To Benny post 259:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_hinduism/258.htm
Old Irish - arya (freeman),Sanskrit - aire (noble)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The site has got it the wrong way around. It's Old Irish Aire and Sanskrit Arya.
Even if Aire meant noble, the question here is Eireann (pronounced as 'air' in English and 'an' of Chinese Han) is named after the character Eire whose name does not mean (nor sound like) either Arya or Airya.
The similarity of meaning in Aire, if it really means noble, is not more significant than the similarity of many European words with Indian and Iranian ones. Still don't see how Arya is to be found in the name of Ireland.
The person who wrote the article at the address given is probably a pagan reconstructionist. He's heard of Indo-European languages and imagines that Brahmins and Druids were cousins.
The ancestors of the Celts migrated to Europe, driving off other European people like the Picts (Europe's Invasion Fact, not Theory) in France and the British Isles. Possibly from the North-west of India or only from Iran. The religious order of the Celts was called the Druid class (some scholars imagine they had something to do with 'Dravidians' -> Dravid Druid, Dravid is a Sanskrit regional designation). If they were from India and not Iran:
- <i>If</i> the Druids were 'cousins' of brahmins, it means they were equally cousins of Kshatriyas, and other varnas that would have migrated out of NW India.
- Positional cousins of the brahmins - yes; genetic cousins of brahmins to the exclusion of other NW Indian castes - no.
I wouldn't put much money in such scholarship, though. I have no doubts that the Celts are related to NW Indian and/or Iranian tribes, but it's unfactual to think them Vedic or imagine they named their country after the word Arya (or even supposedly their own local variation Aire) when their age-old pre-Christian traditions state repeatedly that Eireann is named for Eire whose name has nothing to do with Arya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"wicca and hinduism" or "druid brahmin"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wicca is a neo-pagan (not even reconstructionist) religion. No disrespect, I respect their views, but the modern religion was invented mid-20th century based on a book of the time.
- Wicca itself is an old English word from which we get 'witch'.
- The Druid religious practises are hard to uncover at present, having been destroyed by the Christianisation process. Indo-European studies has given them access to what they think is another pagan religion with roots in the 'Indo-European' religion.
Most reconstructionist religions tend to dig from remnants of their religious beliefs and identify similarities with existing pagan religions (Hinduism - they don't often know about Jainism)
Druids and brahmins are positions that occupy the same role in their respective communities. There's the Celtic religion of which <i>Druidism</i> is what those who aspire to the position of Druid must learn. Many Druid reconstructionists hope that Hindu teachings of the Vedas and practises of the Brahmanas in India might give them an idea of what the Druids of the past did. But like old Norse is different from Latin and Sanskrit, so too are the practises and prayers of the people in these different lands. Their interpolation is going to be very hard. They would do better to learn from the religious orders of their neighbouring Germanic people with whom they had far more in common.
- There are other newly emerging ones calling themselves vedic reconstructionists or Vedics or Aryans or something. They imagine their white ancestors wrote the Vedas and brought civilisation to India from Central Asia. They also think that Hinduism is a mutated form of the original PIE religion related to Avesta and Vedic religion (though they still call it Vedic at times). They want to do Vedic sacrifices the <i>right</i> way, not the 'wrong' way us miscegenated Indian Hindus of today (as per the AIT) are doing. They insist that Vedic religion is not Hinduism (quite the opposite of you Benny) and that they are trying to find and reconstruct the original Vedic religion. I suspect they are using the Vedas and Avesta. It would be predictable if with the usual mispronunciations of the west they can't get the languages right.
The AIT gives all these different kinds of groups the right to do as they please.
I have no problem with Wicca people taking what they find meaningful from Hinduism, or Druid reconstructionists trying to reconstruct their religion using Hinduism as a blue-print, but neither the Wiccans nor Druids are Vedic (which you define as being the 'only' Hindu form).
I suspect you know very little about the European reconstructionist religions:
- Greek and Roman religion are still complete; if people go back to it today, they'll find all the materials still there. They need only to acquire the same mindset. Many similarities to Hinduism (both Vedic and South Indian practises) abound, as well as many differences.
- Germanic religion is still almost completely intact even if their local ways of life are somewhat obscured in N Europe. In Iceland the local ways are still there.
- Lithuanian/Latvian - I just hope no one there imagines they were Vedic (they are not, unless they have proof their ancestors had the Vedas).
- Slavonic paganism - the AIT has greatly influenced the revival of this religion. In a way it is good that they have left Christianity, but it bothers me no end if <i>a few</i> among them call themselves Vedic when they have nothing to do with the Vedas. I can't figure out how much actually remains of the original religion. They imagine it is Vedic, but they have no ancient writings or whatever to back-up the proposition. They also carry around the word Aryan (AIT influence again).
Whoever wants to, can call themselves Arya, if they mean it in the Sanskrit and Iranian sense. But when they use the term Aryan (English), I know they speak of the AIT, the PIE and other fictive topics. And eventually elitist racism. From experience, I know there will never be a use for the (English) word Aryan without it leading to racism.
Arya is free from all such taints.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->its innane to suggest that aryavartha extended all over india. thats not what the purans said. that we dont have 3 sets of people in india.
its innane to say that all thats hindu was not written in north india in sanskrit.
that iranians weren't indeed renegade indians/vedic people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've already answered all three misconceptions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I've always wondered what it would be like to talk to a wall. Whatever it's like, it's <i>got</i> to be better than this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_hinduism/258.htm
Old Irish - arya (freeman),Sanskrit - aire (noble)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The site has got it the wrong way around. It's Old Irish Aire and Sanskrit Arya.
