Theory of Aryan Invasion and Interpretting Scriptures

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

sh.nara, pls take it as a sarcasm, i'm, sure you would have grasped it already. after all you only took a strong stand with sh,krs to permit sarcasm, as a legitimate mode of conveying message.

Yes ShivKC, I did not want sarcasm banned completely. That is not to say, (i) all sarcasm is in good taste, and (ii) sarcasm must not be opposed. In this case, if you want me to see this as sarcasm, then I say it is in very bad taste and I oppose it.

... any man with indian passport goes to america, can only be a guest for that country,not be an american,though every one with a visa is permitted inside. more importantly, the visitor is expected to follow the law of the visiting land and as well the etiquettes/customs of the place. while in rome, be a roman.

ShivKC, this analogy does not work at all. Even though this forum is named tamilbrahmins.com it is not restricted to Brahmins only let alone only tamilbrahmins. Praveen, the sole owner of this web site has made this point clear time and time again. So, Happyhindu is no more or no less a guest here as any of us. The rules of the forum apply to all of us in equal measure. We are all guests here, you can check out anytime, but can never leave .

you've come closer. Who are the public here? definitely the tamilbrahmins, right. if this a forum for amercian public, i'm sure all your posts would be a welcoming one. unfortunately, this is essentially a TB forum. hope that clarifies.

It is amazing that you take it upon yourself to provide these explanations, you are not the owner, neither are you a moderator. FYI, in as much as this is an open forum and anybody can come and browse its content, by definition the audience/pubic is most definetely not just TB. From what Praveen has stated many times, this is a forum to discuss issues that concern TB, both for and against. The caveats are only to be civil and not be constantly negative.

Now, you, and many others, may feel some of the caveats are being transgressed. If so, you are welcome to state them with precise evidence. But you or I or anyone else have no right or authority to say who is a guest and who is not.

re, deleting of posts,this is like, I have done the robbery, and when caught by cops, surrender the loot, and claim clean. damage once done, is difficult to compensate.

This is just utter nonsense. Many people by nature are apologetic and often start out by saying, "Sorry to intrude", or "I apologize if I hurt the feeling" and so on. ShivKC, I just can't believe you are going on with such silliness. Let it go, let us talk about something more interesting, like missionaries or something. You know, many Jesuits spend their entire lives living with and helping hapless people all around the world. I disagree with their religion completely, but I really admire their commitment to their ideology of helping the poor.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

sh.nara, will respond upon getting the reply from smt.happyhindu.

 

[happyhindu]

sh.nara, will respond upon getting the reply from smt.happyhindu.

Shiva,

You are free to hold any sort of opinion you please as regards my presence here, or on my posts or on anything else as you please. Just wanted to let you know that i will not be responding to your posts anymore. You need not wait for any reply from me in order to respond to Shri Nara.

Regards.

 

[ShivKC]

Shiva,
You are free to hold any sort of opinion you please as regards my presence here, or on my posts or on anything else as you please. Just wanted to let you know that i will not be responding to your posts anymore. You need not wait for any reply from me in order to respond to Shri Nara.
Regards.

smt.happyhindu, you are free to stay away in responding to my post. but you have an obligation to respond to me, when you made a sweeping allegation that 'I'm of the club of threesome, who are behind you asking for your identity', and when i asked u to refer the post where in I sought your identity, but now you are taking shelter under 'the right to remain silent'. I deserve an explanation here, where I was behind your identity??.

fact is, like sh.nara, i also as a principle,donot run behind the poster or value one's post by his identity.
.........here, i wanted to highlight your changing stands to the forum members, esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.

here i voice in support of the twosome sh.pannvalan/sh.tambra who openly asked for your identity, because, you at some point of time, may be a year or two ago, your were spotted of asking to reveal new members identity (thanks to the SEARCH option in our forum).

i spend almost two hours yesterday, using the seach option typing the key word REVEAL+IDENTITY and applied on all your posts. so tiresomely, i copied and pasted the message+url+post no, unfortunately my machine ran out of battery power and got shut down, before i could connect it to the mains, and lost that post.

anyways, im refreshing my memory of yesterdays search session, and posting few of your changing-stands an year ago, though I dont have the url/post no to give it as an evidence, 'at the moment'. I amrunning short of time to do the same search, but will do again if you insist..

here are some.

