“Aryanise the entire world “ Says Rg-veda( ix63.5) . So it is more relavent to call it Aryan Relegion. Aryan in Samskrutha means 'Noble'. It may therefore be more appropriate than “Hinduism “ as labelled by forieghers ( Milechas !) Let us ponder, what is ethically wrng in Islam, Christianityare Buddhist and even Jews in adopting conversion Kothand
The author is definitely not an Indian or an right wing person :)
To be frank, I didnt read the entire page.. (lazy as usual) but atleast read till section 3.2, which throws light on your remark about Golwalkar and Nazi...
Thanks once again...atleast I learnt something new.
I know this Author personally and he lives in a city 35 miles /56 kms from us ! if any question you have for him & are you in need anything from him, I could try calling him and asking him directly ! I can be of helpanyone ifuseful ?
Yes, the translation given by Shash, of Griffith, is similar to what is given in my copy of Rgveda. It does not say anything about Arya or Aryanize thing. I understand Sanskrit however not an expert in this, hence we may take help from some Sanskrit scholar. One things I would like to say, that we have two references here, Griffith and Rgveda of mine where the similar meaning is extracted hence currently it seems to be the correct meaning.
The problem is people pick few words here and there and interpret as they like, without going through details. If you say you are not qualified, then what should I say...:) the same, that I dont know sanskirt and I am no scholar to comment.
I didnt want to reply earlier on the comment on 'Purusha suktham'.. given the context, I like to throw what I read.
Everyone uses Purusha suktham to criticize veda, sayign that it disparages the lower cast. It is said that, purushasuktham says the brahmins were born from the head of vishnu, etc etc and the sudhras came from the feet and hence it illtreats the sudhras.
This is a classic example of quoting out of context.
I read one explanation that it should be read with the phrases preceding these prhases....it starts as
"yat puruSHam vyadadhu katidhA vyakalpayan mukham kimasya kau bAhoo kavooroo pAdA ucyete" (these are questions)
then comes the answers..
"brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet bAhoo rAjanya: krta: ooru tadasya yad vaishya padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata"
Literal translation might mean that the shudras were born from HIS feet.
But if we see the question and then the answer..the question is, how does the brahman look like, what it is made of, how does its face look, how are its arms and leg (tried my best to translate...I dont know sanskrit)
for this the answer goes like, the face looks like the brahmins, the arms are like the kshatriyas, the thighs are like the vysyas and the legs (feet) are like Shudras....
Literal translation might be 'born' instead of 'like' in my above statement.I am not sure. Its a symbolization of how the society is and how the brahman is reflected as the society. The meaning should be, the face look brilliant with intelligence, the arms are as strong as the warriors (to protect the rajya), the thighs are like the business class who support the society (thighs make an important part to hold the body upright and so is money power-business needed to keep the society upright), and the feet are like those working class who tirelessy work for the society.
I dont see any discrimination in this. Any working class comes under 'Sudhra' and today I can say, there are no brhamins in the world and it is full of vysyas and sudhra's only. After all, the ultimate goal of any human being is to reach the foot of the god and how come born out the feet become a discrimination? So everytime a brahmin prostrates before the god, he actually prostrates the 'shudras' even if we take the arguement that its 'born' and not 'like'.
Do we differencite between parts of our own body? If someone asks me whether you love your head or your feet, my answer will be both, as I need both. If feet is so low, then why these people are walking with feet, they can cut and throw them off, right... :)
So, as rightly pointed out by you all, without knowing the entire context, we are not fit to debate on the vedas. But people who pick selected words and go for the entire meaning of vedas...what can we say...its like four blind men describing the elephant.
Great sir...then can you please give the full meaning of this sloka as per your interpretation? it might throw more light on the context and the meaning, than just harping with one word.
Hope atleast this time you will answer with evidence.
Once again a good mail. Adding to what you say, we should also consider the words usage and meaning in line with the local culture, language, tradition and many other factors.
