Agnimitra wrote:RajeshA ji you've been missed here.
I second that.
Satyam, Satyam, Punah Satyam. RajeshA saar, come back, no!
Atleast, in this thread. Similarly, Shiv saar, at least for this thread.
KLP Dubey wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about about something whose meaning is not known?
I'm not contradicting myself. "Knowledge" of the Veda does not mean that one has 'deciphered its meaning'. It means a correct knowledge of its sounds (shiksha), their arrangement (chandas), accent and grammatical aspects (vyakarana). These disciplines have been highly successful and created a great deal of useful knowledge which the Indians have disseminated to the rest of humanity.
how can you claim that the words of Veda are not Sanskrit when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga? How can you say that Vedic words are meaningless when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga?
KLP Dubey wrote:It also means a knowledge of the various meanings that humans have assigned to its sounds (nirukta). Note, nirukta is not a study of reliable meanings of the Veda or its interpretation. It is basically a catalog of previously suggested meanings. This discipline has had no clear success.
I think this is a disingenuous position. On one hand you are saying that people should not ignore what Hindhus have been saying for more than 5000 years, on the other hand you are yourself trying to undermine Niruktha just because its presence undermines your position?
KLP Dubey wrote:The other two vedangas are concerned with trying to interpret its sounds - which contain universally valid information - in terms of their effects on the human condition (kalpa and jyotish). The 'success' of these disciplines is dependent on your epistemological viewpoint.
But, the basic point is that Vedhas do contain a lot of knowledge(and they are not some meaningless mumble jumble). And to decode(or to understand) this knowledge, knowledge of Vedha-angas are required. One of the Vedha-angas being Kalpa(which deals with rituals, creation of altars, ...etc), it is obvious that Vedhas contain knowledge related to rituals or atleast, knowledge about rituals is required to understand the wisdom of Vedhas.
And since, Jyothishya is also a Vedha-anga, knowledge of Jyothishya is required to understand Vaidik wisdom.
And there are also Upa-Vedhas:
Medicine (Āyurvedha), associated with the Rigvedha
Archery (Dhanurvedha), associated with the Yajurvedha
Music and sacred dance (Gāndharva-vedha), associated with the Saamavedha
Military science (Shastrashastra), associated with the Atharvavedha
Upa-Vedha could mean knowledge branches derived from the Vedhas or it could also mean applied(i.e. practical) knowledge derived from the Vedhas. It is also clearly given which branch was derived from which Vedha.
This is also traditionally being studied by the Hindhus for more than 5000 years.
BTW, I wonder where the colonial EJ 'indologists' got 5000 year mark from? Just the good old creation day mentioned in THE BOOK?
KLP Dubey wrote:There is no successful discipline concerned with "decphering the meaning" of the Veda (i.e. the Rgveda Samhita) in terms of history, geography, and human civilization. All previous and current attempts have failed and give absurd results. Moreover, the successful darshanas (mimansa and vedanta) have shown that the sounds of the Veda cannot be assumed to be anything but eternal and impersonal.
They are eternal and impersonal, alright.
KLP Dubey wrote:As also mentioned previously, the ancient Indians were no fools. There is a clear division between Veda, Purana, and Itihasa. The latter two deal with human history and myth. The Veda is separate from these and this has been common knowledge from time immemorial. It is only after the western colonization of India that the politically motivated urge to find history and geography in the Veda has begun (AIT, AMT, OIT, etc).
I think this is a much better position. Vedhas have always been considered a storehouse of knowledge. The word 'Vedha' itself means 'knowledge'. The dhatu 'Vidh' denotes 'knowledge'. This is found in another word 'Vidh-van' which means 'scholar'. In sanskrit, 'vidh' is used even as a verb, correct me if I am wrong.
But, it has never been claimed(either in Vedhas Itself or by Vedha-angas or by Puranas or by Ithihaasas or by other Darshanas) that Vedha is a historical record.
It was the colonial EJ 'indologists' who came up with this new and revolutionary idea that Vedha is a historical record. I don't know whether Buddhists ever made this claim about Vedhas.
But, how can anyone just make an absurd claim without any reason when the traditions associated with the Vedhas nor Vedhas themselves support this claim(that Vedhas area historical record)? In fact, it has been explicitly said that Vedhas contain a lot of knowledge that is eternal(basically saying that Vedhas are not related to any one single location, time, circumstance or personality). This itself is an emphatic claim that Vedhas are not a historical record.
