have fair reading of the translations and their various interpretations by authors - if you even
call that "knowledge" on the vedas. Numerous things are said about the dasyus and aryas, but none of them a definitions of them other than the moral terms they are (like Vivekananda used). He too was learned.

For you to claim Ambedkar had no knowledge on the matter is wrong, he had read on this and the brahmin tradition
too, as he had on Buddhism. Nowhere did he find anyone speak of an arya or dasyu clan/tribe either.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sarma-61 - Are we to ignore or shun what we can't understand calling it "dark magic"?

"Just like the Nadi jyotsyar you are saying, there are few astrologers, palmists and all who will tell a few things about your
past (only) and impress you. then you fall into a trap of complete belief. your brain becomes fuddle."

Thats the easiest way to ignore something you can't explain. A caveman would ignore aeronautical engineering saying it was "dark magic" to make a metal object fly. Whether by whatever magic you pupossedly claim, you are still left to explain as to how a stranger knew my name or anyone's for that matter, from the thumb print and tells some details. Andthe nadi readers don't have any spiritual powers, nor claim that - they are just reading from a place. The British while they were in India, were impressed by this thing too - they could have hardly contacted everyone.

"I don't think nadis can be linked to vedas by any stretch of imagination"

That is their claim, which I hope to verify in the future. Even if vedas aren't its source, it must have some source which I believe needs to be found.

"he sent thumb impression to Nadi jyotsyan. A card came after 10 days giving appointment about a month later, particular
date and time. Just as you say the nadi fellow astounded this boy (youth) telling his name, parents' names, only brother -
no sister, brother has one son, their names and all that, and some other items from past. This TB youth got completely
purchased by that nadi man, gave him hefty fees and also spent lot of money going to so many of navagraha temples in
Thanjavur side and performing all poojas which Nadi man told him to do. "

This man told things the instant he saw, not after 10 days. In any case, there may very well be many frauds out there - it doesn't go to say
that there is nothing about the practice itself. If you can explain by what process people in the past wrote my name in the leaf
you have your answer. But, not you, not me, not anyone "rational" can explain it. But sure, ignorance is bliss for some.

Regards,
Vivek.