Talk:Aryan

Surplus

 * Aurobindo (1971), who also kept abreast of European knowledge, expressed his misgivings some years later: "The indications in the Veda on which this theory of a recent Aryan invasion is built are very scanty in quantity and uncertain in significance. There is no actual mention of any such invasion. The distinction between Aryan and un-Aryan on which so much has been built seems on the mass of evidence to indicate a cultural rather than a racial difference"
 * quoted from Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 2


 * The authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosha gives the following definition: mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah . An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as:   arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah  - Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone .  The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:     praja arya jyotiragrah ... Children of Arya are led by light    - Rig Veda, VII. 33.17.
 * quoted in History or politics


 * In modern linguistics the term Aryan is sometimes used to refer to all Indo-Germans, but the term Indo-Germans or Indo-Europeans is preferable [to describe the European Aryans], since in linguistics the term Aryan is usually only applied to the Indian and Iranian Indo-Germans.
 * The 14th edition of Brockhaus, 1896, Entry Aryan, p 870. In Poliakov, L. (1974). The Aryan myth : a history of racist and nationalist ideas in Europe


 * Normally, looking at the Ramayana story externally, we would be tempted to call the Vanaras and Raksasas Anaryas. However, the Ramayana depicts situations where members of these societies use the term Arya to refer to each other.
 * What to do with the Anaryas? Dharmic discourses of inclusion and exclusion by Madhav M. Deshpande, 1996, p 112


 * The use of the word Arya in the Rigveda must be understood in this sense: the Vedic Aryans used the word Arya in reference to Vedic Aryans as distinct from other people, and not in reference to Indo-European language speaking people as distinct from non-Indo-European language speaking people. All other people, Indo-Europeans or otherwise, other than themselves, were non-Aryas to the Vedic Aryans.
 * Talageri, S. (2000). The Rigveda: A historical analysis. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

Swami Vivekananda

 * Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda online


 * We stick, in spite of Western theories, to that definition of the word "Arya" which we find in our sacred books, and which includes only the multitude we now call Hindus. This Aryan race, itself a mixture of two great races, Sanskrit-speaking and Tamil-speaking, applies to all Hindus alike. That the Shudras have in some Smritis been excluded from this epithet means nothing, for the Shudras were and still are only the waiting Aryas - Aryas in novitiate.
 * vol 4


 * And in passing I may remark that According to Manu a child who is born of lust is not an Aryan. The child whose very conception and whose death is according to the rules of the Vedas, such is an Aryan. Yes, and less of these Aryan children are being produced in every country, and the result is the mass of evil which we call Kali Yuga.
 * vol 3


 * Says our great law-giver, Manu, giving the definition of an Aryan, "He is the Aryan, who is born through prayer". Every child not born through prayer is illegitimate, according to the great law-giver. The child must be prayed for. Those children that come with curses, that slip into the world, just in a moment of inadvertence, because that could not be prevented - what can we expect of such progeny? Mothers of America, think of that! Think in the heart of your hearts, are you ready to be women? Not any question of race or country, or that false sentiment of national pride. Who dares to be proud in this mortal life of ours, in this world of woes and miseries? What are we before this infinite force of God? But I ask you the question tonight: Do you all pray for the children to come? Are you thankful to be mothers, or not? Do you think that you are sanctified by motherhood, or not? Ask that of your minds. If you do not, your marriage is a lie, your womanhood is false, your education is superstition, and your children, if they come without prayer, will prove a curse to humanity.
 * 


 * In connection with this I want to discuss one question which it has a particular bearing with regard to Madras. There is a theory that there was a race of mankind in Southern India called Dravidians, entirely differing from another race in Northern India called the Aryans, and that the Southern India Brâhmins are the only Aryans that came from the North, the other men of Southern India belong to an entirely different caste and race to those of Southern India Brahmins. Now I beg your pardon, Mr. Philologist, this is entirely unfounded. The only proof of it is that there is a difference of language between the North and the South. I do not see any other difference. We are so many Northern men here, and I ask my European friends to pick out the Northern and Southern men from this assembly. Where is the difference? A little difference of language. But the Brahmins are a race that came here speaking the Sanskrit language! Well then, they took up the Dravidian language and forgot their Sanskrit. Why should not the other castes have done the same? Why should not all the other castes have come one after the other from Northern India, taken up the Dravidian language, and so forgotten their own? That is an argument working both ways. Do not believe in such silly things. There may have been a Dravidian people who vanished from here, and the few who remained lived in forests and other places. It is quite possible that the language may have been taken up, but all these are Aryans who came from the North. The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.
 * 