There are six-darshanas that accept the Vaidhik authority(which means that they derive their branch from the Vedhas.):
Nyaya: By Gauthama. It is based on logic(Tharka).
Vaisheshika: By Kanadha. It proposes atomic(kanam) structure of the elements.
Sankhya: By Kapila. It suggests the negation of all the things(Prakruthi) to arrive at the remainder(Purusha) which is eternal and impersonal.
Yoga: By Pathanjali. It deals with Physical and Mental exercises to control the mind(Chittha vritthi nirodha)
Mimamsa: By Vyasa->Jaimini->Kumarilla. It proposes the prominence of rituals.
Vedanta (or Uttara "later" Mimamsa): By Vyasa->Shankara. It talks about Moksha(liberation).
None of the above darshanas even suggest that Vedhas could be historical or geographical records.
Some events maybe mentioned in Vedhas while conveying a point. The point that the Vedha is trying to convey is the important thing, the event is a side-note. That event need not be historical at all because no one claims it to be history. It could be fiction/prediction/imagination/history/history mixed with imagination/prediction based upon past/...etc. It could be anything. The vital point is what Vedha is conveying. By ignoring the main point and concentrating on the side-note based on the presumption that it is a historical record leads to the strange narratives. Such narratives can be spun dime a dozen by anyone with some imagination, after all there is no need to base it on anything. One can come up with whatever one want to.
Hindhus have their historical records: Puraanas and Ithihaasas.
Ithihaasas, as the name clarifies, are precise historical records.
Puraanas, as the name suggests, are very old historical records which may have many omissions and commissions in the story telling due to the fact that they are very very old. MB, for example, is primarily a Ithihaasa. But it contains several Puraanas within it. So, it means the primary story of Paandavas and Kauravas is a Ithihaasa while the various other stories told within MB like Nala-Dhamayanthi, birth of Garooda-Naga, ...etc are Puraanas.
What the colonials have done is that they have completely reversed this.
Those records that Hindhus claim as their histories are dismissed as myths by the colonial EJs.
Those records that Hindhus claim as eternal knowledge(i.e. not historical) are claimed by the colonial EJs as historical records.
Its upside down. Its like, if I say, "X is my bro and Y is my grandfather and I pray to Z. Z is my Goddess."
Then the colonials say, "no you are lying. X cannot be your bro. Y must be your bro and Z must be your grandmother." And these colonials have no reason to make these claims except their own prejudice.
KLP Dubey wrote:This is a misleading comparison. First of all, the Arabs, Jews, and Christians do not consider the "Word" as eternal. They consider it the "word of god"
KL ji, to be fair, in the New Testament, we have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
." - John 1.1
Also, in Islam, there was violent disagreement and schism between the Mutazilites and the Asharites about whether the Qur'an was the created word of god or whether it was co-eternal with god.
They are uncannily similar to Hindhu ones. Some have even shown the exact Hindhu ones that they imitate.
That is proof that these newer cults were derived from older Vaidhik branches with lots of corruption happening.
I had a doubt. How does one differentiate between adjective and noun in Sanskruth? And how to know whether a word is a common noun or proper noun?
For example, if it is said that Krushnah Sundharah.
How does one know whether Krushnah(black male) and Sundharah(beautiful male) is a common noun or adjective or proper noun?
I think that explanation would be on topic on this thread and also useful. Thanks in Advance.
Virendra wrote:Is a ch to d possible from Sanskrit to other IE languages?
Just struck me that their Dermatologist (skin doc) is the same as our Charma rog (skin disease).
Latin for bone is 'ossis'.
German for bone is 'os'
French for bone is 'os'
Arabic for bone is 'azm'
Urdu for bone is 'haddi'(which means Farsi word for bone must also be 'haddi')
Hindi for bone is 'asthi'
All these words are derived from the sanskruth word for bone: 'ashti'
But, there is one more thing
English for bone is 'bone'
Thelugu for bone is 'bokka'
Note the similarities. Basically, all languages share similarities with each other. This whole 'Indo-European' classification is based on AIT itself. It would be better if these classifications are ignored, at least, by Indians(particularly on this thread).
What is European about Indian languages?
When all languages have similarities with each other, then what are these classifications based on?
