Okay! Fascinating! Numbers may have some importance. Anyway have you counted how many times 'Arya' word is mentioned in all Veda-s
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Deities
- Thread starter Kirran
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"The term Arya is used 36 times in 34 hymns in the Rigveda."Okay! Fascinating! Numbers may have some importance. Anyway have you counted how many times 'Arya' word is mentioned in all Veda-s
"The Zend airya 'venerable' and Old Persian ariya are also derivates of *aryo-, and are also self-designations."
"In Iranian context the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir". Similarly, The word Iran is the Persian word for land/place of the Aryans."
"The Proto-Indo-Iranian term is hypothesized to have Proto-Indo-European origins, while according to Szemerényi it is probably a Near-Eastern loanword from the Ugaritic ary, kinsmen."
"Āryāvarta ("the abode of the āryas") is a common name for northern India in classical Sanskrit literature. Manusmṛti (2.22) gives the name to "the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern Sea to the Western Sea".
Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
also Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indra at the same time is supreme and also not. Each god has different purposes. And in Vedic rituals, minor gods which are manifestations of 'Ahamkara' are to be invoked for specific purposes. That's why they're praised there.
So the question is why not Vishnu alone? Lord Vishnu himself recommends worship of Minor gods for specific purposes. He also says they can also worship me as the manifestations of mine so that they can't fall down but ultimately can reach me while enjoying fruits of veda. If you worship Vishnu for material benefits, fruits will not be so quick. However in most cases, seeker will enter into renunciation and attain Moksha. That's why minor gods are recommended. And also it's logical that who you worship is where you go or what you get.
You'd like to know Krishna's opinion on Veda, which is, I think, much better than Indologists.
“The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)
The same manusmriti says Dravidians are Arya. The geography of abode of Aryan mentioned here is according to population of arya of the era when manusmruti was written. Manusmriti mentions dravidian kahatriyas were aryans but they gave up their dharma amd were called as Mlecchas. So the definition is in this context.
Manusmriti also indicates arya can become mleccha if he abandons vedic dharma and vice versa. You cited manusmriti So you accept India is the abode of Arya-s not north pole, don't you?
It's strange that you cited Manusmriti to support so called theory of Aryan when it is evident that it is refuted in it...
Arya is not a race. It's used to respect someone and in ancient time only those people were respected who were followers of Sanatana vedic dharma. Others were called as Mlechha.
Last edited:
And another thing Manusmriti also mentions Hindu kshatriyas (Arya) crossed Indian subcontinent defeating other countries. They settled there but eventually due to no contact with Vedic dharma and Sanskrit they forgot their dharma and were called as mlecchas. This ia the reason why there are similarities between languages. PIE is nonexistent and ridiculous theory.
People beyond Vindhya mountain series are also mentioned as Arya.
Manusmriti mentions Aryavarta as the region located between the eastern sea to the western sea and the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountain ranges.’
Bharata was one of Arya-s. His descendants including dravidians reside in Bharatavarsha, which is another name of Aryavarta. Purana-s, Mahabharata mention both names interchangeably. In the two most popular epics, Ramayan and Mahabharat, many locations are mentioned that can be found all over India extending to as far as the current Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabian Sea, Aruna Mountain, Bangladesh and Burma (Myanmar) to the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent. The most populated areas, however, were the plains of rivers Sindhu (Indus), now dried up Saraswati, Ganga (Ganges), Yamuna, and their tributaries.
Last edited:
Manu Smriti 2.21 "The tract which lies between the Himalaya and Vindhya mountains to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (place where the river Saraswati disappears) is called 'Madhyadesha' "
Manu Smriti 2.22 " But the region located between the eastern sea to the western sea, in the same manner (including) the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountain ranges, the wise call it Aryavarta."
Manu Smriti 2.23 " That land where black antelope naturally roams, one must know it to be fit for the performance for Vedic Yagya sacrifices, the all tract different from that is the country of Mlechhas (non-aryans or barbarians).
Note: Black antelope is native to Indian subcontinent only and it is found in Dravidian regions also. And also black antelope is not found in North pole.
Manu Smriti 2.22 " But the region located between the eastern sea to the western sea, in the same manner (including) the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountain ranges, the wise call it Aryavarta."
Manu Smriti 2.23 " That land where black antelope naturally roams, one must know it to be fit for the performance for Vedic Yagya sacrifices, the all tract different from that is the country of Mlechhas (non-aryans or barbarians).
Note: Black antelope is native to Indian subcontinent only and it is found in Dravidian regions also. And also black antelope is not found in North pole.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Oh, that was a verse from the time that Sage Agastya had crossed the Vindhyas.
