Did Indra, Varuna, and Yama used to be seen as a Triad?

[Aupmanyav]

I think @Aupmanyav might take a view that the Vedas were compiled after the Aryan invasion, which I'm skeptical about. I'd rather let Aup explain his position though.

Vedas were an on-going lore. We do not know hen they were codified - perhaps around 1,000 BC. By that time Aryans were in India, having kingdoms in North-West undivided India, fighting with people from beyond the ancient Indian region, as in 'Battle of Ten Kings'. But some hymns are very old, as old as at least 4,000 BC, when the vernal equinox coincided with the rise of the asterism (Nakshatra) of Orion. At that time, Aryans had not arrived in India and were probably in the Kurgan steppes. There are hymns even older than that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is this a majority opinion among people that study this sort of thing, or is it your own informed position?

Aryan Invasion/Migation theory is widely accepted in scholarly circles. However, BG Tilak's theory goes beyond that and places the original homeland of Aryans in sub-Polar regions. That is a very minor opinion based on the historical research of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a towering personality in Indian freedom struggle and social sphere.

Okay, so I'm looking through it. Title page says it was produced by the Sri Aurobindo Kapali Shastry Institute of Vedic Culture. Please wait...

Aurobindo is more of a cult like Madame Blavatsky or Yogananda. He was not really a Vedic scholar or an orthodox Hindu.

 

[sayak83]

This is a very minor opinion based on the historical research of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a towering personality in Indian freedom struggle and Indian social sphere.Aurobindo is more of a cult like Madam Blavatsky or Yogananda. He was not really a Vedic scholar or an orthodox Hindu.

I would have to disagree.
Sri Aurobindo - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Rig Veda Rudra already had many aspects of Siva (the auspicious one). He had braided hair, when happy he brought healing and prosperity to all, but when angry, could destroy anyone with his unbridled power.

Ha-ha. Many people had braided hair in the ancient world when there were no hair-cutting saloons.

From RigVeda (Battle of Ten Kings):

"śvityañco mā dakṣiṇataskapardā dhiyaṃjinvāso abhi hi pramanduḥ l"
These who wear hair-knots on the right, the movers of holy thought, white-robed, have won me over.
The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 7: Hymn 33
Dakṣiṇataskapardā : Dakshinatah - on the right, kapardā - people with braided, knotted hair

I would have to disagree.

You are welcome, friend.

Definitely not. There is no triad in RigVeda.

However, two pairs of Gods was popular in Vedas. One is Mitra-Varuna an the other is Inda-Agni.

 

[ajay0]

Arya means 'noble' in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as well. It is best used to term an enlightened one or Buddha, who is the culmination of goodness and auspiciousness.


Now the enlightened Mooji (disciple of H.W.Poonja) who is of african origin and the Dalai Lama who is of mongoloid origin can be termed as Aryas as per the Dharmic culture, but not so as per the racial interpretation of Arya as put by the western scholars in the nineteenth century. This creates an errorprone or confusing understanding of the term Arya in today's context, as the dharmic vision conflicts with the western understanding of the term. Imo,even an alien sentient being of an advanced nervous system capable of Buddhahood, can be termed as Arya upon enlightenment even if he or she may not belong to the human species.

If a racial context has to be put if necessary, let that be of 'Indo-european' as usually used nowadays by academic scholars and not the term Arya to avoid much of the negative and ugly connotations attached to it in the west, and also to ensure the eastern dharmic viewpoint is not sullied.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why don't you understand 'Arya' as understood by the rest of the world as an Indo-European? Why must you insist on a new and later definition?

 

[sayak83]

Why don't you understand 'Arya' as understood by the rest of the world as an Indo-European? Why must you insist on a new and later definition?

Arya never meant Indo-European. It was the Indo-European/Sanskrit word for "civilized men" or "Noble" in general and "Sir" for specific honorific. We know this, because that's how it has been used in classical literature. Duh.

But let's not have a debate here in DIR.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We know this, because that's how it has been used in classical literature. Duh.

There were times before classical literature came up. OK, next topic.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"sayak83"

Namaste,

South India has a distinctive culture of its own. It's not wrong to have regional parties representing distinctive regional aspirations. It's the extension and actualization of the idea of multi-regional, multi-party federalism that was conceived as the central idea being Indian republic.

I did not say that anything was wrong or right?

I was merely observing that the idea of Dravidianism is a construct in response to the Aryan myth, prior to this myth there were no politics of separation based on north south racial or cultural differences.

An i agree that there is nothing wrong with having polite political representation of ones regional distinctiveness ect, but if it is based on ideas that may cause Himsa then i do have to be weary of it.
Anyways, this is off topic

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was merely observing that the idea of Dravidianism is a construct in response to the Aryan myth, prior to this myth there were no politics of separation based on north south racial or cultural differences.

Satyam, yes, the Dravidianism and skin-color differences were propped by missionaries and later by greedy politicians for their own benefit, but they are a fact of history and genetics. We can also not sweep them under carpet. We can accept the differences but continue under the same umbrella of Hinduism and India. We do not need to separate. We do not need another umbrella. For that equal respect has to be given to both, the Aryans as well as the Dravidians. To Sanskrit and to Dravidian languages. Saying that Hinduism is Vedic/Aryan dharma only does not help. The major part of Hinduism is indigenous belief.

 

[ajay0]

Namaste,



I did not say that anything was wrong or right?

I was merely observing that the idea of Dravidianism is a construct in response to the Aryan myth, prior to this myth there were no politics of separation based on north south racial or cultural differences.

As Sayak have stated earlier, Arya is used to depict noble or civilized conduct and also as a personal honorific.

It was in the nineteenth century that western scholars created the so-called Aryan-Dravidian divide, through a totally wrong understanding of Hinduism and sanskrit . This created a rift between the north and south, and created a movement for Dravidistan based on Dravidian identity. I would say this was a clever ploy on the basis of the imperialist britishers with their divide and rule policy which also gave them rich dividends by fostering disunity amongst Hindus and Muslims.

The divide was later successfully exploited by Christian and Islamic missionaries to convert the lower castes by depicting their conversion as liberation from the racist 'Aryan' yoke and so on. This is a work in progress in India.

The marxist historians too are usually the ones who also prop up the Aryan-Dravidian divide, in order to create a wedge between the upper castes and lower castes in India, so as to bring about the proletarian revolution similar to that of China. Nepal has now come firmly under the communist influence of China. The maoists in India are waging a proxy war similar to Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Nagaland to establish India as a communist state.

Proper knowledge of Hinduism and sanskrit can enable people to understand the true relevance of Arya, and dissove the artificial conceptual divide amongst people. This can wipe out a lot of festering problems and issues in India in a single sweep.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Aupmanyav,"

Namaste,

Satyam, yes, the Dravidianism and skin-color differences were propped by missionaries and later by greedy politicians for their own benefit, but they are a fact of history and genetics.

Well you already now my stance on the Aryan Myth, i dont want to get into that debate again, and i don't consider (Aryan/Dravidian) categories as a fact of history, as far as i am aware genetics is only pointing to a diverse Indian population and not to such a thing as Aryan or Dravidian DNA, there are categories of ANI and ANS which some political people have misconstrued as Aryan (ANI) and Dravidian (ASI) which is incorrect.

Dhanyavad

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

ajay0,

Namaste,

As Sayak have stated earlier, Arya is used to depict noble or civilized conduct and also as a personal honorific."It was in the nineteenth century that western scholars created the so-called Aryan-Dravidian......

I already am aware of the history, thanks