These classifications like 'indo-european' 'proto-dravidian' 'indo-aryan' 'indo-iranian'...etc are bogus non-sense, IMHO.
Murugan wrote:Reading Dante
about seven deadly sins
Septema Peccata Mortalia
Sapta Pataka(!!) (maha)
How much latin is influenced by samskrit
Latin is very much influenced by Sanskruth. Take the good old months' names:
September, October, November, December.
September -> Saptham-vara (7th turn)
October -> Ashtam-vara (8th turn)
November -> Navam-vara (9th turn)
December -> Dasham-vara (10th turn)
'varam' means 'again'. It denotes a repetition. In India, one finds the word 'varam' is used for the days of the week as in Shani-vara(i.e. Saturnday or Saturday) because days of the week also get repeated.
'vara' becomes 'ber' in the latin version. Actually, there is a suthra in Sanskruth grammer called 'ba-va-yor abedhah'. It means 'ba' and 'va' are indistinct and can be used to replace each other.
Originally, September, October, November and December were 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months respectively. Later, newer months were added. For example, August and July.
Original Roman calendar:
Calendar of Romulus
Roman writers attributed the original Roman calendar to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC. The Romulus calendar had ten months with the spring equinox in the first month:
Calendar of Romulus
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis  (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)
Note that sextilis -> shat(6th)
Also note that the Calendar starts from Spring Equinox. This is also based on Hindhuism.
In India, Hindhu new year starts on Yuga-adhi(near spring equinox). In Thelugu and Kannada, Ugadhi is celebrated at the time. In Marathi, it is called Gudi Padwa. At almost the same time, Vikram Samvath new year also comes.
P.N. Oak in one of his books(I think 'Some Missing Chapters of World History') says that the word X-mas to denote Christmas is also based on the above.
He says that December was the 10th month of Roman Calender. And it is derived from Dasham(10th) in Sanskruth. In Roman notation, '10' is represented by 'X'.
Dasham-vara->December-> 10th month -> X-mas.
He says that the word 'mas' taken directly from the sanskruth word 'masa'(sanskruth for month). In sanskruth, 'masa' means 'month'.
So, X-mas, he says meant a 10th month which was celebrated as a festival.
Later, the church usurped it and gave it christian coloring. Thats why the church narrative is incoherent. It was not the only hijacking by the church.
Link to original post
johneeG wrote:There is something interesting to ponder on:
There are 4 festivals: Valentine's Day, April Fool's Day, Halloween, Christmas.
I think all these 4 festivals are Pagan festivals originally which were later given christian coloring by church.
These festivals have corresponding Hindu festivals.
Valentine's day == Vasant(Basant) Utsav (Spring Festival) & Holi.
April Fool's day (original New Year of Roman Calendar) == Ugadi or Gudi Padva (Hindu New Year).
Halloween == Pitru Amavasya.
Christmas == Makara Sankranti.
Pumpkins play a special role in Halloween. Why? According to the Hindu literature, Pumpkins(Kushmanda) are the favourite food of pitris(deceased ancestors). Pitri Amavasya is day, just a few days before Dusherra, which is marked for performing Shraaddha of the pitris. Halloween falls very close to this.
The differences in the exact dates may be explained due to the changes in the calendar. Most of the Indian festivals(except Makara Sankranti) follow Lunar Calendar. So, the dates can vary.
Holi and Basant Utsav are the days when young girls and boys enjoy themselves. Romans used to follow similar festival(most probably they inherited it from the earlier cultures). This was given a christian makeover by the church.
Similarly, Makara Sankranti was made it into the birthday of Jesus, while Sunday was made into the holyday.
The connections are obvious. There is a definite Hindu connection. So, the theory is that once upon a time all the humanity followed a single religion(Hinduism) with some local variations. The newer ideologies sprang from Hinduism(or some derivative of Hinduism). These newer ideologies altered/erased the local customs. But, there are still certain points that could not be altered/erased which reveal the common Hindu past of the entire world.
So, the Roman culture was closely associated with Hindhu(or Indian) one. Later changes were made to the Roman one. In fact, the Romans may have inherited there culture from Greeks who may have inherited it from earlier ones. Since Rome was an empire, it may have been in contact with the Hindhus(indians) and hence less prone to the corruption and therefore more easily detectable similarities. And when the connection broke(or reduced) the corruptions became more pronounced in Roman(or Latin).