1) at one post you and ID - KRS were jointly demanding the identity of a person. on that post, you claimed that you have already openly admitted to the forum that you are an NB, and asked the other member the same to reveal, hoping he is an NB hiding with a TB forum id name

2) to another poster, you asked him to reveal his identity, and you projected him to be a christian missionary.

i dont remember the ID's of thaose person. But if you are refuting this, I can prove my point,n all I need to do is, do again those search , go through reading of 400 posts, repeatedly press Ctrl+F etc, and spend another 2 hrs. Im sure you may not ask me for that, cos you know well yourself about your changing stands.

your changing stand is not bad, but expecting others to change their stands, and projecting them in badtaste is not a good one.

so, please clarify your allegations, of me running behind your identity. You are accountable here with a response,and also accountable to the twosome whoom you claimed that they are behind your identity , but you yourself were at somepoint of time doing this..

 

[happyhindu]

smt.happyhindu, you are free to stay away in responding to my post. but you have an obligation to respond to me, when you made a sweeping allegation that 'I'm of the club of threesome, who are behind you asking for your identity', and when i asked u to refer the post where in I sought your identity, but now you are taking shelter under 'the right to remain silent'. I deserve an explanation here, where I was behind your identity??.

fact is, like sh.nara, i also as a principle,donot run behind the poster or value one's post by his identity.
.........here, i wanted to highlight your changing stands to the forum members, esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.

here i voice in support of the twosome sh.pannvalan/sh.tambra who openly asked for your identity, because, you at some point of time, may be a year or two ago, your were spotted of asking to reveal new members identity (thanks to the SEARCH option in our forum).

On one hand you say you do not bother abt a person's identity. On the other hand you say you voice support for Pann and Swami who asked for my identity.

i spend almost two hours yesterday, using the seach option typing the key word REVEAL+IDENTITY and applied on all your posts. so tiresomely, i copied and pasted the message+url+post no, unfortunately my machine ran out of battery power and got shut down, before i could connect it to the mains, and lost that post.

anyways, im refreshing my memory of yesterdays search session, and posting few of your changing-stands an year ago, though I dont have the url/post no to give it as an evidence, 'at the moment'. I amrunning short of time to do the same search, but will do again if you insist..

You need not have wasted your battery on something so useless. There was a guy named SAPR. He did not like anything negative said about christianity but lost no chance at demeaning hinduism. Those who harbor any doubts can read up his posts. His identity was certainly questionable. But that was left to the discretion of the moderators. Are you the moderator to question my identity?

1) at one post you and ID - KRS were jointly demanding the identity of a person. on that post, you claimed that you have already openly admitted to the forum that you are an NB, and asked the other member the same to reveal, hoping he is an NB hiding with a TB forum id name

2) to another poster, you asked him to reveal his identity, and you projected him to be a christian missionary.

1) my identity is known to those who matter in this forum since atleast 2 years. So u need not bother abt it...and no need to hope on my behalf.
2) This was the case of SAPR. Its funny you claim to be just 3 months old but in your post # 149 you mention an old conversation between KRS ji and Nara sir regarding the use of sarcasm. And here you remember the SAPR incident. Anyways whatever decisions were taken in the SAPR case was by the moderators. So if you have any grievance about it, you can speak to KRS ji abt it.

i dont remember the ID's of thaose person. But if you are refuting this, I can prove my point,n all I need to do is, do again those search , go through reading of 400 posts, repeatedly press Ctrl+F etc, and spend another 2 hrs. Im sure you may not ask me for that, cos you know well yourself about your changing stands.

By wasting 2 hours doing an online search, perhaps you are venting old anger I dunno. But hope we can discuss missionaries sometime soon....

As for my so called 'changing stand' none of my views are permanent and all of them are subject to change.....

your changing stand is not bad, but expecting others to change their stands, and projecting them in badtaste is not a good one.

You are entitled to your views. Merely by discussing i do not think anyone can change their stand , it can only make them ponder over things....

so, please clarify your allegations, of me running behind your identity. You are accountable here with a response,and also accountable to the twosome whoom you claimed that they are behind your identity , but you yourself were at somepoint of time doing this..

If you are not running after my identity well and good. You need not have wasted your time with rambling posts like these. And the twosome, that is Pann and Swami are not saying anything here, so wonder why are you keen to represent them and claim that i am accountable to them also.

 

[Nara]

... esp to sh.nara, who unknowingly appealed for mass support for you, to condemn against the threesome club.

ShivKC, what I am opposed to is repeatedly hounding Happyhindu for her identity and snidely pointing out that she is NB, as if that is somehow relevant or noteworthy. That, I think is in very bad taste. It is not about a particular threesome, or twosome, or anysome.

ShivKC, I once again request you to let go of this useless topic.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

ShivKC, I once again request you to let go of this useless topic.

