talasiga Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: Jai Hind! Hind: a female deer Yes ! All glories to the Golden Hind of Dear India ! See how she ranges across Her land Crossing pathetic man-made borders drawn in the sand ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: Just to make this discussion even more meaningless, I would like to know whether the India we are discussing includes Pak Occupied Kashmir. Because if it doesn't I won't take part in the discussions. Jai Hind! [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).] Don't know about Kashmir. One of us will have to look that bit up - Humm just to get things right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by Gauracandra: Where is India? Are we talking about the pre-1947 India ruled by the British? Or the post-1947 India? Does it include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan? or maybe it is the 13th century India of hindu kingdoms? or the India based on the Act of 1858? or maybe the india of 5000 BC? Or maybe there is no India, but only the land of Bharata? India, India where are you? No there is no "India" as such pre 1947. There was the land mass but it was not technically call “India” although it was in short often referred to as India. What we call India today, that was part of a bunch of British colonies on the Indian or Asian - sub-continent for a while. Before that it was a landmass of separate Hindu kingdoms until the Muslims came Yes you are right Gaurachandra, - in the Bhagavat it is referred to a Bharat-vas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: If you would read Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam commentaries, he makes it clear how the westerners are descendents or Aryans. They are descendents of kings who fled from India. Srila Prabhupada does not accept the Aryan invasion theory, and none of our ancient texts speak of such a thing. So Jndas is it your premise that the landmass that is today called "India" originally belonged to the whites, Ooops - the Aryans? If so what of the Dravidians? How, why and when did they arrive in “India”? But remember: “…Padma Puraa.na points to a southern origin for bhakti, and provides a clue to the geographical location of some Puraa.nic traditions as well” (Demmitt & van Buitenen 1978:11). “ ‘Bhakti was born in Draavidha, grew up in Kar.naataka, became worn out in MaharaaS.tra and Gurjera, sought refuge with her two sons Knowledge and Dispassion in Vrindavana, and regained her vigor there… Enough of vows, sacred fords, disciples, sacrifices, discourse about knowledge, faith alone bestows release!(Padma 6.189.51; 190.22)’” (Demmitt & van Buitenen 1978:11). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Absolutely no way can Kashmir be part of India. If it is, the Pakistanis won't support the U.S. in getting Osama Bin Laden out of Afganisthan Actually I'm thinking the United States is actually India... there were so many Indians living here until Christopher Columbus showed up.... Hey maybe ole Chris Columbus was the Aryan Invasion... the spaniards and such.... Stop the presses, I've now figured it all out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: No there is no "India" as such pre 1947. There was the land mass but it was not technically call “India” although it was in short often referred to as India. What we call India today, that was part of a bunch of British colonies on the Indian or Asian - sub-continent for a while. Before that it was a landmass of separate Hindu kingdoms until the Muslims came A bit like the land mass of Europe ? A land mass with a mass of peoples and traditions no doubt ? Ever heard of "European Culture", "European History" etc ? When did Europe become <u>A</u> country ? Does it have to be a country to exist ? Huh ? You just don't get it, do you ? Ah well ..... BTW, you didn't mention the <u>Portuguese</u> and the <u>French</u> colonies in India. Probably, too much of a big picture issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 So Jndas is it your premise that the landmass that is today called "India" originally belonged to the whites, Ooops - the Aryans? You are a confused person. Please read through this thread again. Just because some western races have decended from fallen Aryan kings does not mean "Aryan" refers solely to the whites. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by Gauracandra: Absolutely no way can Kashmir be part of India. If it is, the Pakistanis won't support the U.S. in getting Osama Bin Laden out of Afganisthan Actually I'm thinking the United States is actually India... there were so many Indians living here until Christopher Columbus showed up.... Hey maybe ole Chris Columbus was the Aryan Invasion... the spaniards and such.... Stop the presses, I've now figured it all out Europeans called all brown skinned peoples Indians. The term did not identify a nationality. In fact when the word Indians was first used this way, the French revolution had not happened and nationalism did not exist. As such South American as with North American natives were described as Indian. Australian Aboriginals etc. etc. were initially described as Indians. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 the use of the term "Aryan" on this thread appears to revolve around a 19th century usage of it to denote a racial or genetic grouping and such usage culminated in the unfortunate turn the term had under Nazism. The modern usage of the term is to denote those <u>languages of Indo-European origin</u> ie. from Sanskrit, Ancient Persian, Ancient Greek, Latin, Old German etc Please see a good dictionary. See also a MODERN anthropology text book of your choosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 According to Srila Prabhupada, the world "Arya" refers to those who followed the Vedic teachings. By comparing them against Dravidians you are comparing apples and oranges. Dravidians who followed the Vedic culture were also Aryans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: According to Srila Prabhupada, the world "Arya" refers to those who followed the Vedic teachings. By comparing them against Dravidians you