Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[south block]

I don't understand one thing why do we use 'BC' and 'AD' we have our own calendars predating it. Why don't we say "BV" i.e. Before Vikramaditya and "AV" i.e. After Vikramaditya or any Indian calendar like that ???!!!

i think BC & AD is no longer in use but instead they use BCE(before current era) & CE(current era).

 

[Razor]

@Ancient Indian : I think I understood what you are saying. But it is too late, I have to sleep now.
So later, bye.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra
I know it is an old debate. But I want some clarification on few things.

You see, I am having this big fight with some language expert.
He is saying that sanskrit is originated from PIE language. I am getting some mixed feeling with the info he is providing.

Is there any language that has similar sound as AUM?
Aryans text have AUM in the starting of any written thing. I don't know any other language which follow this tradition.
Zoroastrianism which is very close to hinduism, don't have sound like aum in their yasnas.

Please refute my claim. I searched a lot of material and found no reference to aum in zoroastrian texts.

Any material on the further reading on aum and its relevance is greatly appreciated.

The term "Sanskrit" is itself a substantive. So now, we need to consider why it is called "Sanskrit" in the first place.

This, and along with that, consider what @Razor said.

I am not sure what the position of the person you are having a fight with is. Therefore, I cannot comment on your argument with him.

 

[Ancient Indian]

The term "Sanskrit" is itself a substantive. So now, we need to consider why it is called "Sanskrit" in the first place.

This, and along with that, consider what @Razor said.

I am not sure what the position of the person you are having a fight with is. Therefore, I cannot comment on your argument with him.

Can you explain the continues absence of aum in its sibling language?
I checked almost all the languages in same branch.

If they are indeed originated from same parent, surely Iranian languages should have mentioned of aum which is very important word in vedic language.

I already asked same question to Razor.

P.S.: It is private conversation with one of those so called experts I regularly provoke.
I want to have similar discussion with you.

 

[Peter]

Can you explain the continues absence of aum in its sibling language?
I checked almost all the languages in same branch.

If they are indeed originated from same parent, surely Iranian languages should have mentioned of aum which is very important word in vedic language.

I already asked same question to Razor.

P.S.: It is private conversation with one of those so called experts I regularly provoke.
I want to have similar discussion with you.

Sorry for jumping into these post.

Absence of one word/cognate in ancient Iranian and Sanskrit language does not mean that there is no interrelation among them.

If you talk about Aum/Om then we have Atman which has similar cognates in both PIE and Persian.

Etymology and meaning[edit]
"Ātman" (Atma, आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word which means "essence, breath, soul."[7][8] It is related to PIE *etmen (a root meaning "breath"; cognates: Dutch adem, Old High German atum "breath," Modern German atmen "to breathe" and Atem "respiration, breath", Old English eþian).[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Other examples that come to my mind.

New(in english)--->Nobo(in Bengali)---->Naya(in Hindi)


Except for linguistic arguments in support of AIT we have other textual arguments too. Since you are now reading all the ancient scriptures you may know that our forefathers referred foreigners as Yavanas/Mlecchas or barbarians. Yet they left Persians out of this tag. You should wonder why Persians were never considered as Mlecchas.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Further, there is evidence that Indians of the Vedic period actually had contact with people outside of the subcontinent, namely the Persians. The Persians, who ruled over the Indus river valley during this time (522-486 BC) were not designated as mleccha, perhaps because they did not interfere with the brahmanical way of life.[23]

(read the Territory sub para)

All south Indians were once considered as Mlecchas.(even the Bengali tribes and Kingdoms like Paundras/Vangas).


Also as per the archaeologists the Tamil script and the undecipherable MohenjoDaro Harrapa script bear remarkable similarity. How can you explain that?

 

[Ancient Indian]

Sorry for jumping into these post.

Absence of one word/cognate in ancient Iranian and Sanskrit language does not mean that there is no interrelation among them.

If you talk about Aum/Om then we have Atman which has similar cognates in both PIE and Persian.

Etymology and meaning[edit]
"Ātman" (Atma, आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word which means "essence, breath, soul."[7][8] It is related to PIE *etmen (a root meaning "breath"; cognates: Dutch adem, Old High German atum "breath," Modern German atmen "to breathe" and Atem "respiration, breath", Old English eþian).[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Other examples that come to my mind.