One thing good in one society might be offensive in other. If someone visits us uninvited in India, we dont take it wrong and offer them food, coffee/tea/juice or atleast a glass of water. Where in, in the US, visiting someone without being invited or without giving prior notice might not be taken in the right sense. Also, unless invited for dinner/lunch I dont think anyone will offer even a glass of water.
the word 'rubber' in India means different and the same word in the US means totally a different thing. 'Give me a ring' in India has one meaning in India and a different one in the US.
Similarly, even if the root word is same or being used in two different cultures, we cant take the same meaning. While trying the get the meaning of Veda's, it should be taken in Indian context and not just vomit what westerners translated. After all, its a known fact that the westerners called every civilization/practice/religion in the world as inferior to thiers and wiped out the local populace world wide.So their translation will also be biased.
In all these discussions one thing is to be remembered. Aryan denoted in ancient sanskrit scriptures was not meant to denote a particular race. It was meant to be used as a noble man. It is the view of the western scholars to make the entire aryan thing as a seperate race so as to divide indians. in this context विशà¥à¤µà¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ would mean to Nobilize the entire world not colonize the world.
I was introduse i RSS when I was Sixn my 14thyear I gave up RSS, because they told me that I shoulnot pay condolences for late Kasturiba Gandhi, when she died in Prison. I found they were keeping aloof from fredom movement. I jone the Socialist youth wing known as Rashtiya Sevadal.
My was an ordent RSS worker, who was respnsible ffffffor putting me in RSS. H e died recently as an RSS. He was honoured witha saffron flag. WE were more frirnds than relatives. Once I found a book by Golwakar titled "Golden Bough". there iI he said he admired Hitle
I have heard Golwakar in My High school days.
I had excellent topranker RSS men in Chennai in 1877 to'84 as Lion member
You have got on hand only secondhand info. Read Golwaker's golden Boughto know him firsthand.
I My sources for understanding Vedas, Upanishads, and Geetha are writtins of Indians published by Indian relegious institutions like Chinmayananda's, Ramakrisna mutt,and Barthiya vidyabhavan.
Sathish shoul apologise for his note about my source of knowledge based on his prejudice.
MR.Shashwath. Buy this book by Bose, you can learn to read smskrutha in two months. I f you a gggeetha with word to word translation from R.K.Mutt, in English, that coul be a lif time companion. You may also buy their works on Upanishads as individual books or as volumes of collections. All their publications are generally original text in devanagari and word to word translation. I would prefer to buy the English translashions.
Griffith has not provided anymtranslated material for two phrases highlighted in yellow. His translation for the idiom in green is ihot very appropriate. कर्ण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम =kruNvantho vishvamaartam = Ariyanaise the world अराव्णः = araavNa: = lawless not godless . Ref. Dr. A.C.Bose
First things first....for some reason I didnt get the mails you have sent about your source of knowledge in my inbox.
Leaving that aside, are you really serious VKR????
Dear VKR,
If you quote a book, obviously its a second hand information. Unless you read and understand and translate, its not first hand. whether its bharathiya vidya bhavan, or RK mutt or Max muller or web...its not first hand.
If I quote a website to refute your point, then I talk with second hand information,but if you quote a book, then you are correct.
If Sash, painstakingly tries to explain things, you are not ready to see others point of view and blindly say, he is wrong, but you say I am prejudiced... :) good joke sir..
Please do understand that, I have the same level of right as you have...if you have right to believe in one thing, I too have the same right to believe in other. We are here to share knowledge and learn, but you are taking one sided view and taking it personal and calling others prejudiced. You quote kural and say we have to be it any source, look for the truth in it...but you are not ready to do what you preach...not seeing the truth by taking the other side of view. Till now neither Sash nor Saurab nor me nor anyone who replied ever said 'you are wrong' but you did use that word (Griffith is wrong)..
We didnt pass any judgement so far, but you did... and calling me prejudiced....great....thanks for your compliments...
Moderators - The thread is getting personal...Request your intervention.