Rig Veda : English translation by T.H.Griffith

[Aupmanyav]

Never-mind about Hinduism, they have grown only in the Post-Vedic period, no Hinduism existed in the Vedic-Period.

You have been discussing Hinduism all along and now you say 'never mind Hinduism'! Vedas are but a part of Hinduism. What otherwise have you been discussing? Post-Vedic means when the Vedas were canonized, after which no change has taken place. All changes, if any, happened in the Vedic period. Hinduism existed in India even before the time when Aryans came in. It is like the sea existed before the river water drained into it.

 

[atanu]

Vedas were never eternal which is evidenced from the additions and subtractions that have taken place in them and also from the portions that have lost. There was no promise from Brahman for their being secured and protected. Please read post #58 above that will benefit one.
Further, the very first, HYMN 1:

2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
He shall bring hitherward the Gods.
http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/griffith.pdf
There were seers in the Pre-Vedic period who had died and never compiled any Vedas for their progeny. The living ones all related to the Vedic-Period.
Veda/Rigveda/Yajurveda were never eternal. Right? Please
Was Agni ,mentioned above, a god of the Atheism people ? Please

Regards

Yes. Just as Allah of your conception will die with you. Similarly your idea of Veda will die with you.

Veda, which is co-eval with jnana is eternal, irrespective of your hatred full mental idea about it.

Brahman anantam jnanam. Brahman is infinite and of the nature of knowledge. Veda is the body of the Brahman. How you perceive it depends on purity of your mind.

As your mind at present seems to be full of hatred based on 'us' and 'them', ideas, the Veda as the body of one God (Brahman) is not evident to you.

Veda as the body of eternal Brahman (of the nature of jnanam) is also not available to most of us. But at least some of us understand that a transparent bias free mind can reflect the Veda without distortion. That is what sages-rishis are for.

 

[paarsurrey]

You have been discussing Hinduism all along and now you say 'never mind Hinduism'! Vedas are but a part of Hinduism. What otherwise have you been discussing? Post-Vedic means when the Vedas were canonized, after which no change has taken place. All changes, if any, happened in the Vedic period. Hinduism existed in India even before the time when Aryans came in. It is like the sea existed before the river water drained into it.

One is simply wrong, Hinduism never existed in the Vedic-Period:

Hinduism (n.)
blanket term for "polytheism of India," 1786, from Hindu + -ism.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hinduism

It is strictly speaking not even a name of any specific religion, just a blanket term, that is why even some Atheism people use it as a cover. Veda does not support Atheism or any of the people who take cover under this blanket. Please
Regards

 

[atanu]

One is simply wrong, Hinduism never existed in the Vedic-Period:

Hinduism (n.)
blanket term for "polytheism of India," 1786, from Hindu + -ism.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hinduism

It is strictly speaking not even a name of any specific religion, just a blanket term, that is why even some Atheism people use it as a cover. Veda does not support Atheism or any of the people who take cover under this blanket. Please
Regards

How that is related to Veda?

 

[paarsurrey]

One is simply wrong, Hinduism never existed in the Vedic-Period:
Hinduism (n.)
blanket term for "polytheism of India," 1786, from Hindu + -ism.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hinduism
It is strictly speaking not even a name of any specific religion, just a blanket term, that is why even some Atheism people use it as a cover. Veda does not support Atheism or any of the people who take cover under this blanket. Please
Regards

Anybody who lived in the basin of the river Sindh was described as such, it does not describe any religion but people of whatever religion living in the region would be described as such. The same is about India, it is from the river Indus another description of Sindh:

Athi S Sundar, Greek/Sanskrit Etymology,with reference to Tamil is my area of special interest.

Stephen Knapp says " We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”
Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India.....
Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a derogatory meaning. It is said that, “Moreover, it is correct that this name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, .... "
About The Name "Hindu"
The real root of the word is from the Tamil word 'Sindhu'(சிந்து ) which means 'sea,river,water,sindhu river,sindhu country,triplet verse ......' சிந்து Tamil Agaraathi, tamil-english dictionary, english words, tamil words
So since Tamil was the language of ancient India and spoken in Indus delta,the people of the area were called 'Sindhus' which turned to 'Hindus' to Persians and Indus> India to the Page on westerners.itmay be noted that the word 'Hindu' is not attested even once in any Vedas or other scriptures .So it is not a religious term but a geographical term only.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-etymology-of-the-word-Hindu

