The Vedas and Upanishads and older mantras in Sanskrit. Later others in Prakrit and Pali. Others in Tamil (yes, we have mantras in Tamil) and Kannadam, etc.
which are outside vedas and upanishads and gita. all hinduism revolves around vedas and the rest are derivatives.
The original versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata are in Sanskrit, because the people of these epics spoke Sanskrit (not in Hindi).
i know.
However, there are local South Indian language versions of Ramayana too.
copies. the original as you said is in sanskrit.
Extensions to the Ayurveda are also in Tamil and other South Indian languages.
we may get extentions in english to in future. already there are i think western extentions to yoga. dont mean yoga is western. any extention ipso facto, has just borrowed from the original.
It was not stagnant, but continued to be added to. Where were the Ayurveda manuscripts preserved? In the South.
and in tibet. the south and tibet didnt get ravaged by islam. doesnt prove that the ayurveda manuscripts were not of sanskritic manufacture.
By whom? Indians - South Indians. Hindus - of the South.
hindus is the iranian word for the arya living on this side of the sindhu river. the rig vedic tribes mention people speaking inflective languages like sanskrit and avestan.
The first treatiseson the topics you suggest might have been written partly in the North, but it was a pan-Hindu effort.
circumstance. north india could not hold on to its hindu traditions, despite fathering hinduism and carry on the good work, due to islamic onslaught.
And additions to the treatises you speak of continued to be made and discovered all over the Hindu subcontinent.
sure. try disproving that hinduism as we know it (vedas, upanishads, epics, ayurvedas, astronomy, yoga werent of sanskrtitic manufacture. the very words and terms are entirely sanskrit.) wasnt formed in north india. ujjain ws the indian greenwich.
The only Vedic people are the Vedic Hindus. Those who know of the Vedas, or accepted it as part of their corpus, were Vedic Hindus.
and their progeny.
The Persians were Avestan.
before which they shared the same gene and knowledge pol with the vedic indians. then they went west with their version of the vedas and formed zoroastrianism.
The Druids, Alans and Lithuanians were never in India when the Vedas were compiled.
druids i am sure are a post vedic people (in fact dru-vids are brahmins). since the similiraty with lithuanians is mostly in the language and not religion, they were most likely a post sanskritic (after sanskrit was formed) and pre vedic people. alans get their name from arya - so again they emmigrated after it was already in fashion to call ourselves arya.
They are not Vedic people. Vedic means related to the Vedas.
yes. and the druids were very vedic. as were the persians - before they sort of mutinied and came up with zoroastrianism.
Except for Hindus, no one else you mentioned are related to the Vedas.
i am sure the vedas dont mention hndus even - given that the persian word for sindhu (ie hindu) was coined long after the vedas were written.
Just because today some Europeans are trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language and are interested in a Proto-Indo-European religion which supposedly existed (in Central Asia from where the White people they think were called Aryans came) doesn't make the claimants such.
yeah they are wrong. all aryans come from the SSVC. some moved into the indo gangetic plain, some moved out to iran and further north and west.
They imagine their European ancestors practised the PIE religion in Central Asia, that gave rise to the Indian and old Iranian religion. Some imagine their ancestors wrote the Vedas. They like to call themselves Vedics, Vedicists and other English nonsense terms (like Aryan). Central Asia isn't where the Vedas were written.
yes. it was clearly written in whats today haryana and the punjab.
Hittites were not, but adopted a kind of Sanskrit-like language probably from the Mitannis. The Mittanis might have been Vedic. But we can't expect people from Bengal or Tamil Nadu to travel all over India, through Persia into Anatolia, now can we? No, it's more likely that the people settled in the Punjab did that.
hitties spoke a sanskritic (ie., aryan) language. as did the mittanis. and they both most likely emigrated from the SSVC.
Only the Indians (Hindus, Jains who both use the term Acharya and Buddhists) and Persians (Zoroastrians) CALL THEMSELVES ARYA. None of the others you listed in 5.
jainism came much much later. besides ethnically/genetically jains are hindus. the people who called themselves arya are sanskrit speaking indians, persians, the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), the alans (the name allan comes from arya) and basically all those who were from the SSVC originally.
The Airya in Iran were not children of Parasu. They were of the Parshu tribe.
when i say children of parasu i dont mean the descendants of mr. parasu. i mean the parasu tribe.
They called the people settled near the Sindhu that they came in contact with as Hindus.
yes. the arya on this side of rives sindhu are the hindu.
That includes the ancestors of present day Pakistanis, Afghans and Punjabi, possible UP, Kashmiri,... It also included the ancestors of Jains who were not Vedic (in the sense of taking the Vedas as central).
pakistanis cant be described. they are the descendants of just about anyone who has entered india in the past 1400 years. and where did you get that the ancestors of the jains were not vedic/hindu???
If the Persians met people beyond these regions, realising they practised the same religion they would have dubbed them Hindus also. Even if it was only to not bother inventing a new name,
hindu isnt a name persians invented. its the same name as sindhu in persian. the persian H is the sanskrit S
though the region was different, the religion was the same.
yes, the druids were hindus.
The Greeks and Romans callled all of the Indian subcontinent "India" - also based on the river Indus.
i knoiw.
So if the river is to determine what our religious beliefs and nationality are called then count the opinion of all the ancients.
didnt get you.
Obviously someone who's never read the Ramayana.
not the real or complete version, no.[i doubt very many on this forum have read the whole real thing.
