10-10-2008, 11:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> From Shrikant Taalagiris work , RigVedic History, it seems that it
> is only Pururavas who call themselves "Arya" and no one else. In the
> same way it is Persians who call themselves Arya, and none else. It
> seems that calling "Arya" implied to be some one having desirable
> attributes. And that may be why both the "Pururavas" and the
> Persians used this name only to themselves or may be occasionaly to
> some one who they really liked.
>
No, not even someone they liked. They kept the term "Arya" exclusively
for themselves, including fellow tribesmen whom they did not like (e.g.
traitors) and excluding foreigners they did like (e.g. military alllies
like Mandhatr). Only when non-Pauravas massively adopted thev Paurava
Vedic culture as their cultural standard did the meaning shift from
ethnic Paurava to cultural Vedic.
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
> is only Pururavas who call themselves "Arya" and no one else. In the
> same way it is Persians who call themselves Arya, and none else. It
> seems that calling "Arya" implied to be some one having desirable
> attributes. And that may be why both the "Pururavas" and the
> Persians used this name only to themselves or may be occasionaly to
> some one who they really liked.
>
No, not even someone they liked. They kept the term "Arya" exclusively
for themselves, including fellow tribesmen whom they did not like (e.g.
traitors) and excluding foreigners they did like (e.g. military alllies
like Mandhatr). Only when non-Pauravas massively adopted thev Paurava
Vedic culture as their cultural standard did the meaning shift from
ethnic Paurava to cultural Vedic.
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->