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism (n.) blanket term for "polytheism of India," 1786, from Hindu + -ism. .. Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders

Well, whatever you choose to call it, it still existed in India before the coming of Aryans. Religious views have existed in all societies since the time of Neanderthals. .. Invaders or traders. We used to trade with Gulf, Iran and through the Silk Route with China and countries in West. This was known as "Uttarapath" (Northern Highway) in Hindu Scriptures. As for invaders, you need to remember that the Maurya empire extended to nearly whole of Afghanistan, Kabul had Hindu kings till 1,000 AD, and the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh marched into Kabul in 1838. So, boundaries change with time in history, nothing new in this.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, whatever you choose to call it, it still existed in India before the coming of Aryans. Religious views have existed in all societies since the time of Neanderthals. .. Invaders or traders. We used to trade with Gulf, Iran and through the Silk Route with China and countries in West. This was known as "Uttarapath" (Northern Highway) in Hindu Scriptures. As for invaders, you need to remember that the Maurya empire extended to nearly whole of Afghanistan, Kabul had Hindu kings till 1,000 AD, and the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh marched into Kabul in 1838. So, boundaries change with time in history, nothing new in this.

Please confine to Veda/Yajurveda from Veda.
Nothing in your post has any references from the Veda/Yajurveda. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

@Satyamavejayanti
Just see above, the translation of Sanskrit terms is possible. Please improve it if it is wrong. Kindly
Regards

Namaste,

Incomplete and assumed translations are provided to you, for e.g: Atma has no English equivalent, translating as "God", or "Soul", is not correct.

All others e.g: Yajna, Buta ect are also not accurate.

Dhanyavad

 

[paarsurrey]

Namaste,
Incomplete and assumed translations are provided to you, for e.g: Atma has no English equivalent, translating as "God", or "Soul", is not correct.
All others e.g: Yajna, Buta ect are also not accurate.
Dhanyavad

I did not render any translations.
Why don't you do the translations of Vedas yourself? Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please confine to Veda/Yajurveda from Veda. Nothing in your post has any references from the Veda/Yajurveda.

I had to mention this because you termed Aryans as invaders without proof. If some one claims anything, one has to/should provide the proof also. The proof of theists are something like this:
1. You see the moon, therefore, God exists and so and so is a prophet.
2. God exists and so and so is a prophet because my book says so.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I did not render any translations.
Why don't you do the translations of Vedas yourself? Please
Regards

Namaste,

I don't have to translate, I can go to any temple and listen to the Vedic Yajna, and ask the Purohita, I can sit down with a Guru/Archarya/Yogi and he can explain the essence of the Veda to me, I can read the Gita, I can read some Upanishads ect to get a gist of the Veda.

I don't need translations, I am a Hindu

 

[paarsurrey]

Namaste,
I don't have to translate, I can go to any temple and listen to the Vedic Yajna, and ask the Purohita, I can sit down with a Guru/Archarya/Yogi and he can explain the essence of the Veda to me, I can read the Gita, I can read some Upanishads ect to get a gist of the Veda.
I don't need translations, I am a Hindu

Well, I have never said that one should not go to a temple. Did I? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I had to mention this because you termed Aryans as invaders without proof. If some one claims anything, one has to/should provide the proof also. The proof of theists are something like this:
1. You see the moon, therefore, God exists and so and so is a prophet.
2. God exists and so and so is a prophet because my book says so.

Now that one has done what was pricking in one's mind, please get set to prove everything from Veda, from its internal contents.
Who were their enemies they were so afraid of? and they:

1. had to pray against them so often
2. to offer sacrifices before their idols
3. Ghee and oil
4. Had to acquire so many horses/steeds, mentioned almost in every chapter of Veda/Yajurveda,( more than even the cow, which they started worshiping later in the Post-Vedic period).
5. They had to make Chariots driven by horses.
6. They had to raise army.
7. They had to install commanders of their army.
8. They had to appoint generals for the army.
9. They had to have many battles and had to fight wars with their foes
10. This was for prosperity and for spoils

Right? Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not have to prove anything. I agree to some things from the Vedas, accept some without really agreeing with them, do not accept some other things. For me, it is not the 'word of God' or the sole scripture of my belief. It was their time, their society, they did what they believed in. Then we merged with Hindus, took up some of their ways while retaining our ways. Where is the problem?