The Vanara were met as Rama travelled south.
precisely.
Since when do the Indians you call Austro Asiatic or Dravidian have tails and other features as described in the Ramayana?
the tails are the authors imagination. the ramayan is a epic story first and a piece of history later. the sanskrit word "vanara" means forest dwellers - like the austro asiatic vanavasis of india
The Vanara were a kind of monkey as described in Ramayana
and as confirmed by the Mahabharata (Hanuman's reappearance).
nope. they were the bhils, the santals, the other tribes of central india. the fictional characters of the talking monkeys of the ramayana are modelled on them.
Vali had a tail with which he carried the frightened Ravana around.
that has zero chance of being true whether the vanaras were austroasiatic men or monkeys !! the ramayan is NOT a piece of history, its a fable, of epic proportions.
Hanuman turned his tail into a seat at Ravana's court.
yeah right.
Stop talking about things you don't know.
i know that such claims are made in the ramayan. i also know that they arnt to be taken literally.
And, except for the AIT people and the Pakistani pan-Islamist groups operating under titles like Dalitstan, no knowledgeable and sane Hindu says that the Vanara were not monkeys but were instead the Dravidians/Austro Asiatics/all-except-your-close-circle.
really?? i learnt that the vanaras are a word for ANY forest dwelling living being, be it monkey or vanavasi man, from this forum. maybe we all believe in AIT or are all pakistanis.
Maybe you think that Vyasa and Valmiki didn't know they meant 'Austro Asiatic' not tail and confused the two.
maybe they modelled their monkey characters (in sanskrit, if i may point out) on monkey like forest dweling people - ie. the austro asiatics.
Then again, maybe you're just wrong.
or maybe its you.
Brahmi???? The west says that Brahmi was developed in the Middle-East somewhere.
wrong. its of indian construct. middle eastern script and sanskritic script run in opposite directions.
The South Indian Dravidianist groups say that it was a South Indian invention.
wrong. south indian, as also all north indian, script is a derivative of brahmi and not th other way round.
What's the point of (9) unless you want someone to tell you current theories (however right or wrong) don't support you?
brahmi is the original script of sanskrit, and the script of the Rg Ved most likely.
The Namboothiris are Brahmanas.
so they are !!
Malayalam is a Sanskritised version of an old South Indian language that had already been separate from Tamil for a long time.
well ok. still a sanskritised version. most likely formed after the arrival of the namboodhris to kerela.
Malayalam is not a version of Tamil, no more than Urdu being a version of Bengali.
root words of malayalee and tamil have a lot more in common than the root words of bengali and urdu. and if it isnt - its cos of the sanskrit influence
The brahmins of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka (including the Tulu/Bunt brahmins), Andhra are local brahmanas.
and since when did they appear on the horizon?? at the time of the vedas??
They are not Gowda Saraswats who came from the north in <b>recent</b> times (no offense to them either, just clarifying).
right. they came from the north in ANCIENT times (bringing hinduism with them)!!
The Namboothiris are thought to have come from the North too, but when it is not known. Obviously, it was much earlier than Sri Shankaracharya. On the other hand, many of the Namboothiris today might have just been the locals too - trained as brahmanas by those who came to teach from the North.
precisely. same applies for present day brahmins in tamil nadu, karnataka et al. either descendants of the original ones who came from the north (ramesh krishnan) or local trainees (and their descendants) of the aforementioned (radha krishnan)
Avestan is a later version of ancient Iranian.
avestan IS ancient iranian. parsi is a later iranian or later avestan whichever u prefer.
Ancient Iranian and Vedic Sanskrit are related.
yes. avestan and vedic sanskrit are cognate.
Which proves nothing.
which proves a lot. they have the same root words and come from the same people.
Tamil and Kannada are thought to be related. So?
if u subtract the sanskrit influence on kannada, then yes they are related. for the same reason as ^^^ and proving the same things
Did you invent Sanskrit?
no and nor did i claim to.
You didn't. What a surprise.
aah, so u expected me to eh??
Don't take credit for something you had no involvement in.
i didnt, now did i??
At least my father speaks Sanskrit, paternal grandfather's mother wrote letters in Sanskrit.
yeah, just whom did they learn the sanskrit from?? whom did south india learn sanskrit from??
My uncle on the paternal side's mother was a Hindu Scholar who debated philosophy in Sanskrit and won against male Brahmanas, and Jainas (not in Sanskrit).
proving what??? that sanskrit originated in tamil nadu and SSVC??
They are also all of them excellent in Tamil on my maternal side and Kannada on my paternal side.
proving what??? sanskrit originated in karnataka and not SSVC??
My grandfather taught Kannada, Sanskrit, Maths and Science to all the village children.
yeah so???
No varna-based discrimination. These children were all, without exception, good at learning. That includes their accomplishments in Sanskrit: essay writing, poetry, prose.
proving what my dear??
The Puranas only mention it at the time the regions N of the Vindhya were called Aryavarta. Eventually, Aryavarta would included the rest of India.
since eventually, hinduism would spread to all of india.
Krunvanto Visham Aryam. By the time the Chinese visited India, and Buddhist monks from South India travelled to China, the Chinese referred to South India as being part of Aryavarta and Bharatavarsha too. Geez.
so we got to learn from the chinese what is aryavarta and whats not?? columbus incidentally referred to usa as india. dont mean he was right.