New(in english)--->Nobo(in Bengali)---->Naya(in Hindi)


Except for linguistic arguments in support of AIT we have other textual arguments too. Since you are now reading all the ancient scriptures you may know that our forefathers referred foreigners as Yavanas/Mlecchas or barbarians. Yet they left Persians out of this tag. You should wonder why Persians were never considered as Mlecchas.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mleccha

Further, there is evidence that Indians of the Vedic period actually had contact with people outside of the subcontinent, namely the Persians. The Persians, who ruled over the Indus river valley during this time (522-486 BC) were not designated as mleccha, perhaps because they did not interfere with the brahmanical way of life.[23]

(read the Territory sub para)

All south Indians were once considered as Mlecchas.(even the Bengali tribes and Kingdoms like Paundras/Vangas).


Also as per the archaeologists the Tamil script and the undecipherable MohenjoDaro Harrapa script bear remarkable similarity. How can you explain that?

Aum is important for Aryans. And the sound is first sound according to them.

Surely its great pie parents have atleast one mention of it in their yasnas.

 

[Peter]

Aum is important for Aryans. And the sound is first sound according to them.

Surely its great pie parents have atleast one mention of it in their yasnas.

Not necessarily aum/Om sound has appeared in 2nd millennium BC. PIE had earlier origins. They need not have a cognate. All our mantras like during the paite(thread)/marriage ceremony have been modified over the course of time as per the linguistic changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om

The etymological origins of Om are unclear. Some scholars consider Om to have been variously held as the "cosmic sound" or "mystical syllable" in ancient India, or simply as "affirmation to something divine", or as symbolism for abstract spiritual concepts in the Upanishads.[11] It is found in most ancient layers of the Vedic texts such as the Rig Veda, dated to be from the 2nd millennium BCE.

You have to understand that things change over time. Today many Bengali brahmans are not as religious as they were during the paite ceremony or in the diet they follow. That does not mean they are not brahmans. Similarly lack of cognate words do not mean that there is no correlation between the two.

 

[Bharat Ek Khoj]

All south Indians were once considered as Mlecchas.(even the Bengali tribes and Kingdoms like Paundras/Vangas).

So there was no Brahmin in South india ??

 

[Peter]

So there was no Brahmin in South india ??

Asoka/Maurya rulers sent Brahmins to south India. You should learn about Namboodiri Brahmins in Kerala. Similarly Bengal had no Brahmins before Sena dynasty. He invited Brahmins to Bengal from present day UP and instituted Kulin system. Not all Brahmins of Bengal are from UP though.


People like Maitra(my surname) and East Bengali Brahmins are original kulin Brahmins of Bengal. Often respectable and learned people in villages were elevated to the status of Brahmins when there were none.

 

[pmaitra]

Can you explain the continues absence of aum in its sibling language?
I checked almost all the languages in same branch.

Absense of aum proves what exactly?

If they are indeed originated from same parent, surely Iranian languages should have mentioned of aum which is very important word in vedic language.

There is no hard and fast rule that a word that exists in a child language has to exist in the parent language. If the child and parent languages have everything in common, they won't be child or parent languages. They would be the same language. Aum is important in Vedic language and that pertains to India, not the rest of the IE world.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Not necessarily aum/Om sound has appeared in 2nd millennium BC. PIE had earlier origins. They need not have a cognate. All our mantras like during the paite(thread)/marriage ceremony have been modified over the course of time as per the linguistic changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om

The etymological origins of Om are unclear. Some scholars consider Om to have been variously held as the "cosmic sound" or "mystical syllable" in ancient India, or simply as "affirmation to something divine", or as symbolism for abstract spiritual concepts in the Upanishads.[11] It is found in most ancient layers of the Vedic texts such as the Rig Veda, dated to be from the 2nd millennium BCE.

You have to understand that things change over time. Today many Bengali brahmans are not as religious as they were during the paite ceremony or in the diet they follow. That does not mean they are not brahmans. Similarly lack of cognate words do not mean that there is no correlation between the two.

You can't change aum.
That is my only objection to all these language theories.

There must be some sort of basis, why they categorized the languages in that way.

 

[pmaitra]

You can't change aum.
That is my only objection to all these language theories.

There must be some sort of basis, why they categorized the languages in that way.

There is a basis, and the horse is dead, so I see no point flogging it.