Even if Aire meant noble, the question here is Eireann (pronounced as 'air' in English and 'an' of Chinese Han) is named after the character Eire whose name does not mean (nor sound like) either Arya or Airya.
The similarity of meaning in Aire, if it really means noble, is not more significant than the similarity of many European words with Indian and Iranian ones. Still don't see how Arya is to be found in the name of Ireland.
The person who wrote the article at the address given is probably a pagan reconstructionist. He's heard of Indo-European languages and imagines that Brahmins and Druids were cousins.
The ancestors of the Celts migrated to Europe, driving off other European people like the Picts (Europe's Invasion Fact, not Theory) in France and the British Isles. Possibly from the North-west of India or only from Iran. The religious order of the Celts was called the Druid class (some scholars imagine they had something to do with 'Dravidians' -> Dravid Druid, Dravid is a Sanskrit regional designation). If they were from India and not Iran:
- <i>If</i> the Druids were 'cousins' of brahmins, it means they were equally cousins of Kshatriyas, and other varnas that would have migrated out of NW India.
- Positional cousins of the brahmins - yes; genetic cousins of brahmins to the exclusion of other NW Indian castes - no.
I wouldn't put much money in such scholarship, though. I have no doubts that the Celts are related to NW Indian and/or Iranian tribes, but it's unfactual to think them Vedic or imagine they named their country after the word Arya (or even supposedly their own local variation Aire) when their age-old pre-Christian traditions state repeatedly that Eireann is named for Eire whose name has nothing to do with Arya.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"wicca and hinduism" or "druid brahmin"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wicca is a neo-pagan (not even reconstructionist) religion. No disrespect, I respect their views, but the modern religion was invented mid-20th century based on a book of the time.
- Wicca itself is an old English word from which we get 'witch'.
- The Druid religious practises are hard to uncover at present, having been destroyed by the Christianisation process. Indo-European studies has given them access to what they think is another pagan religion with roots in the 'Indo-European' religion.
Most reconstructionist religions tend to dig from remnants of their religious beliefs and identify similarities with existing pagan religions (Hinduism - they don't often know about Jainism)
Druids and brahmins are positions that occupy the same role in their respective communities. There's the Celtic religion of which <i>Druidism</i> is what those who aspire to the position of Druid must learn. Many Druid reconstructionists hope that Hindu teachings of the Vedas and practises of the Brahmanas in India might give them an idea of what the Druids of the past did. But like old Norse is different from Latin and Sanskrit, so too are the practises and prayers of the people in these different lands. Their interpolation is going to be very hard. They would do better to learn from the religious orders of their neighbouring Germanic people with whom they had far more in common.
- There are other newly emerging ones calling themselves vedic reconstructionists or Vedics or Aryans or something. They imagine their white ancestors wrote the Vedas and brought civilisation to India from Central Asia. They also think that Hinduism is a mutated form of the original PIE religion related to Avesta and Vedic religion (though they still call it Vedic at times). They want to do Vedic sacrifices the <i>right</i> way, not the 'wrong' way us miscegenated Indian Hindus of today (as per the AIT) are doing. They insist that Vedic religion is not Hinduism (quite the opposite of you Benny) and that they are trying to find and reconstruct the original Vedic religion. I suspect they are using the Vedas and Avesta. It would be predictable if with the usual mispronunciations of the west they can't get the languages right.
The AIT gives all these different kinds of groups the right to do as they please.
I have no problem with Wicca people taking what they find meaningful from Hinduism, or Druid reconstructionists trying to reconstruct their religion using Hinduism as a blue-print, but neither the Wiccans nor Druids are Vedic (which you define as being the 'only' Hindu form).
I suspect you know very little about the European reconstructionist religions:
- Greek and Roman religion are still complete; if people go back to it today, they'll find all the materials still there. They need only to acquire the same mindset. Many similarities to Hinduism (both Vedic and South Indian practises) abound, as well as many differences.
- Germanic religion is still almost completely intact even if their local ways of life are somewhat obscured in N Europe. In Iceland the local ways are still there.
- Lithuanian/Latvian - I just hope no one there imagines they were Vedic (they are not, unless they have proof their ancestors had the Vedas).
- Slavonic paganism - the AIT has greatly influenced the revival of this religion. In a way it is good that they have left Christianity, but it bothers me no end if <i>a few</i> among them call themselves Vedic when they have nothing to do with the Vedas. I can't figure out how much actually remains of the original religion. They imagine it is Vedic, but they have no ancient writings or whatever to back-up the proposition. They also carry around the word Aryan (AIT influence again).
Whoever wants to, can call themselves Arya, if they mean it in the Sanskrit and Iranian sense. But when they use the term Aryan (English), I know they speak of the AIT, the PIE and other fictive topics. And eventually elitist racism. From experience, I know there will never be a use for the (English) word Aryan without it leading to racism.
Arya is free from all such taints.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->its innane to suggest that aryavartha extended all over india. thats not what the purans said. that we dont have 3 sets of people in india.
its innane to say that all thats hindu was not written in north india in sanskrit.
that iranians weren't indeed renegade indians/vedic people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've already answered all three misconceptions. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I've always wondered what it would be like to talk to a wall. Whatever it's like, it's <i>got</i> to be better than this.