Too many to list, but you'll be wondering who's that? Since communist, British and missionaries made sure no one in India would know the contribution of South Indians to Hinduism.
so how come Rg veda was compiled vy the members of the puru tribe?? and mahabharat was written by ved vaysa?? and not by tamilians?? can i have the names of emminent non-brahmin tamilians??
The Agamas are in Tamil and are ancient, they are as Hindu as other sacred Hindu writings.
really?? sacred like the vedas?? agamas as pillars of hinduism?? how old are the agamas?? as old as the Rg veda?
Narayana Guru in South India made great contributions to Hinduism in recent times. These you must know of.
sure. vivekananda and aurobindo made zero contribution to hinduism. all they did was write deravitives of hinduism and hindu philosophy. expound on hinduism. not create hindu scripture. no one reads mantras composed by them. same applies to all modern and mediaval day gurus.
To which temples in India are the Gods still seen visiting by the locals, villagers or otherwise? Uma and Maheshwaran, Lakshmi and Vishnu, Kartikeya, Indran, Suryan and all the others, South India is full of them.
cos its not located where rajasthan and u.p is. dont prove that the vedas are NOT entirely of sanskritic manufacture. btw, its surya not suryan, indra not indran, and maheswar (maha + ishwar) and not maheswaran. thats the correct sanskrit pronunciatian.
Even the most 'simple' villager knows how to do Surya Namaskaram. Do you?Without having to look it up online.
its surya namaskar (no M), both sanskrit words. vindicating my point again. and i dont believe in rituals.
They know how to ask the Gods to make it rain in the villages. Do you?
i dont believe in superstition either.
Do you see the Hindu Gods?
no. nor any other gods
Or are you only getting the silent treatment of Yahweh (who cannot be seen or heard or felt in this world) in your Brahmo-Samaji-Hare-Krishna reforms?
hare krishnas are a runaway sect of vaishnavs. i dont believe in yahweh or any other god. i am an agnostic (meaning i confess i dont know if god exists or not) and i am a brahmo for all practical purposes. (dont do rituals.)
Shiva and Uma, Vishnu and Lakshmi, the Devargal are not Dravidian or Vedic Aryan inventions. They are pan-Indian subcontinent Gods.
wrong. all are of sanskritic manufacture. very much vedic aryan inventians/concepts
These are the Gods of all the people down to Sri Lanka.
hinduism was exported to sri lanka too. dont make them aryan/sanskritic.
Bengal is still Shaktic isn't it? It was historically.
the worship of shakti (ie. durga and kali) is popular there yes. as ever.
Kashmir was Shaivaite and Shaktic. Afghanistan was very Shaivaite.
yes. and aryan.
Where are the Devargal still worshipped? Indra, Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Surya? The Navagrahas?
i am not sure what devargal means and which language it is. but indra, vayu (the lithuanian word for wind or breeze is "vajus", with the "j" pronounced as "y"), varun and agni (the first god ever mentioned in scripture, if the Rg Ved is indeed the oldest religious text) are all sanskrit names.
Where do we still know how to pronounce Sanskrit properly and not turn it into Hindi ('Mahabharat, Ramayan, Arjun, Bhim, Ram')?
in north india. cos the REAL pronunciatiation IS mahabharat and not mahabharatA, ram and not ramA, Arjun and not arjunA, ramayan and not ramayanA and yog and not yogA and shiv and not shivA........hahaha caught !!
Where are horses and dogs still given names like Arya?
woops !! does this have an ulterior motive?? horses were prized amongst the arya though. dunno if the rest valued it.
Where do people still give names of Gods and Goddesses to their children?
all over india.
Where do the villagers still tell the Ramayan<b>am</b>, Mahabharat<b>am</b> to their children?
in parts of india not unfortunate enough to have fallen in the hands of islam. now you answer me - where was ramayan and mahabharat stories based?? in which language were they written?? which language has a system where by maha+bharat becomes mahabharat??
Where do the brahmanas still pronounce the Vedic rites properly and invoke the Gods?
uttar pradesh (esp varanasi) - the cradle of hinduism.
Where do the 'simplest' villagers know that their ancestors were Hindu since the beginning of India,
north india. south india became hindu recently (ie. after hinduism was exported south and the ramayan and mahabharat taught to the locals and local brahmins manufactured)
in spite of villains hitting us over the head for centuries with the AIT/Christian/Dravidian-NorthIndian/Islamist theories? [Answer: South India. Possibly other parts of India, too - including the North]
wrong.
You are free to call a spade a spade.
as are you. now if you only would.
But please, stick to your day-job of identifying spades.
i have. and though you dont realise it, you too have, in these very posts of yours. you just vindicated me repeatedly !!
By the way, Pakistan's ISI called. They've fired all their ignorant pseudo-scholars. They want to hire you, because you're doing a better job than of all them. Though as ill-informed as those they sacked, they think you're more useful, being a Hindu.
so i am - an arya living on this side of the sindhu. and i am not surprised that you are in touch with the isi. Ltte too, i am sure.
No offense to other Hindus, Jains, etc. from North India. The only differences I see are regional.
then you dont see much !!
open your eyes. and ears. there'll be difference in what you'll see and what you'll hear.