are comparing apples and oranges. Dravidians who followed the Vedic culture were also Aryans. Yes. And this usage of "Arya[n]" is consistent with the Sanskritic usage which, again, is not a racial based usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 19, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: According to Srila Prabhupada, the world "Arya" refers to those who followed the Vedic teachings. By comparing them against Dravidians you are comparing apples and oranges. Dravidians who followed the Vedic culture were also Aryans. According to Prabhupada whites are Aryans. I was sitting no more than 2 metres away from him when he said it. According to Bhaktivinoda “the Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C. ..." (Shukavac). So what of the Dravidians? What of the following Padma Puranic view “…Padma Puraa.na points to a southern origin for bhakti, and provides a clue to the geographical location of some Puraa.nic traditions as well” (Demmitt & van Buitenen 1978:11). “ ‘Bhakti was born in Draavidha, grew up in Kar.naataka, became worn out in MaharaaS.tra and Gurjera, sought refuge with her two sons Knowledge and Dispassion in Vrindavana, and regained her vigor there… Enough of vows, sacred fords, disciples, sacrifices, discourse about knowledge, faith alone bestows release!(Padma 6.189.51; 190.22)’” (Demmitt & van Buitenen 1978:11). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Please look closer at the teachings of Srila Prabhupada in this regard. I am not saying Prabhupada did not say westerners were descendents of Aryans. The problem is Prabhupada's definition differs from the definition you choose to accept. (Refer his Gita commentary to chapter 2, text 2("The word Aryan is applicable to persons who know the value of life and have a civilization based on spiritual realization.") You are taking the indologist's definition of Aryan (which refers to a race), and then trying to put it in the mouth of Srila Prabhupada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitanyachandra Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Then why did she steal all the jewels from the temples in India for her "crown jewels"? Even today they refuse to return them. Of course, seeing the indian government I don't think it would be a very good idea anyway. Originally posted by jndas:Then why did she steal all the jewels from the temples in India for her "crown jewels"? Even today they refuse to return them. Of course, seeing the indian government I don't think it would be a very good idea anyway. What "crown jewels" is inferenced here? If they were stolen they need to be stolen back and installed back when they are from. Regards. #&$#(&*(CaitChan)#E$&*# [This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 11-19-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote several books targeted specifically at the british educated Indian, in which he makes statements which contradict traditional teachings. For example he says that the Srimad Bhagavatam was written 1,000 years ago by a brahmana in South India (i.e. it was never authored by Vyasa), that Krishna, Shiva and other Devas where nothing but tribal kings of the past, that there is no such thing as hellish planets, that the Aryan's invaded india, etc. His purpose was to not waste time debating what the British Indologists had implanted in the minds of the educated Indians, but to just bring them to the point of devotion by speaking a language they understood. Jndas, what makes you so sure Bhaktivinoda's aim was this? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-20-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by Janus: "What is PBS?" Ah, that is better. Submissive and relevant inquiry. Janus What makes you believe "relevant inquiry" is "better" when a "submissive" component is present? What is wrong with impartial, reasonable, unbiased and/or objective relevant inquiry? Why promote as “better” a behaviour that when promoted functions to, and/or leaves room for the dis-empowerment of another. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-20-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 hummm Ooops - this post was the same as the post above - I must have really wanted to say that [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-20-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by jndas: You are taking the indologist's definition of Aryan (which refers to a race), and then trying to put it in the mouth of Srila Prabhupada. Yes you are right Jndas - Prabhupada makes reference to both "Aryan-family" members (eg fair skinned people) and those who become Aryan by cultural conditioning. It is also interesting to note what he mentions about other races as well – all of whom can become “first-class” cultural members “with the proper training” even if they do not have the shastricly defined “skin” colour (eg brahamanas). The examples are as follows: TEXT kaka-krsno 'tihrasvango hrasva-bahur maha-hanuh hrasva-pan nimna-nasagro raktaksas tamra-murdhajah TRANSLATION This person born from King Vena's thighs was named Bahuka, and his complexion was as black as a crow's. All the limbs of his body were very short, his arms and legs were short, and his jaws were large. His nose was flat, his eyes were reddish, and his hair copper-colored. TEXT 45 TEXT tam tu te 'vanatam dinam kim karomiti vadinam nisidety abruvams tata sa nisadas tato 'bhavat TRANSLATION He was very submissive and meek, and immediately after his birth he bowed down and inquired, "Sirs, what shall I do?" The great sages replied, "Please sit down [nisida]." Thus Nisada, the father of the Naisada race, was born. PURPORT It is said in the sastras that the head of the body represents the brahmanas, the arms represent the ksatriyas, the abdomen represents the vaisyas, and the legs, beginning with the thighs, represent the sudras. The sudras are sometimes called black, or krsna. The brahmanas are called sukla, or white, and the ksatriyas and the vaisyas are a mixture of black and white. However, those who are extraordinarily white are said to have skin produced out of white leprosy. It may be concluded that white