Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

“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

Thanks VKR for your mail. Atleast I came to know who Golwalkar is

Refer the below link..

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/golwalkar.html

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.

Hi all,

That PDF seems to be xeroxed and badly scanned or something! Bits of letters
seem to have been swallowed up!

Thankfully, both the Veda
itselfand
its
translation (Griffith)
are online at Wikisource. Sloka 63.5 of Mandala 9 is as follows

इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुरः कृण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम् ।
अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥५॥

(Transliteration just in case unicode gets obliterated by mail:
i/ndraM va/rdhanto aptu/raH kRNva/nto vi/shvam aa/ryam
apaghna/nto a/raavNaH)

Translation by Griffith:

Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra’s strength,
Driving away the godless ones.

Given the connotation of “Noble” to Arya, this is a probable translation,
too. The hymn itself seems to be in praise of the drink, Soma. Some more
verses (translation – you can read the links for the Sanskrit text) for
context:

1. POUR hitherward, O Soma, wealth in thousands and heroic strength,
And keep renown secure for us.
2. Thou makest food and vigour swell for Indra, best of gladdeners!
Within the cups thou seatest thee.
3. For Indra and for Visnu poured, Soma hath flowed into the jar:
May Vayu find it rich in sweets.
4. These Somas swift and brown of hue, in stream of solemn sacrifice
Have flowed through twisted obstacles,
5. Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra’s strength,
Driving away the godless ones.

The critical phrase is ” कृण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम्” – that’s the only bit that
I can imagine translating to “Aryanize the entire world”, but if the
Griffith translation is taken to be accurate, it means “Performing every
noble work”. The next bit says “driving away the godless ones” in Griffith’s
translation, and “Driving away the *lawless*” in the PDF you linked. So, we
now have four possible interpretations:

“Performing every noble work, … Driving away the Godless ones”
“Performing every noble work, … Driving away the lawless”
“Make the world Aryan … Driving away the Godless”
“Make the world Aryan, … Driving away the lawless”

Given the “Clash of religions” interpretation, the third makes most sense,
and given the “noble” interpretation, the second seems more appropriate.
Just more complex that the parts of each in two *different* translations.
Fun!

I really think that it’s meaningless to speculate by ourselves – I’m no
Sanskrit scholar, and unless there’s such a person in this thread, we’re
just relying on second-hand interpretations, which, I for one, am
ill-equipped to verify. I wonder what the scholarly consensus on this phrase
is…

Whatever “side” you fall on, you can’t merely hunt for phrases all over the
entire set of texts, and pick up any mention of the syllables “Arya” and use
it to support your theory. That’s just cherry-picking out of context. Better
to wait for context…

Shash

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM, viswanath Kothanda Raman <

Friend,

विश्वमार्यम् = vishvamaryam = vishvam + Aryam

any one who knows DEVANAGARI SCRIPT CAN READ THIS..

vishvam means universe als universal. the so called quote from Griffith as given by Shah is totally wrong.

A twelth std student having Samskrutha as a prt of her syllabus could have helped you

kOTHAND

On the other hand, I’m also bound to point out another side to all this; one
which may seem to support VKR’s point too. Our cousins in Iran use the word
as an ethnonym. Indeed, the very word
Iran would
seem to be derived from Old Persian *airya*, which is related to Aryan. And
the genetic evidence definitely points to a wave of settlement arriving from
Central Asia into India.

Here’s my *very tentative* theory, to fit all these facts:

a) The word “Aryan” probably existed for an extremely long time, denoting
something we don’t really know (though we do
speculate
on
it), while tribes were roaming in Central Asia.
b) The tribes migrated down from the steppes into India and Iran, splitting
from each other, and merging with other peoples (like the Indus Valley
people).
As they mingle over thousands of years, the word takes on two connotations:
c) In the West, it becomes an ethnonym, and finally, a race term.
d) In the East, that is, in India, it becomes a term meaning a “noble
person”.

Thus, the same root word diverges in meaning in two different places. It
cannot be claimed as a race term in the Indian context, at least from the
Vedic period onwards, because almost every example of a racial usage we’ve
been presented with, has an equally valid non-racial interpretation. An
example of what I would accept as clinching evidence of a racial term is a
phrase somewhere like “King of the Aryans” (which we *do* find in the title
of Ardashir I – ardašīr šāhān šāh *ērān*, which is why I say that it is more
clearly an ethnonym in the Iranian context).

In the Indian context however, take Sita’s address of Rama as “Arya*putra*”
- *son* of an Aryan for example. If we take this to indicate that he’s the
son of a noble man (or indeed, a nobleman), we’re on quite safe ground here,
as Dasaratha was definitely a noble man. But if it’s an ethnonym or a race
term, why doesn’t she address him as “Arya”? In fact, I’ll come out more
strongly and ask why she even needs to mention it at all (considering that
she herself would probably be considered an Aryan-the-race). Does it mean
that Rama is not Aryan-the-race, and Dasaratha is? So Kausalya is not Aryan?
Yet Dasaratha married her? At least in the Ramayana, this seems to me to be
a really absurd conjecture.

Incidentally, Wikipedia points
to a hymn (RV 8.8.9) that
is supposed to state “Brahma of glory is he to
whom both the Aryans and the Dasas belong”, but RV 8.8.9 is a hymn to the
Ashvinis, which doesn’t mention Brahma, Aryans or Dasas. So…

So, what I’m trying to say is, in Iran, it has a definite ethnic/racial
meaning, while that’s not so clear in India. Yet, we have to accept that
there were multiple migrations into India, and that there’s a thread running
from those migrations also. An explicit racial message from those
migrations, however, is still unproved.

Shash

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Satishkumar Arunachalam <

Dear VKR,

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.

another funny expression is to ‘knock up’ someone. Fine in Brit,
sensational in US!

Guys,

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 विश्वमार्यम् would mean to Nobilize the entire world not colonize the world.