Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 382
QuoteReplyTopic: Did the Indians use Aryan as National Designation Posted: 12-Jun-2013 at 15:43
Wikipedia cites Talageri to show that early on the Indo-Aryans used the term "Aryan" as a national designation. But I've read Talageri and he seems to contradict himself:
The word [Arya] is used in the sense
of ?We, the Noble?.When an
Iranian, for example, used the word Airya, he undoubtedly meant an Iranian, or even perhaps an Iranian belonging to his
own particular tribe or community. – Shrikant G. Talageri, The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis
Then he says:
In the tribal sense, the word is used only in reference to the
PUrus:
a. In I.59.2, Agni is said to have been produced by the Gods to be
a light unto the Arya. In the sixth verse, it is clear that the hymn is
composed on behalf of the PUrus.
b. In VII.5.6, again, Agni is said to have driven away the Dasyus
and brought forth broad light for the Arya. In the third verse, the deed is
said to have been done for the PUrus.
An examination of the family identity of the RSis who use the word
Arya clinches the identification of the PUrus (and particularly the Bharatas)
as the Aryas of the Rigveda: of the 34 hymns in which the word is used, 28
hymns are composed by the Bharatas, ANgirases and VasiSThas.
And I have had discussions about this and I don't see how he comes to the conclusion that the term "Aryan" was used in the national or tribal sense in reference to the Purus. Isn't Purus the national or tribal designation in all these examples and Arya a religious designation to distinguish from those who do not subscribe to the Vedas?
And I have had discussions about this and I don't see how he comes to the conclusion that the term "Aryan" was used in the national or tribal sense in reference to the Purus. Isn't Purus the national or tribal designation in all these examples and Arya a religious designation to distinguish from those who do not subscribe to the Vedas?
You have yourself resolved the issue.The blue part seems to flow to and from the green part. Atleast, you didn't intend it this way.
There is no "Aryan". The term is "Arya". The former term was cooked up by colonial historians and is singular. The latter may well also be plural.
"Arya" is the term applied to those who followed the Rig Vedic rites.
And who wrote this Rig Veda?---EXCLUSIVELY the Puru tribe.
Who were these Puru? They were the most dominant of the Indo European tribes (after the dasarajna war). Others included Parsu (perhaps Persians), Druhyu, Turvasa, Anu etc. Indias Official name (BHARATH) is that of the most important of Puru kings
What did the members of this Puru tribe call themselves? Each of them was an Arya. The individuals did not call themselves a "Puru".
Did the term Arya have political significance? Yes. It was a collective identity of a prominent society, which may very well be the worlds first organized state, the first nation.
If you dont understand, please examine the term "Aryavarta" (abode of the Arya)----Indias oldest name , originally used for the Indus-Saraswathy valley. Thus we have the oldest name for any political territory starting with the term Arya.
Agni is
described as a �fountain� to the PUrus (X.4.1), a �priest� who drives away
the sins of the PUrus (I.129.5), the Hero who is worshipped by the PUrus
(1.59.6), the protector of the sacrifices of the PUrus (V.17.1), and the
destroyer of enemy castles for the PUrus (VII.5.3).
Mitra
and Varuna are described as affording special aid in battle and war to
the PUrus, in the form of powerful allies and mighty steeds (IV.38.1, 3;
39.2).
Indra
is identified as the God to whom the PUrus sacrifice in order to gain new
favours (VI.20.10), and for whom the PUrus shed Soma (VIII.64.10). Indra
gives freedom to the PUrus by slaying VRtra (IV.21.10), helps the PUrus
in battle (VII.19.3), and breaks down enemy castles for the PUrus (I.63.7;
130.7; 131.4).
Indra
even speaks to the PUrus and asks them to sacrifice to him alone, promising
in return his friendship, protection and generosity (X.48.5.). In a Biblical
context, this would have been a testimony of �God�s covenant� with the
People of the Book.