 * Then there is the other idea that the Shudra caste are surely the aborigines. What are they? They are slaves. They say history repeats itself. The Americans, English, Dutch, and the Portuguese got hold of the poor Africans and made them work hard while they lived, and their children of mixed birth were born in slavery and kept in that condition for a long period. From that wonderful example, the mind jumps back several thousand years and fancies that the same thing happened here, and our archaeologist dreams of India being full of dark-eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryan came from - the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends. And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non-Aryans and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and equally irrational. It could not have been possible in those days that a few Aryans settled and lived there with a hundred thousand slaves at their command. These slaves would have eaten them up, made "chutney" of them in five minutes. The only explanation is to be found in the Mahâbhârata, which says that in the beginning of the Satya Yuga there was one caste, the Brahmins, and then by difference of occupations they went on dividing themselves into different castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given. And in the coming Satya Yuga all the other castes will have to go back to the same condition.
 * 


 * And what your European Pundits say about the Aryan's swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! Strange, that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys! This is very bad indeed.


 * I am, an ignoramus myself; I do not pretend to any scholarship; but with the little that I understand, I strongly protested against these ideas at the Paris Conference. I have been talking with the Indian and European savants on the subject, and hope to raise my objections to this theory in detail when time permits. And this I say to you¾to our Pundits¾also, "You are learned men, look up your old books and scriptures, please, and draw your own conclusions. And this is very significant, since we have all along been trained to tell parrot-like whatever the British had to say about us, without cogitating the least as to what it conveys and if it is the truth. On the contrary it is venerated as the Vedic dictum¾the ultimate truth. Never have our historians tried to unravel the veil of myth woven around the nation's heritage, culture and history all by themselves, instead of hankering for authentication by an 'elite' alien race. And this has proved to be our undoing, with so many divisions perpetrated long after the very raison d'etre for these have been obliterated by a vigilant and agile national leadership. The bourgeois politicians have everything to gain by way of trumpeting this cacophony and camouflaging their miserable failures in the milieu that ensues. An astute mass should be the last to succumb to such divisive 'philanthropy' of these 'bountiful' philanderers.


 * Whenever the Europeans find an opportunity, they exterminate the aborigines and settle down in ease and comfort on their lands; therefore they think the Aryans must have done the same! The Westerners would be considered wretched vagabonds if they lived in their native homes depending wholly on their own internal resources, and so they have to run wildly about the world seeking how they can feed upon the fat of the land of others by spoliation and slaughter; and therefore they conclude the Aryans must have dome the same! But where is your proof? Guess-work? Then keep your fanciful guesses to yourselves!
 * 


 * And what your European pundits say about the Aryans swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! In what Veda, in what Sukta do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense? Strange that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys! . . . Whenever the Europeans find an opportunity, they exterminate the aborigines and settle down in ease and comfort on their lands; and therefore they think the Aryans must have done the same! . . . But where is your proof? Guess work? Then keep your fanciful ideas to yourself. I strongly protested against these ideas at the Paris Congress. I have been talking with the Indian and European savants on the subject, and hope to raise many objections to this theory in detail, when time permits. And this I say to you—to our pundits—also, "You are learned men, hunt up your old books and scriptures, please, and draw your own conclusions." (5:534-535)
 * quoted from Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 2


 * In what Veda, in what Sukta, do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense? Vain has been your study of the Ramayana; why manufacture a big fine story out of it?
 * 


 * Well, what is the Ramayana? The conquest of the savage aborigines of Southern India by the Aryans! Indeed! Ramachandra is a civilised Aryan king and with whom, is he fighting? With King Ravana of Lanka. Just read the Ramayana., and you will find that Ravana was rather more and not less civilised than Ramachandra. The civilisation of Lanka was rather higher, and surely not lower, than that of Ayodhya. And then, when were these Vanaras (monkeys) and other Southern Indians conquered? They were all, on the other hand, Ramachandra's friends and allies. Say which kingdoms of Vali and Guhaka were annexed by Ramachandra?
 * 


 * It was quite possible, however, that in a few places there were occasional fights between the Aryans and the Aborigines; quite possible, that one or two cunning Munis pretended to meditate with closed eyes before their sacrificial fires in the jungles of the Rakshasas, waiting however, all the time to see when the Rakshasas would throw stones and pieces of bone at them. No sooner had this been done than they would go whining to the kings. The mail-clad kings armed with swords and weapons of steel would come on fiery steeds. But how long could the aborigines. fight with their sticks and stones? So they were killed or chased away, and the kings returned to their capital. Well, all this may have been but does this prove that their lands were taken away by the Aryans? Where in the Ramayana do you find that?


 * The loom of the fabric of Aryan civilisation is a vast, warm, level country, interspersed with broad, navigable rivers. The cotton of this cloth is composed of highly civilised, semi-civilised, and barbarian tribes, mostly Aryan. Its warp is Varnashramachara, and its woof, the conquest of strife and competition in nature.
 * 


 * And may I ask you, Europeans, what country you have ever raised to better conditions? Wherever you have found weaker races, you have exterminated them by the roots, as it were. You have settled on their lands, and they are gone for ever. What is the history of your America, your Australia, New Zealand, your Pacific Islands and South Africa? Where are those aboriginal races there today? They are all exterminated¾you have killed them outright, as if they were wild beasts. It is only where you have not the power to do so, and there only, that other nations are still alive.
 * 


 * The object of the peoples of Europe is to exterminate all in order to live themselves. The aim of the Aryans is to raise all up to their own level, nay, even to a higher level than themselves. The means of European civilisation is the sword; of the Aryans, the division into different Varnas. This system of division into different Varnas is the stepping stone to civilisation, making one rise higher and higher in proportion to one's learning and culture. In Europe, it is everywhere victory to the strong and death to the weak. In the land of Bharata, every social rule is for the protection of the weak.
 * 


 * Let the Pundits fight among themselves; it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests. If the Europeans do not like us, Aryas, because we are dark, let them take another name for themselves - what is that to us?
 * 


 * A child materially born is not an Aryan; the child born in spirituality is an Aryan.


 * He is of the 'aryan' race, who is born through prayer, and he is a nonarian, who is born through sensuality.


 * But India has never done that. The Aryans were kind and generous; and in their hearts which were large and unbounded as the ocean, and in their brains, gifted with superhuman genius, all these ephemeral and apparently pleasant but virtually beastly processes never found a place. And I ask you, fools of my own country, would there have been this institution of Varnashrama if the Aryans had exterminated the aborigines in order to settle on their lands?
 * 


 * But in the first place, Sanskrit literature alone is a very big mass. Although, perhaps, three-fourths of it has been destroyed and lost through successive invasions, yet, I think, the sum total of the amount of literature in Sanskrit would outbalance any three or four European languages taken together, in number of books. No one knows how many books are there yet and where they are, because it is the most ancient of all these Aryan languages. And that branch of the Aryan race which spoke the Sanskrit language was the first to become civilized and the first to begin to write books and literature. So they went on for thousands of years. How many thousands of years they wrote no one knows. There are various guesses - from 3000 B.C. to 8000 B.C. - but all of these dates are more or less uncertain.
 * (Vivekananda)


 * Three mountains stand as typical of progress - the Himalayas of Indo-Aryan, Sinai of Hebrew, and Olympus of Greek civilisation. When the Aryans reached India, they found the climate so hot that they would not work incessantly, so they began to think; thus they became introspective and developed religion. They discovered that there was no limit to the power of mind; they therefore sought to master that; and through it they learnt that there was something infinite coiled up in the frame we call man, which was seeking to become kinetic. To evolve this became their chief aim. Another branch of the Aryans went into the smaller and more picturesque country of Greece, where the climate and natural conditions were more favourable; so their activity turned outwards, and they developed the external arts and outward liberty. The Greek sought political liberty. The Hindu has always sought spiritual liberty. Both are one-sided. The Indian cares not enough for national protection or patriotism, he will defend only his religion; while with the Greek and in Europe (where the Greek civilisation finds its continuation) the country comes first. To care only for spiritual liberty and not for social liberty is a defect, but the opposite is a still greater defect. Liberty of both soul and body is to be striven for.
 * (Vivekananda)


 * On a single Sanskrit Shloka - . . . - "The Yavanas are Mlechchhas, in them this science is established, (therefore) even they deserve worship like Rishis, . . ." - how much the Westerners have indulged their unrestrained imagination! But it remains to be shown how the above Shloka goes to prove that the Aryas were taught by the Mlechchhas. The meaning may be that the learning of the Mlechchha disciples of the Aryan teachers is praised here, only to encourage the Mlechchhas in their pursuit of the Aryan science. Secondly, when the germ of every Aryan science is found in the Vedas and every step of any of those sciences can be traced with exactness from the Vedic to the present day, what is the necessity for forcing the far-fetched suggestion of the Greek influence on them? "What is the use of going to the hills in search of honey if it is available at home?" as a Sanskrit proverb says. Again, every Greek-like word of Aryan astronomy can be easily derived from Sanskrit roots. The Swami could not understand what right the Western scholars had to trace those words to a Greek source, thus ignoring their direct etymology. In the same manner, if on finding mention of the word Yavanikâ (curtain) in the dramas of Kâlidâsa and other Indian poets, the Yâvanika (Ionian or Greek) influence on the whole of the dramatic literature of the time is ascertained, then one should first stop to compare whether the Aryan dramas are at all like the Greek. Those who have studied the mode of action and style of the dramas of both the languages must have to admit that any such likeness, if found, is only a fancy of the obstinate dreamer, and has never any real existence as a matter of fact. Where is that Greek chorus? The Greek Yavanika is on one side of the stage, the Aryan diametrically on the other. The characteristic manner of expression of the Greek drama is one thing, that of the Aryan quite another. There is not the least likeness between the Aryan and the Greek dramas: rather the dramas of Shakespeare resemble to a great extent the dramas of India. So the conclusion may also be drawn that Shakespeare is indebted to Kalidasa and other ancient Indian dramatists for all his writings, and that the whole Western literature is only an imitation of the Indian. Lastly, turning Professor Max Müller's own premisses against him, it may be said as well that until it is demonstrated that some one Hindu knew Greek some time one ought not to talk even of Greek influence.
 * (Vivekananda)


 * Two curious nations there have been - sprung of the same race, but placed in different circumstances and environments, working put the problems of life each in its own particular way. I mean the ancient Hindu and the ancient Greek. The Indian Aryan - bounded on the north by the snow-caps of the Himalayas, with fresh-water rivers like rolling oceans surrounding him in the plains, with eternal forests which, to him, seemed to be the end of the world - turned his vision inward; and given the natural instinct, the superfine brain of the Aryan, with this sublime scenery surrounding him, the natural result was that he became introspective. The analysis of his own mind was the great theme of the Indo-Aryan. With the Greek, on the other hand, who arrived at a part of the earth which was more beautiful than sublime, the beautiful islands of the Grecian Archipelago, nature all around him generous yet simple - his mind naturally went outside. It wanted to analyse the external world. And as a result we find that from India have sprung all the analytical sciences, and from Greece all the sciences of generalization. The Hindu mind went on in its own direction and produced the most marvellous results. Even at the present day, the logical capacity of the Hindus, and the tremendous power which the Indian brain still possesses, is beyond compare. ...Today the ancient Greek is meeting the ancient Hindu on the soil of India. . . . We must he always ready to sit at the feet of all. . . . At the same time we must not forget that we have also to teach a great lesson to the world. . . . the gift of India is the gift of religion and philosophy, and wisdom and spirituality. . . . we must go out, must conquer the world through our spirituality and philosophy.
 * (Vivekananda) also  quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 2


 * Two nations of yore, namely the Greek and the Aryan placed in different environments and circumstances - the former, surrounded by all that was beautiful, sweet, and tempting in nature, with an invigorating climate, and the latter, surrounded on every side by all that was sublime, and born and nurtured in a climate which did not allow of much physical exercise - developed two peculiar and different ideals of civilization. The study of the Greeks was the outer infinite, while that of the Aryans was the inner infinite; one studied the macrocosm, and the other the microcosm. Each had its distinct part to play in the civilisation of the world. Not that one was required to borrow from the other, but if they compared notes both would be the gainers. The Aryans were by nature an analytical race. In the sciences of mathematics and grammar wonderful fruits were gained, and by the analysis of mind the full tree was developed. In Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and the Egyptian neo-Platonists, we can find traces of Indian thought.
 * (Vivekanada)


 * Some of this is unquotable and nearly all of it is improperly formatted. Ficaia (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Vivekananda quotes needed more work and/or moved elsewhere. I will review them. Instead of naming the sections primary / secondary sources, I suggest to name the sections Quotes from pre-18th century sources and Quotes from 18th century and later. Opinions? --ᘙ (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On second thought I don't think we need subsections, but I do think the quotes should be ordered chronologically to avoid confusing the reader. Ficaia (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The standard process on wikiquote for theme articles is alphabetical sorting, see Category:Chronologically ordered theme pages to be converted to alphabetical ordering. I also believe it would be easier for us because sometimes one may not be sure which book is older. --ᘙ (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Further

 * An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct.
 * Amarakosha. [An authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD)]. As quoted from Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram, Sarasvati River and the Vedic Civilization: History, Science, and Politics, Aditya Prakashan, 2006. page 40. Also reproduced at History or politics


 * The distinction between Aryan and un-Aryan on which so much has been built seems on the mass of evidence to indicate a cultural rather than a racial difference.
 * Sri Aurobindo. 1971. The Secret of the Veda. Pondicherry: Shri Aurobindo Ashram. Quoted from Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 2


 * Says our great law-giver, Manu, giving the definition of an Aryan, "He is the Aryan, who is born through prayer". Every child not born through prayer is illegitimate, according to the great law-giver. The child must be prayed for.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "Women of India", a lecture delivered at the Shakespeare Club House, in Pasadena, California, on 18 January 1900
 * Also paraphrased by Vivekananda as :
 * A child materially born is not an Aryan; the child born in spirituality is an Aryan.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "The Women of India", New Discoveries, Vol. 2, pp. 411-26. A lecture delivered at Cambridge, December 17, 1894, and recorded by Miss Frances Willard’s stenographer.
 * He is of the 'aryan' race, who is born through prayer, and he is a nonarian, who is born through sensuality.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "Ideals of Womanhood", Brooklyn Standard Union, January 21, 1895.
 * According to Manu a child who is born of lust is not an Aryan. The child whose very conception and whose death is according to the rules of the Vedas, such is an Aryan. Yes, and less of these Aryan children are being produced in every country, and the result is the mass of evil which we call Kali Yuga.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "The Vedanta", A Speech delivered at Lahore on 12th November, 1897.


 * We stick, in spite of Western theories, to that definition of the word "Arya" which we find in our sacred books, and which includes only the multitude we now call Hindus.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "Aryans and Tamilians", Complete Works, vol. 4


 * Let the Pundits fight among themselves; it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests.
 * Swami Vivekananda, "The East and the West" (Translated from Bengali), Complete Works, vol. 5 (7th ed., 1959), p. 466

Ficaia, what more is needed for the recently removed quotes of Aurobindo, Amarakosha, Desphande and Vivekananda? The Vivekananda quote is similar to the one already quoted, so although I believe it is quotable it could be omitted or shortened (to avoid repetition). --ᘙ (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Amarakosha extract is quotable, but the citation is not properly formatted. Vivekananda is quoting the Manusmriti (presumably, he doesn't give a citation) -- a line or two from Vivekananda's paraphrase can be quoted as an explanatory note, but again this has to be properly formatted. The other two quotes are just statements of fact and unquotable. Ficaia (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, quotes from a lexicon, like the Amarakosha, are by definition also a statement of fact. There is no rule against quoting statements of fact (such a rule would be unenforceable because it cannot be easily defined) and if Desphande is a statement of fact then wouldn't the quote by David W. Anthony not also fall into that category? Also we risk systemic bias when we quote Vivekananda but not Aurobindo because we interpret Aurobindo's words as statements of fact, but not Vivekananda. I understand that quoting poetry is preferable to quoting statements of fact, but these quotes are quotable and interesting, so I think you are being too strict here.😊 It would be better to quote directly from the Ramayana, but as long as we don't do this, I think an interesting quote about Aryas in the Ramayana is appropriate, and on second thought, the quote from Deshpande could also be moved to a more specific article on Rakshasa. --ᘙ (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Ficaia, what is wrong with the two Vivekananda quotes recently removed? Thanks. --ᘙ (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not properly formatted, and I think unnecessary as they're saying the same thing. Ficaia (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are being too strict again, I think the quotes are sufficiently different, and Wikiquote has no hard limit on the number of quotes. --ᘙ (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)