Bodhi, your statements from #63 in blue since otherwise the quoteblocks break.
The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.
Then he should have used Aryas not Aryans. Aryans is an English word with a particular meaning. He can't give it another meaning that it doesn't have. It's like if he decided to translate Jagganath with "Juggernaut" when communicating in English, merely because the latter came into English from the former (even though it has an entirely different meaning).
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc?
Aryas.
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)
"Tamilian" in English can mean only one thing, it is not ambiguous. There is no similar-sounding word in Tamil that means one thing and another in English that means something significantly different.
While Aryan has only one meaning too (=Indo-European), it is not the same as Arya. First para again: while it looks, sounds and is in fact derived from the Samskrita word "Arya" - just as Juggernaut is derived from Jagganath - it has a different meaning entirely.
"Aryan" (Indo-European) is not, going by what you say, what the person in your earlier post meant. According to you, he meant to use Arya the Vedic Hindu tribe. If he pluralises the word, then it loses more of its ambiguity (less likely to mean merely "noble" and rather more specifically refers to the Vedic Hindu tribe).
If he meant Arya and not Aryan, he should use the former and not the latter. While Indians often tend to presume the meaning of English words and then misuse it (I do this regularly too) - for example, many Indians think that "homely" means home-maker/looking after the home, instead of what it *actually* means in English (homely means plain and downright ugly) - this can have very bad side-effects. The accidental wrong use of words - such as those that end up involving Indo-European Studies where it is not really pertinent - adds a controversial tinge to cases that have none, and in this case tie unrelated matters into IE.
When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan").
If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.
Now <b>I know next you would probably say</b> there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.
There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. I had no intention of bringing the tiresome matter up again. But since you have, and since you have tried to give my opinion on it but done so incorrectly, here is my view on the matter:
Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever says there is as yet no need to accept that IE languages are supported by the historical record/have a historical basis/basis underpinned by reality rather than mere convenient linguistic taxonomy (even if we were to continue to use the classification scheme today for whatever purposes). Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.
As for "con job": that these theories have and continue to be used to deceive and manipulate people with regard to their own populations and others is certainly true as well, as again noted by Lincoln and Arvidsson too (<-referencing them, since, when does my opinion matter?). But this is an issue that stands separate from this discussion.
And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.
Okay. While my comments on them remain the same, they are to be redirected.
In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.
Sure, native scholarship, fine. But native scholarship hopefully does not *merely* consist of transplanting - through translating - the current dominant (and non-native) discourse/view on it.
And in those cases where people do find a use for translating the western view on the "history of Indian languages", then, with equal interest, Hindus may find it expedient to translate the other, alternative theories laid down by Trubetskoy, for instance. And Lincoln's and Arvidsson's writings too. And of course Dr Kalyanaraman's writings on Bharatiya Languages.
Actually, I did not know that India's Samskritam speakers were clamouring for a translation of all the works of IE Studies, or even for a written/oral dialogue in Samskritam on these matters. English is, I thought, a sufficient language to discuss, review and write-up matters that are originally non-native assertions (as per Lincoln etcetera, these are still no more than assertions at present). Save translation efforts for literature, mainstream science, and works of cinematic arts of other languages and nations - that is, for such materials as will interest and inspire a greater audience. For example, translations of the Tao Te Ching, Kalevala, dubs of Japanese films, translations of indigenous works, useful reference books, oh I don't know.
You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.
As I said, I see no need to translate the "Indo" in Indo-European. It has the added benefit of also intimating the non-indigenous twist.
While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin,
I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. An example is somewhere on Dr Kalyanaraman's pages. Here:
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf
<i>Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'</i> by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja
but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)
Which is why I called it "Hindu<b>ism</b>" only in the context of the "<b>recent western and christian argument</b>" on how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how "Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>....". See my #62
I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism"
And
As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.
Many declare their understanding on what the definition of the Hindu religion is. Mine is rather terribly simple and probably will be in conflict with everyone else's, although I (obviously) don't see that I am wrong. This will keep for some other occasion. But I am not at a loss as to what Hindu Dharma is. To me it is well-defined, which is why I know clearly that I am a member of it.