I will end this with the argument that let each individual believe what he wants to.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Absense of aum proves what exactly?


There is no hard and fast rule that a word that exists in a child language has to exist in the parent language. If the child and parent languages have everything in common, they won't be child or parent languages. They would be the same language. Aum is important in Vedic language and that pertains to India, not the rest of the IE world.

I am expecting different arguments from you.
Unlike my philosopher friends, you have some understanding of scriptures.

AUM is at the core of aryan culture and life. How can you not consider its importance when validating these language theories.

 

[pmaitra]

I am expecting different arguments from you.
Unlike my philosopher friends, you have some understanding of scriptures.

AUM is at the core of aryan culture and life. How can you not consider its importance when validating these language theories.

Aum is not the core of Aryan culture and life. Aum is the core of Indo-Aryan culture and life.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Aum is not the core of Aryan culture and life. Aum is the core of Indo-Aryan culture and life.

Hindu spirituality revolves around aum. Aryans are great because they know what aum is.
Even sankyan like patanjali acknowledge the importance of aum.

I thought you would present different view.
With out understanding the meaning of the words, how does linguists generalize languages?

Language represents ideas of human.

 

[pmaitra]

Hindu spirituality revolves around aum. Aryans are great because they know what aum is.
Even sankyan like patanjali acknowledge the importance of aum.

I thought you would present different view.
With out understanding the meaning of the words, how does linguists generalize languages?

Language represents ideas of human.

Linguists are not focused on one word. Linguists are focused on many words.

You might find this link interesting: https://borissoff.wordpress.com/

 

[Ancient Indian]

Linguists are not focused on one word. Linguists are focused on many words.

You might find this link interesting: https://borissoff.wordpress.com/

So Constantine Borissoff is expert on sanskrit. Read some of his. . .

Such a wide range of meanings is a source of conflicting explanations of arya / ārya. Somehow it is often overlooked that there is an obscure verb ār – *āryati ‘to praise’ which may be connected to ṛ. This verb has been poorly attested only tree times in RV as 3 P, pl. āryanti (RV 8.016.06 & RV 10.048.03 (twice)) but there is also a prominent noun arka ‘praise, hymn, song; one who praises, a singer’ which may be related here.

So he can find error in Rigveda itself. And know how to find the word uses in those slokas.
I doubt he know more than what you know.
I expected more from you, sir. That guy has next to no understanding of vedic hymns and think them as some poems composed by people in their free time.

Our focus is vedic language. And its derivative sanskrit language.

 

[pmaitra]

So Constantine Borissoff is expert on sanskrit. Read some of his. . .

So he can find error in Rigveda itself. And know how to find the word uses in those slokas.
I doubt he know more than what you know.
I expected more from you, sir. That guy has next to no understanding of vedic hymns and think them as some poems composed by people in their free time.

Our focus is vedic language. And its derivative sanskrit language.

I don't think I know more than him, but our perspectives might differ.

He does accept that the word "arya" has conflicting explanations. Perhaps he is as bewildered as many of us are. The general understanding is that the word "arya" is to be understood in context.

There are other linguists who you can refer to.

You can focus on the Vedic language, or you can focus on the predecessors of the Vedic language.

By Vedic language, you can refer to Sanskrit, or you can refer to all the languages contemporary to Panini's time.

You missed one thing that I mentioned. I was hoping you would touch upon that.

The term "Sanskrit" is itself a substantive. So now, we need to consider why it is called "Sanskrit" in the first place.

 

[Ancient Indian]

You missed one thing that I mentioned. I was hoping you would touch upon that.

I don't know. I never followed panini.
I more of practical guy. My guruji rarely goes into grammar debates.

Can you elaborate what is the importance of it?
Only thing I learned, is that sanskrit is derivative of vedic language. So never given much priority to it.

 

[pmaitra]

I don't know. I never followed panini.
I more of practical guy. My guruji rarely goes into grammar debates.

Can you elaborate what is the importance of it?
Only thing I learned, is that sanskrit is derivative of vedic language. So never given much priority to it.

What you are saying is true, that it is a derivative of Vedic language. I suppose you need to ask this question to whoever is curious as to why use the term "Sanskrit" at all? We have discussed this in DFI years ago. It is a pain to look for those old threads, but I believe they are out there somewhere.