1. People pray to preserve and increase what they have, although it is debatable if that helps in any way. 2. Their ways. All aboriginal societies had sacrifices, many still have. What is 'qurbani'? 3. They were herders and everyone prepared ghee. I do not know if they knew of vegetable oils. 4. Horses are useful in steppes to round up cattle and also in skirmishes. 5. If not horses, which animal they should have used in chariots, asses? 6. Sure, all societies have to look after their safety. This obligation in Aryan society was given to 'kshatriyas'. 7, 8. All armies go to war under a leader. 9. Except for one in the late Vedic period (Battle of Ten Kings), there is no mention of a big war in Vedas. They were local, village level conflicts. 10. No, basically, it was to safe-guard what they had. Aryans were not like mongol hordes.

 

[atanu]

Well, I have never said that one should not go to a temple. Did I? Please
Regards

I doubt whether Allah rewards crookedness. The point was never about going to temple.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not have to prove anything. I agree to some things from the Vedas, accept some without really agreeing with them, do not accept some other things. For me, it is not the 'word of God' or the sole scripture of my belief. It was their time, their society, they did what they believed in. Then we merged with Hindus, took up some of their ways while retaining our ways. Where is the problem?

1. People pray to preserve and increase what they have, although it is debatable if that helps in any way. 2. Their ways. All aboriginal societies had sacrifices, many still have. What is 'qurbani'? 3. They were herders and everyone prepared ghee. I do not know if they knew of vegetable oils. 4. Horses are useful in steppes to round up cattle and also in skirmishes. 5. If not horses, which animal they should have used in chariots, asses? 6. Sure, all societies have to look after their safety. This obligation in Aryan society was given to 'kshatriyas'. 7, 8. All armies go to war under a leader. 9. Except for one in the late Vedic period (Battle of Ten Kings), there is no mention of a big war in Vedas. They were local, village level conflicts. 10. No, basically, it was to safe-guard what they had. Aryans were not like mongol hordes.

There is no such custom for horses being used to round up cattle in vogue in India. Is it? Please
There is no mention of this tradition of horses being used to tend the cattle or used to round up the cattle in Veda/Yajurveda. Right? Please.Kindly quote from Veda/Yajurveda to prove one's point.Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you forget, I believe that Aryans came to India from Central Asian steppes. Let me check about that. I think in steppes it would be necessary. The Tibetans do that, the Mongolians do that.

 

[paarsurrey]

But you forget, I believe that Aryans came to India from Central Asian steppes. Let me check about that. I think in steppes it would be necessary. The Tibetans do that, the Mongolians do that.

Didn't one say that the "Aryans" came from the Arctic? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Maybe one told that B.G.Tilak believed that, and your conjecture might be different from him! They we shall have to see arguments given by the both.
The recent research from the DNA's tells that these hordes came from Australia. Right? Please
Mongolians or Tibetans are not "Aryans"? Their habits might be altogether different as to tending cattle on horseback. Please
There is no local tradition in any part of Indian Sub-Continent in any of its tribe/race/ethnicity to that effect. Right? Please
Regards

 

[atanu]

There is no such custom for horses being used to round up cattle in vogue in India. Is it? Please
There is no mention of this tradition of horses being used to tend the cattle or used to round up the cattle in Veda/Yajurveda. Right? Please.Kindly quote from Veda/Yajurveda to prove one's point.Please
Regards

You probably think that you understand everything.

Those who have followed up through Brahmanas, Arayankas and Upanishads know that Asva (horse) is mind and cattle is us.

Please stop pretending that you can understand the esoteric aspects of scripture by reading English translations in isolation.

I suggest you first master the surrender aspect of Islam.

 

[paarsurrey]

You probably think that you understand everything.
Those who have followed up through Brahmanas, Arayankas and Upanishads know that Asva (horse) is mind and cattle is us.
Please stop pretending that you can understand the esoteric aspects of scripture by reading English translations in isolation.
I suggest you first master the surrender aspect of Islam.

Veda is for the world, not specific to Indian-Sub-Continent. Some of the Veda was not even revealed in the Indian-Sub-Continent. Right? Please
So horse is one's "mind" and "cattle" is one's self. Please let us know as to what the "Chariot" stands for.? It is used 21 times in Veda/Yajurveda and 57 times in Veda/Rigveda.

Regards