Cheers!

sh.nara, its right thing for me to heed to your advice now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Happyhindu - 1. You, not me, should prove about the Karmakanda. 2. The absurdity of taking vedic verses literally shows you are incorrect.

"P Shankaranarayanan may have taught philosophy all his life as a professor. His understanding of the incepts and conceptualization of advaita ontologies were obviously perfect. However, in his personal life he was a great devotee of Kanchi Paramacharya. From my old posts, it is quite apparent that i am questioning the claims made by the Acharya as well.
I challenge you to prove to me that Brahmasutra
1) existed at the time when the Rig Samhita was composed.
2) existed at the time when Vedavyasa compiled the Vedas in the Mahabharat period."

Challenging claims is what we must do, but insisting on your interpretation when you hardly understand the matter clearly is arrogance. What entitles me to answer these? It was not the point of discussion and there may not be a clear way to even "prove" it. The point I made, and which stands out as completely relevant is that your comment on post # 79 was made due to a bias you have and that is exactly why you are ready to buy the interpretations of the M.A.s whose view of Aryan Invasion brought down from the British propaganda vilifies brahmins. Nara as an ex-brahmin is thus favorite to this view too.

I have read both lines of ideas, while you have read only one. Atleast now you have a changed rhetoric from post # 79, where you spoke as if you clearly know more than anyone.

"Adi Shankara rejected Karmakanda as valid means of Moksham. He established 4 mutts to propagate Advaitha alone. Anyone who becomes a Sanyasi of the 4 mutts, including the Shankaracharya, has to remove his poonul upon accepting Sanyasam."

Where did he reject it, and at that time how did he not point it as a tribe conflict that you are speaking of? This thread started because you made a claim that our scriptures bias on the basis of appearance, and label "dark skinned, noseless, bull lipped" people as "dasyus". What I cam to point from there was the inconsistencies in your idea.

"Even Panini had mentioned kula as a village (Panini 6.2.129). But Yaska pronounced kula as a clan (Nirukta 9.26) and went on to designate characters as "arya" and "non-arya"."

Yes, and "arya" and "non-arya" are and have been only based on character! They are not tribe names, there was no tribe called "arya". So, when Yaska speaks of characters he is refering to specifics. No fixed clans - unlike you said Yadus are not aryas etc, which is a completely false and racist interpretation. They become labelled as per their character, which is clear from the Mahabharata verse. Now it doesn't matter if the Mahabharata came later, because these people had access to the same samhitas you are reading - a change in meaning would be explained if ever it occured. So you are left to explain HOW and WHY a change in meaning as you claim would have come.

"Sayana merely accepted most part of Yaska's offerings and also offered geographical location of groups (example: according to Sayana the anarya (non-arya) kikatas inhabit the country of andrya). "

Yes, the Kiratas (not the "anarya tribe") live in Andra. But the Kiratas are not anarya per se. Is it so hard understanding this meaning?

X is a good man.
X lives in Mumbai.

Does this imply Mumbai is the abode of "good men"? Of course not. Sayana clearly didn't say where (geographically) the aryas or anaryas originated.

"Btw, Yaska's Nirukta has also been investigated for incorrect renditions. In volume 2 of a publication titled "Social Scientist" a list of phrases have been given on how Yaska incorrectly dereived meanings. So viewpoints in that direction also exists."

Have you cared to "investigate" the incorrect renditions of the word "arya" after it was put forth in European propaganda of the colonial era? When it was clearly and incorrectly put to speak of a race of blond, white skinned people? You don't care of this.

"Anyways, if anyone has to be blamed for race theories, then it is the brahmins of the colonial period who allowed the terms, vamsa, kula, gotra, etc to be translated as "race". If you want to do Griffith-bashing, you should also be willing to look at the role of Griffith's co-author Jagdish Shastri. "

I never denied certain brahmins of the time did side the British because they wanted to feel a pride of being related to the ruling class. In anycase, in all your anti-brahmin overtones, you like the DK or DMK don't care one point to look at the many conibutions to society brahmins have done.

People like Nara have come to the stage of feeling an immense completely misplaced guilt, in which they feel they need to be judged for something of the past when all of society practiced it. I have explained this in the other thread.

"Already replied above that I challenge you to prove to me that Adi Shankara had accepted advaita to be derived from Karmakanda."

YOU are left to do proving here that Adi Shankaracharya said the samhitas were about "war" or a "killing spree". It is hard to find such a distinction itself that the karmakanda spoke of "war, eulogies to kings" and "killing spree" and that this part of the vedas is separate or absolutely unrelated to other parts. This view is only yours, and is a modern one. So its you, not me who is left to do any proving. So this question hits back at you to find a comment that said that the karmakanda was a separate and very different part of the vedas, unrelated to the others.