But when exactly Hindu Dharma "started" I'd define as the first time the first creature in the region encompassed by Bharatavarsha interacted with a Hindu God (or rather vice-versa) <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> This also includes the first time such a creature addressed a Hindu God like in poetic verses or in prose. And regional Hindu folk traditions, Puranas, Vedas - all mention instances of this.
Such a definition for beginnings of a noticeable "Hindu Dharma" is not unique to me. While the history of the Tao (specifically the force that is called the Tao and not the entire tradition that includes knowledge of the Tao) is dated to the time when the Yellow Emperor gained knowledge of it, the Chinese traditional religion that the west calls "Taoism" actually encompasses more than merely the Tao whose main aspects were later recorded by Lao Tse. The Chinese traditionalists of Taiwan and China date their religion by their Gods - that is, it is Eternal (Sanatana). They say that their Gods, whom the people knew of before the Tao, knew eternally of this wisdom and it was through their Gods' benevolence that the Tao came down to mankind in the reign of the Yellow Emperor. Ancient China already had their Gods. So the Yellow Emperor's period does not mark the beginning of "Taoism" - where this is used to refer to the traditional religion of China - since at that time their Gods were already well-established in people's ken.
Meanwhile, the west dates "Taoism" to Lao Tse's written work on it, which they say is around the 6th-4th BCE I think it was. The <i>west</i> also dates Jaina tradition to about 6th or 5th BCE - the time of the *last* Tirtankara, Mahavira, instead of the first <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't follow in what context I am to be reminded of this.
Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?
Bodhi, if you insist on speaking for me, you are free to do so. And with it, also free to carry on producing my side of the dialogue all by yourself. I only wonder that you then seek my confirmation for *your* (moreover incorrect) sketch of what you presume my opinion is.
In my mind I classify Jains as Hindus, and in this Sandhya Jain and numerous older-generation Jains agree. However, until it is universally recognised, I can hardly impose a term on a community if it is disagreeable to a reasonable number among them. My opinion does not matter on this score either. *Theirs* is what matters: whether they identify with and consequently agree to be included under "Hindu".
And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?
I ask this - in spite of it being of no moment to me - because it evidently is for you, else you would not have brought it up.
The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.
Then he should have used Aryas not Aryans. Aryans is an English word with a particular meaning. He can't give it another meaning that it doesn't have. It's like if he decided to translate Jagganath with "Juggernaut" when communicating in English, merely because the latter came into English from the former (even though it has an entirely different meaning).
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc?
Aryas.
Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)
"Tamilian" in English can mean only one thing, it is not ambiguous. There is no similar-sounding word in Tamil that means one thing and another in English that means something significantly different.
While Aryan has only one meaning too (=Indo-European), it is not the same as Arya. First para again: while it looks, sounds and is in fact derived from the Samskrita word "Arya" - just as Juggernaut is derived from Jagganath - it has a different meaning entirely.
"Aryan" (Indo-European) is not, going by what you say, what the person in your earlier post meant. According to you, he meant to use Arya the Vedic Hindu tribe. If he pluralises the word, then it loses more of its ambiguity (less likely to mean merely "noble" and rather more specifically refers to the Vedic Hindu tribe).
If he meant Arya and not Aryan, he should use the former and not the latter. While Indians often tend to presume the meaning of English words and then misuse it (I do this regularly too) - for example, many Indians think that "homely" means home-maker/looking after the home, instead of what it *actually* means in English (homely means plain and downright ugly) - this can have very bad side-effects. The accidental wrong use of words - such as those that end up involving Indo-European Studies where it is not really pertinent - adds a controversial tinge to cases that have none, and in this case tie unrelated matters into IE.
When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan").
If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.
Now <b>I know next you would probably say</b> there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.
There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. I had no intention of bringing the tiresome matter up again. But since you have, and since you have tried to give my opinion on it but done so incorrectly, here is my view on the matter:
Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever says there is as yet no need to accept that IE languages are supported by the historical record/have a historical basis/basis underpinned by reality rather than mere convenient linguistic taxonomy (even if we were to continue to use the classification scheme today for whatever purposes). Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.
As for "con job": that these theories have and continue to be used to deceive and manipulate people with regard to their own populations and others is certainly true as well, as again noted by Lincoln and Arvidsson too (<-referencing them, since, when does my opinion matter?). But this is an issue that stands separate from this discussion.