How do you know?Oh, that was a verse from the time that Sage Agastya had crossed the Vindhyas.
the thread has been derailed :|
Refer to post # 77 by तत्त्वप्रह्व on the arya/dravida, dravida is NOT some race. it describes a region that is on south side of Bharat.
can someone who is talking about aryans /our self claimed rig veda expert aupman, point out the sanskrit root of the word 'Arya' . If you know the root/true meaning of word, there would not be this much discussion..No offense.
adiyen Ramanuja Daasa.
Refer to post # 77 by तत्त्वप्रह्व on the arya/dravida, dravida is NOT some race. it describes a region that is on south side of Bharat.
can someone who is talking about aryans /our self claimed rig veda expert aupman, point out the sanskrit root of the word 'Arya'
. If you know the root/true meaning of word, there would not be this much discussion..No offense.adiyen Ramanuja Daasa.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Kindly read my post #102 above:
"In Iranian context the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir". Similarly, The word Iran is the Persian word for land/place of the Aryans."
"The Proto-Indo-Iranian term is hypothesized to have Proto-Indo-European origins, while according to Szemerényi it is probably a Near-Eastern loanword from the Ugaritic ary, kinsmen."
"In Iranian context the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir". Similarly, The word Iran is the Persian word for land/place of the Aryans."
"The Proto-Indo-Iranian term is hypothesized to have Proto-Indo-European origins, while according to Szemerényi it is probably a Near-Eastern loanword from the Ugaritic ary, kinsmen."
Simple, because in other verses they talk about 'Aryavarta' being in the North of Vindhyas. Therefore, these verses must be older.
Speculation has no place in history.
Which verses? I know only one verse 2.22 wherein Aryavarta is mentioned as a whole Indian subcontinent. And where it is mentioned before Agastya crossed Vindhya mountains Dravidian regions were non-Aryan.
You could hardly refute scriptural references indicating India is solely cradle of Aryan-s.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Āryāvarta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The Manu Smriti (2.22) gives the name to "the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern (Bay of Bengal) to the Western Sea (Arabian Sea)".
- The Vasistha Dharma Sutra I.8-9 and 12-13 locates Āryāvarta to the east of the disappearance of the Sarasvati in the desert, to the west of Kalakavana, to the north of the mountains of Pariyatra and Vindhya and to the south of the Himalaya.
- Baudhayana Dharmasutra (BDS) 1.1.2.10 gives similar definitions and declares that Āryāvarta is the land that lies west of Kalakavana, east of Adarsana, south of the Himalayas and north of the Vindhyas, but in BDS 1.1.2.11 Āryāvarta is confined to the Ganges - Yamuna doab, and BDS 1.1.2.13-15.
Have you referred Vashishta dharma sutra? It even talks about Black antelope. I think this was confirming opinion about where Aryans live. So according to both Manusmriti and Vashistha, Indian subcontinent is the homeland of Aryans.
Just wanna keep the reminder that while the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is accepted in mainstream scholarship, the ideas in 'Arctic Home in the Vedas' to which Aup adheres are not. Not that this invalidates your views of course Aup, I just want to make sure that is clear.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The question then arises is 'When was Vashishtha smriti written?', and 'Have there been no interpolations in later times in 'Vashishtha Smriti'?' Just to prop a book is not sufficient. Even in RigVeda, there are older portions and later portions:
सप्तभिः पुत्रैरदितिरुप प्रैत पूर्व्यं युगम l प्रजायै मृत्यवे त्वत पुनर्मार्ताण्डमाभरत ll
saptabhiḥ putrairaditirupa praita pūrvyaṃ yugam l prajāyai mṛtyave tvata punarmārtāṇḍamābharat ll
So with her seven sons Aditi went forth to meet in earlier age, she brought Martanda thitherward to spring to life and die again.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10072.htm Verse 9
Later the number of Adityas changed successively to eight, ten and finally to twelve.
Last edited:
I see, thanks for the clarification!
@Aupmanyav The Indian cow is an indigenous breed going back tens of thousands of years and not an offshoot of the Central and West Asian cow. Cattle husbandry is an independent development in India, not brought in from the west. Cattle genetics is even more detrimental to the migration theories because unlike invaders, migrants would always travel with their cattle and horses. Cattle genetics does not show this. As both the ancient Indian cow and horse reflect native breeds, one can no longer propose that the invading Aryans brought them in. That the migrating Aryans left their cows and horses behind and adapted those of the indigenous Indians would be a rather silly proposition.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?