"I do not understand what you mean by 'discarding opinions' and that too without 'understanding the method'."

Being honest, neither you nor me, nor even the present day mutts are fully aware of the method of discourse or learning of the past. I have read European political history, and know under what atmosphere ideas of "aryan race" was spread - while you accept it without understanding the nuances.

"It is easy for anyone wo make a career out of the caste system. However, this discussion is not about DK. It is about your view that arya and dasyu were not warring clans."

Anyone can make a career from hating brahmins too and that is exactly what DK and DMK have used to cover their own ill-treatment of lower castes, corrupt officials like A Raja whom they send till the government. And yes, to make my stance clear as I always have I am saying arya and dasyus did have "wars", just that this was not a real allusion to clans or tribes of that name warring. Dasyu and Arya clearly stand for character, traits etc. and weren't fixed to individuals or clans per se.

When we read something like the vedas taking things literally makes things absurd. For all your claims of "bull lipped" and "dark skin" you actually wanted to show that vedas were about a slaughter of african-like people. But if the term is taken as "bull jawed" its unimaginable as to how a person would be bull jawed. Other references to characters with 99 arms etc all clearly make it non-literal. While I understand that, you insist it is an account of violence perpetrated on someone because it justifies your propaganda against "fire-rite" brahmins as oppressors and violent people.

I almost missed your response to me which is why I didn't reply earlier.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[sangom]

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

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

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

 

[Nara]

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

ShivKC, this is a very general statement. Tooth and nail could simply mean I am passionate about the points I make. If this is the case, then I concede. But, tooth and nail could mean attacking people on a personal level, like you are now doing to Happyhindu. I think I have never done that. If anyone can show that I have done this I will feel regret and express it too without any ambibuity.

..... its very much clear,by her own admission, happyhindu was also at one point of time, seeking identity of few other members, but was not behind their points or POV. so, according to me, there is nothing wrong in sh.swami/panvalan asking her identity. may be take it as tit for tat, atleast.

IMO, identity of an individual must never be questioned, it is behavior that must determine whether one deserves to be moderated or not. If Happy did it earlier it was wrong too. Tit for tat from some third party with intent to put her down is childish at best and hateful at worst.

You must also note that Happyhindu was questioning sapr because he apparently was pushing Christianity. IMO, that was not sufficient reason to question sapr's identity, but isn't it ironic that later, she was herself accused, along with me, of sympathies for missionaries.

Also, Happyhindu's identity is as much known or even more than many others. We all know Happyhindu is a female, we all know she is not a TB, we all know she can't read/write Tamil. This is more than what we know of many other people in this forum.

...a simple sorry would have made me content.

And you say I go after people tooth and nail. Looking for apology even when deserved makes the person expecting it unworthy of it, IMO.

ShivKC, go after Happyhindu all you want on ideas and views, I may even join you if I disagree with Happy's views, but identity discussion is useless and a waste, irrespective of who engages in it, whether you or Happy or the twosome or threesome or anysome.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

sh.nara, its right thing for me to heed to your advice now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

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

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

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

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

Rgds.
Swami

 

[sangom]

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

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

 

[happyhindu]

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

Ah well, nothing can stop certain people from persisting or getting throughly dirty...especially if they have an old score to settle...

 

[sangom]

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

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

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

Regards.

Smt. HappyHindu,

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

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

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

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

 

[happyhindu]

Smt. HappyHindu,

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

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

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

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

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

As for Sankara and advaita, I had already said that he did not refer to rigveda at all in any of his important bhashyas, only less than 10 citations from Taittiriya samhita which may be on karma/jnaana kaanda (one has to sift out individual references before anything can be said) and relies mostly on two upanishads.

Sir is there any particular / specific reason why Shankara did not refer to the Rig? As for the caste system, am aware of the references Shankara made in support of the caste system in his bhasya on brahmasutra. He carefully supported the smrithis and rejected both Jaimini and Badrayana selectively. His description on allowing meditations to be combined with rituals and such things would make a case where he (purposefully or inadverantly?) created a merger between the purvamimasa texts and meditative practices.

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

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

One doubt on this sir.

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

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

Regards.

 

[Vivek_V]

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

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

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

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

Let us consider the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[happyhindu]

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

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

Regards,
Vivek.

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

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

 

[sangom]

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

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

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

Smt. HappyHindu,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sangom]

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

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

Regards.

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

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

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

 

[MG Hariharan]

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

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sow. Happyhindu

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri MG Hariharan

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

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

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

That was my point in that sentence about Agni.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

@ Sri Sangom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Vivek.