05-12-2006, 11:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2006, 11:37 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vanara were a kind of monkey as described in Ramayana
and as confirmed by the Mahabharata (Hanuman's reappearance).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->nope. they were the bhils, the santals, the other tribes of central india. the fictional characters of the talking monkeys of the ramayana are modelled on them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vali had a tail with which he carried the frightened Ravana around.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->that has zero chance of being true whether the vanaras were austroasiatic men or monkeys !! the ramayan is NOT a piece of history, its a fable, of epic proportions.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hanuman turned his tail into a seat at Ravana's court. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->yeah right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop talking about things you don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->i know that such claims are made in the ramayan. i also know that they arnt to be taken literally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you the one who determines what is fiction from fact? The authors were not idiots to turn humans into monkeys and assign heroic feats to tails. Take it as fiction, but you don't get to decide which parts are fiction and which aren't.
Orang-Utan though literally Old Man of the Forest, still refers to apes. But, using your logic of what Vanara means, Orang-Utans ought to be some subset of Indonesian people. Geez. I suspect that the Vanara might be a humanoid species, who still had tails. Do the remains of the <b>newly discovered species <i>Homo Florensis</i> (not sure of spelling) in Indonesia</b> have any tails? They were much shorter than homo sapien sapiens. Just a few feet tall. But they dwelled in forests and I think I read that they had tree houses. If there remains of related creatures in the Indian subcontinent too, then our Vanara might be ancestors or cousin species to Homo Florensis, who might have had tails.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...oresiensis.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Brahmi???? The west says that Brahmi was developed in the Middle-East somewhere. <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->wrong. its of indian construct. middle eastern script and sanskritic script run in opposite directions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't tell me. Pick a fight with the researchers. Look up Brahmi in the Propaganda sites. Start with wikipedia or other online encyclopaedias. See how far you get with yelling to them in red.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so we got to learn from the chinese what is aryavarta and whats not?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong again. How surprising. They referred to Aryavarta as all of India, because at that time, Indians themselves referred to all of India as Aryavarta. Get it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong <i>again</i>. It's getting tedious. (I hope for your sake that you aren't always wrong).
Ireland, as any self-respecting Celt will tell you, comes from their historic-mythic character Eire or whatever. Their country Eireann (Ireland) is named after him. Has <i>nothing</i> whatsoever to do with Arya. Talk to some actual Celts about this. They'll tell you what they told me.
The Arya and Ireland connection is propaganda used only in white-supremacist sites.
05-12-2006, 11:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2006, 11:32 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->yes. and the druids were very vedic. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Vedas were written in India, just prior to the Indians and Iranians splitting up. The Druids' ancestors had nothing to do with the Vedas. Hence, not Vedic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->root words of malayalee and tamil have a lot more in common than the root words of bengali and urdu. and if it isnt - its cos of the sanskrit influence<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, Malayali is a South Indian Language. No, pre-Malayali language of Kerala had split from Tamil <i>before</i> Sanskrit words entered. But Sanskrit words form integral parts of Malayalam, Tamil, Kannadam, Telugu, etc. No one is denying that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->before which they shared the same gene and knowledge pol with the vedic indians. then they went west with their version of the vedas and formed zoroastrianism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They never had a version of the Vedas with which they went west. Hence not Vedic. You really know nothing about Iranians do you.
They were specifically not Vedic. They argued about the particular religious doctrines Hindus held. Gene pool has nothing to do with the Vedas. The following might hopefully help you to understand:
- The <i>Vedas</i> are religious scriptures, so use <i>Vedic</i> as a religion term if you are going to use it (don't confuse it with ethnicity)
- <i>Indo-Aryan</i> is a linguistic group - refers only to North Indian languages (don't confuse it with ethnicity)
- <i>Aryan</i> - supposed to have been a linguistic term. But used as an ethnicity by nazis and indologists. You can use it as a racial term, but know that in doing so, you agree with the AIT position, the Nazi position and other similar position.
- <i>Arya</i> is an adverb in Sanskrit and Avestan. Sanskrit-speakers and Avestan speakers - Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians - specifically refused to use the term to designate Shakas and other Indo-European people. The term is used to refer to monkeys (Vanara, see Ramayana), Chinese (later on), names given to pets (a practise from ancient times to today), principles (Buddhism and other Indian religions), positions (Acharya, teacher/philosopher - used amongst Hindus and Jains).
Don't get the terms mixed. So far, you've been using all four words to refer to the same thing. I know English has lots of words with the same meanings, but the same does not apply here.
Talking about Gene Pool, all North Indians have East Indian genes and both groups have South Indian genes. Are you wanting to pick a particular time and wipe the slate clean of all that came before it? Prior to the Vedas, the Indian Gods were already part of the pan-Indian religious beliefs. Something many western Indologist (purposefully?) overlook. You obviously do too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kashmir was Shaivaite and Shaktic. Afghanistan was very Shaivaite.
yes. and aryan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> - Aryan is a Tamil pronunciation of Sanskrit Arya.
- Aryan if you mean the English term, is either a Nazi word or the AIT term (close enough to the nazi word). You obviously speak of the pro-AIT word. Hence, you think you are not native to India.
- The West and many proponents (not all) of the AIT claim Shiva and Shakti were Dravidian and not Aryan. Fight it out with them. I know Shiva and Shakti are pan-Indian Gods of the Hindus.