And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.
Okay. While my comments on them remain the same, they are to be redirected.
In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.
Sure, native scholarship, fine. But native scholarship hopefully does not *merely* consist of transplanting - through translating - the current dominant (and non-native) discourse/view on it.
And in those cases where people do find a use for translating the western view on the "history of Indian languages", then, with equal interest, Hindus may find it expedient to translate the other, alternative theories laid down by Trubetskoy, for instance. And Lincoln's and Arvidsson's writings too. And of course Dr Kalyanaraman's writings on Bharatiya Languages.
Actually, I did not know that India's Samskritam speakers were clamouring for a translation of all the works of IE Studies, or even for a written/oral dialogue in Samskritam on these matters. English is, I thought, a sufficient language to discuss, review and write-up matters that are originally non-native assertions (as per Lincoln etcetera, these are still no more than assertions at present). Save translation efforts for literature, mainstream science, and works of cinematic arts of other languages and nations - that is, for such materials as will interest and inspire a greater audience. For example, translations of the Tao Te Ching, Kalevala, dubs of Japanese films, translations of indigenous works, useful reference books, oh I don't know.
You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.
As I said, I see no need to translate the "Indo" in Indo-European. It has the added benefit of also intimating the non-indigenous twist.
While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin,
I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. An example is somewhere on Dr Kalyanaraman's pages. Here:
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf
<i>Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'</i> by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja
but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)
Which is why I called it "Hindu<b>ism</b>" only in the context of the "<b>recent western and christian argument</b>" on how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how "Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>....". See my #62
I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism"
And
As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.
Many declare their understanding on what the definition of the Hindu religion is. Mine is rather terribly simple and probably will be in conflict with everyone else's, although I (obviously) don't see that I am wrong. This will keep for some other occasion. But I am not at a loss as to what Hindu Dharma is. To me it is well-defined, which is why I know clearly that I am a member of it.
But when exactly Hindu Dharma "started" I'd define as the first time the first creature in the region encompassed by Bharatavarsha interacted with a Hindu God (or rather vice-versa) <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> This also includes the first time such a creature addressed a Hindu God like in poetic verses or in prose. And regional Hindu folk traditions, Puranas, Vedas - all mention instances of this. Such a definition for beginnings of a noticeable "Hindu Dharma" is not unique to me. While the history of the Tao (specifically the force that is called the Tao and not the entire tradition that includes knowledge of the Tao) is dated to the time when the Yellow Emperor gained knowledge of it, the Chinese traditional religion that the west calls "Taoism" actually encompasses more than merely the Tao whose main aspects were later recorded by Lao Tse. The Chinese traditionalists of Taiwan and China date their religion by their Gods - that is, it is Eternal (Sanatana). They say that their Gods, whom the people knew of before the Tao, knew eternally of this wisdom and it was through their Gods' benevolence that the Tao came down to mankind in the reign of the Yellow Emperor. Ancient China already had their Gods. So the Yellow Emperor's period does not mark the beginning of "Taoism" - where this is used to refer to the traditional religion of China - since at that time their Gods were already well-established in people's ken.
Meanwhile, the west dates "Taoism" to Lao Tse's written work on it, which they say is around the 6th-4th BCE I think it was. The <i>west</i> also dates Jaina tradition to about 6th or 5th BCE - the time of the *last* Tirtankara, Mahavira, instead of the first <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't follow in what context I am to be reminded of this.
Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?
Bodhi, if you insist on speaking for me, you are free to do so. And with it, also free to carry on producing my side of the dialogue all by yourself. I only wonder that you then seek my confirmation for *your* (moreover incorrect) sketch of what you presume my opinion is.
In my mind I classify Jains as Hindus, and in this Sandhya Jain and numerous older-generation Jains agree. However, until it is universally recognised, I can hardly impose a term on a community if it is disagreeable to a reasonable number among them. My opinion does not matter on this score either. *Theirs* is what matters: whether they identify with and consequently agree to be included under "Hindu".
And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?
I ask this - in spite of it being of no moment to me - because it evidently is for you, else you would not have brought it up.