One word
which the scholars are unanimous in treating as a denominative epithet
of the Vedic Aryans in the Rigveda is, beyond any doubt, the word Arya:
according to them, Arya in the Rigveda refers to the Vedic Aryans (and,
by implication, words like DAsa and Dasyu, contrasted with the word Arya,
refer to people other than the Vedic Aryans).
This is
a perfectly logical understanding of the use of the word Arya in the Rigveda
(although scholars opposed to the Aryan invasion theory balk at this interpretation
of the word, in the mistaken belief that this interpretation somehow symbolises
the concept of invader Aryans and native non-Aryans).
But the
actual connotation of this fact must be made clear. The Vedic Aryans
called themselves Arya in the Rigveda, the Iranians called themselves Airya
in their texts, the Irish called themselves, or their land, Eire, in their
traditions: all these different Indo-European peoples were each, individually
and separately, calling themselves by this particular name. But
it does not follow that they would also be calling each other by the same
name.
The word
is used in the sense of �We, the Noble�. When an Iranian, for example,
used the word Airya, he undoubtedly meant an Iranian, or even perhaps
an Iranian belonging to his own particular tribe or community.
He would never have dreamt of refering to a Vedic Aryan or an Irishman
by the same term.
The use
of the word Arya in the Rigveda must be understood in this sense: the Vedic
Aryans used the word Arya in reference to Vedic Aryans as distinct from
other people, and not in reference to Indo-European language speaking
people as distinct from non-Indo-European language speaking people.
All other people, Indo-Europeans or otherwise, other than themselves, were
non-Aryas to the Vedic Aryans.
Therefore,
also, in order to identify the Vedic Aryans, it is necessary to identify
the people who are referred to as Arya in the Rigveda.
The word
Arya is used 36 times in 34 hymns in the Rigveda
In short,
the PUrus alone were the Vedic Aryans, the Aryas of the Rigveda; and the
non-PUrus were the DAsas of the Rigveda.
And I have had discussions about this and I don't see how he comes to the conclusion that the term "Aryan" was used in the national or tribal sense in reference to the Purus. Isn't Purus the national or tribal designation in all these examples and Arya a religious designation to distinguish from those who do not subscribe to the Vedas?
You have yourself resolved the issue.The blue part seems to flow to and from the green part. Atleast, you didn't intend it this way.
There is no "Aryan". The term is "Arya". The former term was cooked up by colonial historians and is singular. The latter may well also be plural.
"Arya" is the term applied to those who followed the Rig Vedic rites.
And who wrote this Rig Veda?---EXCLUSIVELY the Puru tribe.
Who were these Puru? They were the most dominant of the Indo European tribes (after the dasarajna war). Others included Parsu (perhaps Persians), Druhyu, Turvasa, Anu etc. Indias Official name (BHARATH) is that of the most important of Puru kings
What did the members of this Puru tribe call themselves? Each of them was an Arya. The individuals did not call themselves a "Puru".
Did the term Arya have political significance? Yes. It was a collective identity of a prominent society, which may very well be the worlds first organized state, the first nation.
If you dont understand, please examine the term "Aryavarta" (abode of the Arya)----Indias oldest name , originally used for the Indus-Saraswathy valley. Thus we have the oldest name for any political territory starting with the term Arya.
Agni is
described as a �fountain� to the PUrus (X.4.1), a �priest� who drives away
the sins of the PUrus (I.129.5), the Hero who is worshipped by the PUrus
(1.59.6), the protector of the sacrifices of the PUrus (V.17.1), and the
destroyer of enemy castles for the PUrus (VII.5.3).
Mitra
and Varuna are described as affording special aid in battle and war to
the PUrus, in the form of powerful allies and mighty steeds (IV.38.1, 3;
39.2).
Indra
is identified as the God to whom the PUrus sacrifice in order to gain new
favours (VI.20.10), and for whom the PUrus shed Soma (VIII.64.10). Indra
gives freedom to the PUrus by slaying VRtra (IV.21.10), helps the PUrus
in battle (VII.19.3), and breaks down enemy castles for the PUrus (I.63.7;
130.7; 131.4).