05-12-2006, 11:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2006, 11:22 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The brahmins of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka (including the Tulu/Bunt brahmins), Andhra are local brahmanas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> and since when did they appear on the horizon?? at the time of the vedas??<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Shows how little you know. The people (ethnically) are local. The brahmanas practise both the Vedic and Agama traditions in the South. The Vedas, whether brought from the Punjab or elsewhere, do not amount to <i>all</i> of Hinduism. The Hindu Gods are older than the Vedas. That's why the Iranians still had some of them before Zoroastrianism. As a Bengali, you ought to know that most Bengalis are not considered Aryan either according to the AIT (though their language is considered Indo-Aryan). Some Bengali brahmins long ago were thought to come from the Vedic heartland of the Punjab. So some Bengali brahmins of today might have a bit of that ancestry.
The Agamas are very ancient, even before they were written down. The west refuses to acknowledge how ancient. It's part of denying the innate Hinduness of the South. I am not claiming they're older than the Vedas. The Vedas were written down first. Hindu traditions of the NSEW all tend to be ancient.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>most likely</i> formed after the arrival of the namboodhris to kerela.
brahmi is the original script of sanskrit, and the script of the Rg Ved <i>most likely</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Admission of speculation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then again, maybe you're just wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->or maybe its you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nah. It's you. But don't worry, you're used to it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->vanaras are a word for ANY forest dwelling living being<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but the Vanaras of the Ramayana represented monkeys. Geez.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->maheswar (maha + ishwar) and not maheswaran<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, Sanskrit (and Kannada) Maheshwara. Tamil Maheshwaran. We add an 'n' or 'm' - hence Arya<i>n</i>.
Remember: the Sanskrit is Mahabharat<i>a</i>, Ramayan<i>a</i>, Bhim<i>a</i>. See a pattern?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->then you dont see much !!
open your eyes. and ears. there'll be difference in what you'll see and what you'll hear.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Like I said, regional differences.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hindu isnt a name persians invented. its the same name as sindhu in persian. the persian H is the sanskrit S<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you figure that out just now? And here I was thinking everyone knew that already.
05-12-2006, 11:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2006, 11:28 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The South Indian Dravidianist groups say that it was a South Indian invention.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->wrong. south indian, as also all north indian, script is a derivative of brahmi and not th other way round.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've always held the Indian position that Brahmi was Indian and was the script for old Sanskrit. The Dravidian groups claim Brahmi is Dravidian. The west and their research refuses to recognise Brahmi as being of the Indian subcontinent at all. Fight it out with them. If you use the same arguing skills as exhibited here though, you'll doubtlessly fail.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->precisely. same applies for present day brahmins in tamil nadu, karnataka et al. either descendants of the original ones who came from the north (ramesh krishnan) or local trainees (and their descendants) of the aforementioned (radha krishnan)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it does not apply to the brahmins of Tamil Nadu. Again, showing your ignorance. The Gowda Saraswat Brahmins settled from the North as everyone knows. But the others are local, a very few teachers from the North was all that was needed to train the Hindu religious order of the South in the Vedas.
Man, you're such a racist. No genetics data would ever convince you. Have you gone through the genetics thread here? I've nearly finished reading all of it. The north Indians came from the south via the east. Read it again. If anyone bothered, you might find that the Gods were already known when the population moved North from the South.
I might have missed some of your other statements. Can't be bothered. Don't bother replying, I think I can predict what you'll write. You'll repeat everything you've stated ad nauseum and then conclude Q.E.D. (not by logical proof, but by repetition).
Like I said. Don't go beyond your realm of expertise: spades. Apparently even pseudo-scholarship is not your forte. Sorry to be blunt. But how is it you say it: a spade is a spade?
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+May 12 2006, 11:15 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ May 12 2006, 11:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> As a Bengali, you ought to know that most Bengalis are not considered Aryan either according to the AIT (though their language is considered Indo-Aryan). Some Bengali brahmins long ago were thought to come from the Vedic heartland of the Punjab. So some Bengali brahmins of today might have a bit of that ancestry.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
#1. This a Bengal History thread, so your posts will make more sense in "Ancient History Thread".
#2. Bengalis not being Aryans. In ethinicity context or cultural context?
#3. Not just Brahmins, but the supportings castes too were brought from Punjab in Bengal. It will be in order to point out that surnames like Dutt/Dutta, Mithra/Mitra, Malik/Mullick are found only in "Punjab and Bengal". And these castes/surnames are not Brahmins. Additionally, Rai/Ray/Roy and Chaudhary/Chaudhuri is consistent through the entire Gangetic plains upto Punjab.
So, point #2 "not Aryan" is correct in cultural context only upto late Rig Vedic period.
#4. Bengal had three waves of ethnic Aryanization (i.e. pushing indigenous tribes to interiors/jungles). Read some of the works of David Fraweley on this. Split of Anu tribe after Battle of Ten Kings and movement of rishi Dirghtamas towards east.
#5. Bengal population is indeed mixed. In fact the oldest layers (Vanga, Pundra) are grouped with Andhraties(Andhra), Souhtern Biharis(Ang), Oriyas(Kalinga) etc. They are said to be fallen Kshatriys, sons of rishi Vishvamaitra.
The point is movement of people in and out of Bengal is well documented since Rig Vedic times and most have explicit connections with North West & West (#3, #4, #5).
Non-Aryanness (could not find a better word) upto a period was a definite truth in cultural context.
Now regarding your contention with Ben_Ami's theories.
First, let us reach a common understanding that accusing anyone of being an AIT supporter does nothing constructive (and we know who gains from this infighting) in a forum like this (which I understand is meeting place of Nationalists).
