Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Brahmanism Controlled Masses Through Language [Re: dalit] #16429 - 05/18/02 04:31 PM Edit Reply Quote

Some remarks: About Dravidian I've tried to trace the cultures of ancient India. It was obvious for me that the offsprings of the Turvasu culture (cousins of the Puru culture) were in the western parts of India and some migrated to the south during emperor Dushyanta and became the later knowm Pandyas, Cheras, Kolas, etc. (Dravidian!). The oldest Tamil work, ascribed to Rshi Agastya, an offspring of M�na Maitr�varuni V�sishtha of Uttar Pradesh, says the Tamils came from a southern island (now sunk). If we apply this with the Turvasu data, it means that some Dravidians are Turvasu Arya, some are maybe Agastya and some are mixed. About Sh�dra The Sh�dras are in the past Kshatriyas and very much respected in the old Vedic period, only to be later moulded in the social varna system! In the old Vedic period the word varna is used for culture. There are some realted cultures mentioned: The Arya Varna is the Arya Culture according to the Puru (Bh�rata) standard. The D�sa Varna is the related Anu Culture (Kekaya, Madra, Parashu, Ambastha, etc.) and the Sh�dra Varna is the Turvasu Culture to which also belong the Yavana, Shaka (and also their Turu-shka clans and maybe also the Tush�ras)) and Abhiira Subcultures. That's why Gop�la Krshna of the Abhiira-Turvasu culture has many parallels with the West-Yavana-Turvasu myths in Greece (Heracles). V�sudeva Krshna on the other hand was a Yadu prince! In South-India the Gop�la Krshna Cult was rising under the Alvars and Nayanmars. These groups revived the Bhakti movement of the Bh�gavatas (Was Bhaga the Vedic God of the Turvasus, and travelled towards the Baltic as the Slavic God Bog? Is there a connection through the Turvasu parentage that Dravidian has cognate words in Finno-Ugrian through the Balto-Slavs? Is this also an explanation of some Turvasu words in Dravidian and Chinese, because the Turvasus were in Sinqiang Uighur?). Was this also an indication of the Turvasu presence? In western India the Puru, Turvasu and Anu cultures were never isolated and influenced each other and even merged sometimes, as the Anu also called themselves Arya in Iran and Afghanistan, and the Sh�ka-Turvasus also called themselves Arya in Central-Asia ( a tribe called Alana=Aryana). The word Sh�dra is derived by older etymologists from the parts shuk/shuc and suffix dra giving the word Shugdra ('k/c' becoming 'g' due to sandhi rules). The lenghtening of the 'u' is caused by the loss of the consonant 'g' in Sh�dra. Now the word shuk/shuc has to do with 'brightness' (the same in the word d�sa, dasyu or dasra). It is possible that the later mentioned Kshudrakas (Xudroi/Sudroi by the Greeks) in western India/Pakistan are later offsprings of the Sh�dra Turvasu Kshatriyas, just outside the Sindhu-Sarasvati doab region located then in the Gang�-Yamun� doab in post-Vedic period. The Puru, Anu and Turvasu are together with the Yadu (and already disappeared Druhyu) the P�nchajanya sons of Yay�ti N�husha of Pratishth�na in UP. Note: We have first the Jana or Janya denotation for culture (and not caste!), then the word Varna comes in the end of the RigVedic period to replace the Janya word for culture. (There were other words for social organization, like gana and vish, etc.) Afterwards Varna becomes applied by Rshi N�r�yana for a social symbolism, later in the Middle-Vedic Br�hmana period to be known as the Ch�turvarnyam system based on merits. About Dalit Maybe this word comes from the older word dalidra/daridra. We see again the parts dari/dali and suffic dra. I have to find out what the original meaning of dari/dali and daridra/dalidra was. But finally it had the secondary meaning of "being poor" or 'beggar'. If the Daridras were a tribe among the Sh�dras (maybe the Daridras were the Sh�dras moving from western India to the south, either over land or sea), then they lost their Kshatriya status (loss of kingdoms?) and became without property (=land?). Many times in history people with some status in the past lost their status later from all social Varnas! ( for instance the Guptas becoming Kshatriyas, the bardic communities becoming Sh�dras and even Muslims as in the case of the Dh�dhis, etc. This means that social status had something to do with occupation and property, etc. and not birth). So the whole problem of Dalit (if Turvasu) versus Arya (mainly Puru) is more complex then the modern dichotomy suggests. Is it a modern simplistic divide and rule theory? It seems so. Edited by Ishwa on 05/18/02 01:59 PM (server time).