Indra
even speaks to the PUrus and asks them to sacrifice to him alone, promising
in return his friendship, protection and generosity (X.48.5.). In a Biblical
context, this would have been a testimony of �God�s covenant� with the
People of the Book.
One word
which the scholars are unanimous in treating as a denominative epithet
of the Vedic Aryans in the Rigveda is, beyond any doubt, the word Arya:
according to them, Arya in the Rigveda refers to the Vedic Aryans (and,
by implication, words like DAsa and Dasyu, contrasted with the word Arya,
refer to people other than the Vedic Aryans).
This is
a perfectly logical understanding of the use of the word Arya in the Rigveda
(although scholars opposed to the Aryan invasion theory balk at this interpretation
of the word, in the mistaken belief that this interpretation somehow symbolises
the concept of invader Aryans and native non-Aryans).
But the
actual connotation of this fact must be made clear. The Vedic Aryans
called themselves Arya in the Rigveda, the Iranians called themselves Airya
in their texts, the Irish called themselves, or their land, Eire, in their
traditions: all these different Indo-European peoples were each, individually
and separately, calling themselves by this particular name. But
it does not follow that they would also be calling each other by the same
name.
The word
is used in the sense of �We, the Noble�. When an Iranian, for example,
used the word Airya, he undoubtedly meant an Iranian, or even perhaps
an Iranian belonging to his own particular tribe or community.
He would never have dreamt of refering to a Vedic Aryan or an Irishman
by the same term.
The use
of the word Arya in the Rigveda must be understood in this sense: the Vedic
Aryans used the word Arya in reference to Vedic Aryans as distinct from
other people, and not in reference to Indo-European language speaking
people as distinct from non-Indo-European language speaking people.
All other people, Indo-Europeans or otherwise, other than themselves, were
non-Aryas to the Vedic Aryans.
Therefore,
also, in order to identify the Vedic Aryans, it is necessary to identify
the people who are referred to as Arya in the Rigveda.
The word
Arya is used 36 times in 34 hymns in the Rigveda
In short,
the PUrus alone were the Vedic Aryans, the Aryas of the Rigveda; and the
non-PUrus were the DAsas of the Rigveda.
http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch5.htm
Is this the same Puru found written under a house in Easter Island (Rapa Nui)?
"The Puruhua arose as a tribe in this region of the upperwaters; but the clan of Puruhua is also dead, and no longer found in Yanahuara and among the head-waters, this clan is dead. The Puru branch of these lived longer among head-waters ; but was not so great as the clan that was dead. Among these head-waters, and the dead clans that once were there, were the Yunca, they....
Then the clan from the snowy mountains lighted the Sun-fires and became allies with the rulers of the Chincha, and the Runahuanca, but when the chief of the Puruhua, after six years died. The Cha-Rapa were punished and overwhelmed by the barbarians, who gorged the loved tribe.
They afterwards joined the Sun-people of Puna. Some remained with the Chief Hualla and his clan, others joined the Sun-people of Puruha, and of Puruhua; some passed to the Eagle chief of the Manchua, others were with the Lican ancestors' Sun's fires; while others were among the coast-lands people, and among the sacred women, the mothers of the Sun-peoples, and they extended to the Purumacua, near the Mauli River of the coast. "????
The Rongo Rongo and the Indus script have yet to be decoded. Barry Fell tried and failed to adequately connect the 2. However, later folks have connected it to what some are calling "first Tongue". There is a script that has been identified on 5 continents, including the Americas. It's also called "old Negev" script. The problem with Rong Rongo, is that there aren't many complete examples of it left. Most examples we have are on wooden artifacts, and dating is nearly impossible.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
The Rongo Rongo and the Indus script have yet to be decoded. Barry Fell tried and failed to adequately connect the 2. However, later folks have connected it to what some are calling "first Tongue". There is a script that has been identified on 5 continents, including the Americas. It's also called "old Negev" script. The problem with Rong Rongo, is that there aren't many complete examples of it left. Most examples we have are on wooden artifacts, and dating is nearly impossible.