One of the reasons for the dark ages in Europe may have been the lack of contact with India. And when the contact was re-established in the colonial age, Europe came out of dark ages. But, in the process, India was looted. And Europeans came up with weird racial theories to satisfy their egos.
Link to original post
RajeshA wrote:The HandshakeContinuing
from "Sanskrit Subhashitani, Sanskrit Nukkad"
Agnimitra wrote:Custom of the Handshake in ancient India - not just a western practice.
Verse from Ramayana Kishkinda Kanda Sarga 5 Sloka 12 Sugriva speaks to Rama.
रोचते यदि वा सख्यं बाहुरेष प्रसरितः ।
गृह्यतां पाणिना पाणि: मर्यादा बध्यतां ध्रुवा ॥
If you like my friendship I am extending this arm.
Hold my hand with your hand and let us enter into a firm agreement.
the handshake seems to be a development as part of the Mitra cult. There are multiple bas reliefs from Persia which attest to this.Figure: Marduk-zakir-shumi of Babylon 703BC (right) and Shalmaneser III (left) enact a peace pact by shaking their right hands.
A blog post on Mithras
I am sure that Suppiluliuma
, or Satya-jâta
, concluded the Hittite-Mittani Treaty
ca. 1380 BC, also with a solid handshake!
Quoting Wikipedia on the Vedic deity Mitrá
The handshake is simply a symbolic means of binding: the symbol of Mitrá.
The Indo-Iranian word *mitra-m means "covenant, contract, oath, or treaty", and only later on, "friend" (retaining the original neuter gender, mitram). The second sense tends to be emphasized in later sources, the first sense in the Veda and in Iranian. The word is derived from a root mi- "to fix, to bind" (Indo-European *Hmei), with the "tool suffix" -tra- (compare man-tra-), a contract is thus described as a "means of binding."
Of course, Western anthropologists say
The handshake is thought by some to have originated as a gesture of peace by demonstrating that the hand holds no weapon.
Some other anthropologist who wanted to negate this theory then had to invent the handshake electric buzzer
The latest instance of this Vedic Mitrá ritual was on the evening of 5th April 2063, when Zefram Cochrane greeted the first Vulcan to land on earth in Bozeman, Montana with a handshake.
So how many times is this Vedic Mitrá ritual carried out every day in the world?
Nilesh Oak wrote:RajeshA,
Mitra= Surya, Rama was Suryavamshi (solar dynasty). When he makes a pact with Sugriva, he uses the handshake. So the custom is as old (and in fact older) than timing of Ramayana.
ramana wrote:RajeshA, The above quotes on handshake are from Valmiki Ramayana?
So when and why did 'namaste' take over?
Also if Mitra=Surya then the Mittani, pre-Christian Romans etc were all unknowing Hindus.
there is no take-over nothing.
Namaste and handshake are both part and parcel of Hindhu etiquette. They are used in different circumstances.
'Namas-te' means 'namas' to you. The word 'namas' can have different meanings. 'Namas-te' is generally used for people who are equals or elders. It denotes respect.
To show more respect, people touch the feet of the elders(or those whom respect is to be shown). To show more respect, the feet of the person are washed. We find that this motif is found in NT also but with lot of remixing. In NT, Jesus character(originally, Yashas, disciple of Buddha), washes the feet of his disciples. This point foxes the EJ 'scholars' of NT. It foxes them because it is an absurd remixing. And is taken from the Buddha's stories which in turn are inspired from Hindhu literature.
When introducing oneself, Hindhus say the name of oneself and one's father. This is found in western literature also.
Finally, the handshake is used to denote close friendship or a lasting commitment(or bond). Generally, it is done in the holy presence of a respected figure(s). What can be more holy than fire(agni)? It is called Agni-sakshi. You find this ritual enacted in hindhu weddings also. In Hindhu weddings, groom and bride shake hands in the presence of fire it is called paani-grahana. It denotes a lasting wedding(commitment or affectionate bond) between friends(or spouse). The same thing is seen in Valmiki Ramayana between Sugriva and Shri Rama.
The same thing seems to have become the modern handshakes. The Egyptians must have replaced 'agni'(fire) with 'surya'(sun). Of course, even in Hindhuism Sun is the real and eternal fire. The Persians(i.e. Paarsis) followed Zorastrianism which is based on 'fire-worship'
Note the similarity in the sounding of the words:
'namas' & 'namaaz'(islamic prayer)