But beside this, we should impartial with observations and conclusions. People have talked about DNA findings. How large is the sample? So use the data as a supplementary evidence only.
How large should be such samples if you need to evaluate a Billion people with hunderds of ethincities? Poorly designed test can yield any statistics, pro or anti AIT.
Actually, to answer ideas like Ben-Ami's, we need to first account for the reason for diversities instead of throwing accusations.
How is that different communities living togather for last 5000 years still display remarkable differences in skin colour and facial patterns? Or the marked differences in marriage customs North vs. South (one of the things that doesn't change unless forcibly converted)? Or language groupings for instance?
Asking these questions doesn't mean support for AIT. Ben_ami is of course quick with his conclusions.
Husky, I'm in agreement with you (and the DNA data) that bulk of Indian population (excluding Sinic tribes in East and some central asian tribes in North West) came from South.
DNA apart, there are too many detailed references to oceanic imagery in Rig Veda to be ignored. Actually the DNA data and the oceanic references nicely fit with each other. So some people must have moved North at some point of time (Manu during the Great Floods ???).
The point is how long is the difference between the isolation of the Northern and Southern offshoots? 3000, 5000 years?
The reason why I recommended Fraweleys work (not the random articles on Net, but books) is that he has tried to explain precisely this apparent North-South difference.
call me racist or whatever comes to your mind.
i dont want to argue with a person who believes that the monkeys of ramayan were real monkeys who could interact with humans.
i dont want to talk with someone who thinks the sanskrit word is ramayanA. there is simply no A. ask any body. same with shiv. its not shiva. its yog not yoga. the word druid comes from dru-vid where dru means immerse and vid means knowledge. and what the racist sites try to do is DENY the link - cos its gives their game away and proves conclusively that it was an out-of india thing that took place. and tho later aryavartha came to mean all of india (as hinduism spread all over india) initially (ie. as in the purans) it meant the triangular land between the hymalayas, sindhu and the vindhyas. the children of parasu went west with bits and pieces of the veda and later retouched it to form the avesta. the avesta thus is the iranian version of the ved. corroborated both by iranian and indian literature. read koenraad elst. or the iran thread of this forum.
i am not even mentioning the GSB. i am saying that hinduism was exported south by a previous gsb-LIKE exodus of brahmins from north to south. today's brahmins in the south are either descendants of the original stock (ramesh krishnan) or the descendants of the local ones they managed to convert to brahminism (radha krishnan)
and here's the link for the irish.
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articl...sm/258.htm
just google "wicca and hinduism" or "druid brahmin" and see what you get. remember our folk songs are similar too. as are our word roots. the word root connection holds for most european languages. raja, rex and regal come from the same word root. sanskrit has a LOT more in common with germanic or romance languages than with dravidian, from root words to grammar to basic system (inflective/aggulutinative). read the last chapter of koenraad elst's book to know if the druids and allans really had something to do with us in the hoary past. http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch63.htm
and just how old are tha agamas and what do they state?? are they remains of the protodravidian religion before hinduism went there??
<!--QuoteBegin-sroy+May 12 2006, 12:48 PM-->QUOTE(sroy @ May 12 2006, 12:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ben_ami is of course quick with his conclusions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i never in the least support or believe in the ait.
all i said was that hinduism was of north indian construct and was spread to the south.
. that the aryans, dravidians and austroasiatics differe so much in their language, features, customs etc that its very difficult to explain away so easily as the out-of-india types try to do claiming that indians were one homonegeous body of people.
so although AIT is all wrong, 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.
remember the connection with the celts (druids) germans, lithuanians etc IS VERY MUCH THERE. its just a question of whether the connection was due to a westward exodus (as we all believe) of an eastward exodus/invasion (as colonial AIT proponents believe). if the connections, religious as well as linguistic, were NOT there, neither of the AIT or its counter thesis would ever have been proposed in the first place.
05-13-2006, 09:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2006, 09:26 AM by Husky.)
Post 257:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bengalis not being Aryans. In ethinicity context or cultural context?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry Sroy, you misunderstand. I was not stating my own opinion on this matter. I was regurgitating the stance of <i>some</i> pro-AIT 'scholars' and some vocal anti-Hindu sites who want to see another partition in the East. I wanted to tell Benjamin-I'm-A-Bengali-Hence-Aryan-South-Indians-Are-Non-Contributors that his is not the only opinion on the matter.
My own opinion on the parameters of Bengali:
- Ethnically, Bengalis are Indian - very ancient Indian with continuous input from west India and vice-versa (export to West India).
- Linguistically: Bengali is Indo-Aryan as the language family is defined in <i>Indology</i>. Bengalis must have spoken Sanskrit prior to Bengali.
- Culturally: Vedic, like many Hindu communities all over India, NSEW.
- Religion-wise: Hindu
My opinion on the AIT is extremely low, I don't approve of the word Aryan other than as the Tamil word for Arya. To term Bengalis or other North Indians as <i>Aryan</i> is an insult in my opinion. They are not from Central Asia, but indigenous to India.
My own opinion of Bengalis as people:
- Vivekananda, Tagore, Aurobindo (I have yet to read his material other than some snippets posted in this forum, but my aunt is a great admirer of his teachings and has told me a little about him), too many too list.
- Shaktic (and Shaivite) people who are staunch Hindus.
- Sushmita Sen, Rani Mukherjee & her cousin Kajol, Mahima Choudhury - v. lovely. Ganguly - v. handsome.
- Don't know if Kalidas is Bengali, but if he is, you can guess my opinion about him.
My opinion of Benjamin:
pretty low, evidently, through his own fault: his elitist attitude is a serious turn off. His ignorance coupled with self-assurance that he is right even when he is clearly wrong (often happens in this and another thread) is highly cloying. What if a passerby believed his fictions just cause Ben claims he's a Hindu? Though this passerby got registered and posted back.
I would be sorry to find if others here share the same views as expressed by Ben in post 195. In which case I'd be in the wrong forum.
Sorry if at any time while I was arguing with Ben I inadvertently said anything offensive of Bengal or Bengalis. Never meant it <i>in the least</i>.
I also apologise for hijacking the thread, but I was not pleased that Ben's comments on the Non-contributing/non-Hindu/non-'Aryan' South got away scott-free with no one correcting him.
The AIT, whether accepted by Hindus or rejected, has left behind a stubborn belief, completely unsupported in our religion and scriptures, in a North-South division that is not just linguistic but also ethnic. I don't believe in it, though Ben clearly does.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Non-Aryanness (could not find a better word) upto a period was a definite truth in cultural context.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Use <i>non-Vedic</i>. I agree, Vedic-culture and religious scriptures and practises was definitely exported. I never said it wasn't. But Ben insists Hinduism was exported and that's a fallacy, a left-over of AIT.
I am in agreement with the rest of post 257.
05-13-2006, 09:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2006, 10:24 AM by Husky.)
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.
05-13-2006, 06:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2006, 09:58 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->dont want to talk with someone who thinks the sanskrit word is ramayanA. there is simply no A. ask any body. same with shiv. its not shiva. its yog not yoga. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well ignorance is bliss, the correct pronounciation in Sanskrit is not "Ramayan" but "Ramayana" and its the same with other things, example in Sanskrit it is "Arjuna" not "Arjun" and it is "Veda Vyasa" not "Ved Vyas", which is also why we have a book called "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" instead of "Yog Sutras of Patanjali", go through the Sanskrit dictionary here:
http://p081.ezboard.com/fhinduunityhinduis...cID=29818.topic
05-14-2006, 04:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 05:16 AM by Husky.)
Post 262
You're marvelously patient in trying to instruct Benjamin.
Re: original Sanskrit names
I have no problems with Hindi and speakers of other North Indian languages referring to the Mahabharat and Ramayan (Bhim annoys me a little, as it has a sudden end). It is perfectly right one should, when speaking in one's own language like Hindi. It is similar to how Tamil people speak of the Mahabharata<b>m</b> and Ramayana<b>m</b> and Telugu introduces a lot of its pleasant sounding 'u' sounds to many Sanskrit words (Kannada keeps the Sanskrit pronunciations perfectly intact). We are used to hearing these words in our own local languages, and that is good.
However, Ben imagines that the original Sanskrit is the same as his own mother tongue. He is the first I've ever come across to make this gross error, I can't imagine any other Indian (Hindu) thinking the Sanskrit originals are without the ending 'a'. I know the final 'a' is the short 'a', but nevertheless it cannot be ignored. The 'a' is said to be the primal vowel in Hinduism and is accorded an important place, so it's of significance and it makes Sanskrit a very beautiful sounding language.
I've posted an additional comment on Irish Gaelic <i>Aire</i> at what seemed like a more appropriate thread Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates.
05-14-2006, 11:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 11:36 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
>(Bhim annoys me a little, as it has a sudden end)
<!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think there is no point spending time on certain postors. As the japanese say it is better to kill by silence.
sorry husky you are full of crap.
i have been all over north india but no one calls it shivA or ramA or bhimA.
and wicca is not an english word its not germanic at all, its celtic. witch is the germanic derivative of wicca.
the word druid has jack in common with dravid. druid = dru (immerse) + vid (knowledge).
and Eire DOES come from arya. as does iran/arian. as much as raja, rex and regal come from the same root word.
of all european languages, lithuanian DOES have the most in common with sanskrit.
and hinduism was formed in whats today punjab-haryana (ie, thets where vedas were written) and all treatises were in sanskrit, all epics including the gita were in sanskrit, and based in uttar pradesh for the most part, hanuman and other monkeys were characters based on tribals/vanars and arya varta, as per the purans was indeed the triangular area north of vindhyas. i believe the purans a lot more than some (im)poster on the net, whose moniker is actually the name of a hairy breed of dog. much as you imagine that aryavarta extended right up to sri lanka, it simply isnt true. and much as you imagine south india was hindu right from the day the Rg Ved was written, that too isnt true. its posted many times in this forum (and corroborated by http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm) that iranians were a renegade sort of people, who fought with the vedic aryans (all aryans are non-tribal north indians and iranians) and went west with their own version of the veds, later forming zoroastrianism.
some people are too dense to see the obvious and too spineless to accept facts.
05-14-2006, 05:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 07:12 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i have been all over north india but no one calls it shivA or ramA or bhimA.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No one you met was pronouncing their names the way they are pronounced in Sanskrit then (and we were talking about Sanskrit, the language from which these names originate). Most people in North India (and other parts of India today) don't speak Sanskrit. It's Ram, Bhim, and probably Shiv in Hindi and most/all(?) other N languages.
But it <i>is</i> nevertheless Shiva, Rama, Bhima <i>in Sanskrit</i>.
Just 'cause no one you know realises the world is spherical, doesn't make it flat now does it?
So you're wrong again.
You can't tell that the names and words end on an 'a' sound if you read the Ramayana, and other Sanskrit works in the Devanagiri script thinking it's written in Hindi. In Sanskrit, unless the virama symbol is appended to silence the automatic 'a' sound, all regular consonants that don't have a vowel attached already end with an 'a' sound. I'm sorry you find it hard to wrap your brain around this, but it's the rules of the language.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>some</b> scholars <b>imagine</b> they had something to do with 'Dravidians' -> Dravid Druid<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dravid</b> is a <b>Sanskrit</b> regional designation<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The second line is my own statement. The first indicates someone else's views - look at who the subject of that first part of the sentence was.
Every sane person knows Druid comes from Dru and vid, meaning very knowledgeable. But I'm glad to know that in this respect at least you've caught up with the rest of the world. Try to keep up with the rest of it too, now, won't ya:
- http://entheogen.netfirms.com/wiccan/wicca...t_is_wicca.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The word wicca was originally the <b>Old English</b> word meaning "a male
witch"; "a female witch" was a wicce<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(alternatively, Google: Wicca "Old English")
That makes you wrong, Ben. It's not Celtic.
- http://www.mythicalireland.com/mythology...ance2.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b><i>Eire</i> - variant of <i>Eriu</i></b>, one of the greatest of the women of the Tuatha de Danaan, she was one of three daughters of the Dagda who <b>gave her name to Ireland</b> (27) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(It's a woman who gave her name to Ireland, not a man - I must have mixed up some Celtic mythologies. What's a bookworm to do?)
Back to the point: where's the Arya here? Oh. That's right. Only in your imagination.
What's that? You're wrong again? It doesn't seem to be your week, now does it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->of all european languages, lithuanian DOES have the most in common with sanskrit.
iranians ....went west with their own version of the veds, later forming zoroastrianism<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Where are their copies of the Vedas? No Vedas. Not Vedic.
<i>Benny-logic:</i> "French has a lot of words in common with Latin. All the French must be Romans!"
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hanuman and other monkeys were characters based on tribals/vanars<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Prove it.
- I've proven that the descriptions in the Sanskrit text don't match with those of the particular Indians (or any other Indians) you speak of.
- You've proven that you don't understand or know much of anything.
You've also admitted that you've not read the material in question.
The <i>Benny-method</i>: you assume you're better than everyone else; then you read things your way and <i>imagine</i> supporting evidence; and even where all the material directly contradicts you, you blind yourself to it and adamantly refuse to see things any other way.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the Rg Ved<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have never heard of the Rg Ved. Is that a book you're working on? Make sure you clearly state it's fiction. The same kind you've exposed me to on this thread.
"All characters are fictional. Any similarities ... are completely unintentional."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->much as you imagine that aryavarta extended right up to <b>sri lanka</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You can't read. Who said Aryavarta included Sri Lanka? Is this the same level of comprehension you show when you read textbooks?
Now, who's full of it? Check the mirror Benny boy. Too dense and spineless? You said it. But about yourself. Don't go crying now, 'cause you can't take the labels you gave me.
So what's the score Ben? Ouch. Not looking pretty.
I'll let it go. Just this one time.
haha what ignorance, just because North Indian's don't pronounce names as "Rama", "Bhima", "Shiva" doesn't mean anything because they are speaking in their respective regional languages & not Sanskrit just like Tamil's are not pronouncing things the Sanskrit way when they say "Maheshwaran".
so much for the short vowel 'a' and long one 'A'.
in pronounciation ramayana is more close to ramayan, most english educated people put too much stress on the ending a (which is more close to aw) and make it sound like ramayanA which is wrong. But in writing 'a' should be there. But beyond that it is hillarious why 2 educated individuals should fight over such an otherwise insignificant issue. Please chill everybody and concentrate on the main topic and not insult each other peronally.
05-14-2006, 06:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 06:54 PM by Husky.)
Post 268:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->just like Tamil's are not pronouncing things the Sanskrit way when they say "Maheshwaran".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's right. But I like hearing Hindi speaking people say Har Har Mahadev, Ishwar, Maheshwar, etc. I like us saying Maheshwaran. And I love hearing my grandparents say Maheshwara. There is place for all of it. Just like the wonderful Bengali a->o and v->b.
Post 269:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->most english educated people put too much stress on the ending a (which is more close to aw)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I know. And their a's all sound different to Indian a's.
But that's not the worst of it. Very unpleasant to hear them phonetically butcher all the other sounds in Sanskrit - I'll make an exception for those who are sincere. It always shows up the elitist Indologists/Sanskritisists (or whatever) from the west, when they can't even pronounce what they think they're experts at.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please chill everybody and concentrate on the main topic and not insult each other peronally.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Fair enough. At least Ben dropped the retorts in red. Should cut him some slack. I'll try not to respond to him anymore - unless I find he's dangerously wrong.
Can't help it - Post 266:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->moniker is actually the name of a hairy breed of dog<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And a most loyal animal it is too. A dog is the embodiment of Arya. For someone who is all "Aryan Ra Ra", you are certainly ignorant of the highest animal in Zoroastrianism: a dog. And a husky is a marvelous dog indeed.
|