Rongo, Rapanui, Indus, Easter Island statues, Peruvian Chachapoya, Lupaka/Aymara etc. There is only way to find the truth: Lapita! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapita
BTW "Hukumari" is a bear in Aymara, Lopaka in old Indian (India, not Amerind) means a wolf or any dangerous wild animal. Lopaka-Lapita-Lupaka of Aymara; maybe the same people?
What about Tiwanaku? At
first we must find the real and correct meaning of that word. There
are many ridiculous interpretations as follows:
Bravo, Carlos
............. Inti Huahuan jake ....... Hombres hijos del sol.
Coba, Bernabé de ......
Taypicala. .................. Piedra de en medio.
Lizárraga, B. de
.......... Taipicala .................... Piedra de en medio.
Cúneo Vida!, R.
.......... Tia huáñuc ................ Muertos sentados.
Diaz Romero, B............
Titihuahuanacu.......... Los hijos del jaguar.
I think that Ludovico
Bertonio has written the truth about this word in his book year 1612,
"Vocabulario de la Lengva Aymara (Dialect of Lupaca).
He tells on page 550 about
huanaco as follows;
"Animal como carnero
silvestre" = wild animal
What about "Ti"
on page 713?
"Ti es una particula
que se usa mucho en las oraciones interrogatorias y negativas para
adorno de ellas y rarars veces se deja de poner, para ponerla, quendo
es menester and at the same time Ludovico refers to his grammatics
written in 1605 2. p.c. 19 y e: p.c. 4.5.
Moreover, Eire (Ireland) is etymologically disconnected from the .... Aryans.
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Not Aryan (in Indian context the correct term is "Arya" anyway) but the term "Aryavarta" (ie Land of the Aryas) was used as National Designation. Even the 9th century Gurjara Pratihara rulers adopted the title "Maharaja adhiraj of Aryavarta" (The King of kings of the land of the Aryas). So the term was used as a national designation. However the boundary of the Aryavarta prescribed in the different scriptures over time was different, but none the less the core territory is more or less same.
Another thing that I have noticed in this forum that people keep mixing the European and Indian perspective of the term Arya. In Indian context the term Arya was used more in the cultural term than in the racial tone. The Arya means the noble person. Broadly speaking Arya is the one who follows the Vedic rituals and aknowledges the authority of the Veda. It didn't and doesn't have any racial tone in contrast to the term that was perceived in Europe in 19th century.
the only thing that happened is with time Indians adopted their identity and some of their cultural ways
Saying that Indians were never aryans is equal to saying that French were never French, Romans were never Romans or Greeks were never Greeks. Lets not forget that the the word Aryan itself is derived from the Sanskrit word "Arya" which means noble person.
I would just like to interject my opinion, that the word "Aryan" is but a duplicate of the religious word "Arian" or even "Hadrian?" (Note in
French and other languages during differing times the "H" is silent, thus "Hispagna" is sometimes written as "Ispagna!"
Moreover, maybe Aryan/Arian was converted into the word "Area" or as the French and other languages have converted it into "Pars?" And "pars" indeed might well have changed into "Pers" and eventually "Persian" or even "Parisian?"
the only thing that happened is with time Indians adopted their identity and some of their cultural ways
Saying that Indians were never aryans is equal to saying that French were never French, Romans were never Romans or Greeks were never Greeks. Lets not forget that the the word Aryan itself is derived from the Sanskrit word "Arya" which means noble person.
Yet, it would be misleading to say that the Indians were Aryans (in the national sense) in the Vedas.
When an Irano-Afghan called himself an Aryan he meant he was associated with other Aryan nationals. When an Indian called himself an Aryan he basically just meant he was a good person following the Vedic creed.
Sure Aryavarta is a national designation, but does not appear until much later in the history and long after the Irano-Afghans introduce themselves as the Aryans of the nation Aryana. You are already aware yourself that Aryan in the Vedas was not a national designation but rather an adjective "noble person."
An Irano-Afghan calling himself an Aryan would be like a French person calling himself French. An Indian calling himself Aryan would be like a person calling himself "noble."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum