> > Oh, well, niivaara, no wonder. That changes everything! ;-)
>
> It actually *does*:
>
> 4 ***nivAra m. keeping off*** , hindering , impediment (cf.
> %{dur-niv-}) ; (%{A}) f. N. of a river MBh. VP. (v.l. %{nIv-}).
> 5 nIvArA v.l. for %{nivArA} (see under %{ni-vR}).
> 6 nIvara m. ( %{nI}? ; cf. Un2. iii.) a trader ; an inhabitant ; a
> beggar ; mud ; n. water L.
> 7 ***nIvAra m. (ifc. f. %{A}) wild rice*** (sg. the plant ; pl. the
> grains)
Yeah, but was the nIvAra wearing a hat?
We know that people aren't wearing enough of them,
but did Vedic grains wear enough hats. And even
more important, was Shiva wearing a hat? These
things, after all, are the important things in
the verse. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QJvc_SxFQ
My point is simply that of all the comments on the
heady "corn controversy," Sal's seems most apt.
The whole discussion seems to have been a "defense"
of the idea that 1) the Vedas can't possibly have
been wrong about something, followed by 2) India
can't possibly have been less than the wonderful
place we've been told it was in "Vedic times,"
cruising the world in its many navy vessels,
transporting its crops to the rest of the world,
spreading the light of knowledge everywhere.
Meanwhile, so far only Vaj and Barry discussed the
heart chakra being described in the verse as if
they had any personal experience with it.
Classic Fairfield Life. :-)