or a golden hue is the color of the higher caste, and black is the complexion of the sudras. TEXT 46 TEXT tasya vamsyas tu naisada giri-kanana-gocarah yenaharaj jayamano vena-kalmasam ulbanam TRANSLATION After his [Nisada's] birth, he immediately took charge of all the resultant actions of King Vena's sinful activities. As such, this Naisada class are always engaged in sinful activities like stealing, plundering and hunting. Consequently they are only allowed to live in the hills and forests. PURPORT The Naisadas are not allowed to live in cities and towns because they are sinful by nature. As such, their bodies are very ugly, and their occupations are also sinful. We should, however, know that even these sinful men (who are sometimes called Kiratas) can be delivered from their sinful condition to the topmost Vaisnava platform by the mercy of a pure devotee. Engagement in the transcendental loving devotional service of the Lord can make anyone, however sinful he may be, fit to return home, back to Godhead. One has only to become free from all contamination by the process of devotional service. In this way everyone can become fit to return home, back to Godhead. This is confirmed by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gita (9.32): mam hi partha vyapasritya ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te 'pi yanti param gatim "O son of Prtha, those who take shelter of Me, though they be of lower birth--women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]--can approach the supreme destination." Thus end the Bhaktivedanta purports of the Fourth Canto, Fourteenth Chapter, of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, entitled "The Story of King Vena." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: Try: "A History of India" Herman Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund ISBN 0-415-04799-4 (edited 11-19-2001).] Thanks, Talasiga Yes it is true, the "big picture" is important in the history of religious traditions [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-20-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Talasigaji: BTW, you didn't mention the Portuguese and the French colonies in India. Probably, too much of a big picture issue. Satyaraj: Actually it is not easy to deal with Islam. People from Iberian (like Portuguese, Spanish and Latin Americans) heritage who had a deep contact with the Moors invasions for more than 8 centuries can understand that point a little better than other Europeans and their descendents who had never faced any relationship with Islam. Can one imagine the fear caused by Vasco da Gama’s letter to Dom Manoel informing the king that at a short distance of land in the Indian Malabar coast like between Calicut and Cochim, one could find more Moors than in the whole African coast between Alexandria and Ceuta? At that time Portugal and Spain were the richer and powerful countries of West, and were only beginning the discovery and trade expeditions around the world. Colonialism was the only solution they could imagine at that time to avoid Moor’s revenge. They would never expect to find Moors all over the world as they had done. The Moor’s revenge actually has came. The Sultan from Cairo and his Islamic friends had declared a jihad against Portuguese and a powerful Armada was sent from the Red Sea to the Malabar. Dom Francisco de Almeida who was the Portuguese Almirante at that time had defeated the Armada, but the Moors took shelter at Goan shore and were trying to have another revenge. The Portuguese had defeated the Moors at Goa and had established a colony, trying to avoid Moors advance. Some Hindu Kingdoms at Malabar also had helped the Portuguese against the Moors. There were only a few soldiers and traders from Portugal traveling to India every year. Never more than a few thousands. No women and children to develop a colony. The Portuguese had married some Indian ladies and a mixed generation of Portuguese/Indian people were the main inhabitants of Goa until the Indian invasion in 1961. These people considered themselves as Christians, actually as a rampart of Christianity against Moors. After the Indian invasion of Goa, many of them (specially the richer and learned) had transferred themselves to Portugal and Brasil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: What makes you believe "relevant inquiry" is "better" when a "submissive" component is present? What is wrong with impartial, reasonable, unbiased and/or objective relevant inquiry? Why promote as “better” a behaviour that when promoted functions to, and/or leaves room for the dis-empowerment of another. This is very well put Suryaz. However one may note that some SUBMIT to invite greater powers ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: Yes it is true, the "big picture" is important in the history of religious traditions Yes, and sometimes one has to close one eye and squint the other to see the big picture through a telescope ..... . . . ------------------ talasiga@hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted November 20, 2001 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: This is very well put Suryaz. However one may note that some SUBMIT to invite greater powers ..... Talasiga, Janus and all in correlation to the above this "Study of Evidence in Christianity (Powell 1860) is so cool – http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/1860-essays-reviews/scanned-images/096.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted November 21, 2001 Report Share Posted November 21, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: Talasiga, Janus and all in correlation to the above this "Study of Evidence in Christianity (Powell 1860) is so cool – http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/1860-essays-reviews/scanned-images/096.jpg Are we missing each other ? I cannot see a correlate - just some VERBOSE consonance. Brava Europa ! Jai Hind ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted November 21, 2001 Report Share Posted November 21, 2001 [This message has been edited by gHari (edited 11-21-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.