May be many of u like that blokes thinking these materials are about
Vedam; No sir; it is about our vedas were originally tried hard , by the
west to be brought down bellow the Roman, egypt, aztec, Latino etc by
hiding the facts of sanskrit words used in latin etc. In that respect this
article is explained. Read carefully. You will see how easily west drags
the sanskrit word as from Latino and how sanskrit included in Indo european
is justified. It is same as telling ooty todas blood DNA matching with
Afrivans so they are from Africa whereas Epics find them earlier than. So
if you have time try to understand how well we Indian Historians also toed
their markings. All the science is not purely proving the materials
properly ; carbon dating alone is perfect too. to the levels of 80% only;
And that cannot reach beyond 50000 years. All other science including the
Darwin theory are purely based on few skeletons and fossils by comparison.
Indians refuse to believe that we never had an ice age at all because of
the Himalaya; And TOBA is a figment of imagination created to explain the
missing factors by connecting some action-blocs. All is known to many in
Govt; but the superior powers will not allow the minority ,economically aid
receiving nations words; and only words against the words is fatal only.
KR IRS 12724
Part5 12724
38 As for Vivasvat, he is the first to receive fire on earth by virtue
of being the first to sacrifice on earth, and he is the ancestor of humans
(Maitrāyaṇī–Saṃhitā 1.6.12, Taittirīya–Saṃhtiā 6.5.6.1-2,
Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 3.3.1.3-4).
To say sádane vivásvataḥ ‘at the place of Vivasvat’ (Rig-Veda 1.53.1) is
the same as saying ‘at the sacrifice’. Vivasvat, father of Yama
(10.14.5, 10.17.1)
is formally and thematically cognate with the Avestan figure Vìvahvant,
father of Yima, who was the first person ever to prepare Haoma (Yasna
9.3-4). The association of Vīvahvant with Haoma is important because
Soma/Haoma constitutes the Indic/Iranian sacrifice par excellence, and the
Vedic Vivasvat also has special associations with Soma (Rig-Veda 9.26.4,
9.10.5, etc.). In the context of the breaking dawn, uṣás-, the word
vivásvat– also occurs as an epithet of Agni, meaning ‘shining’:
ámūraḥ kavír áditir vivásvān
susaṃsán mitró átithiḥ śivó naḥ
citrábhānur uṣásām bhāty ágre
apā́m gárbhaḥ prasvà ā́ viveśa Rig-Veda 7.9.3
The unerring seer, the Aditi, the Vivasvat,
the Mitra of good company, our kind guest,
with majestic brightness he shines in front of the dawns,
the embryo of the waters has lodged in pregnant plants.
{{{KR: Yesterday there was some idiotic comment from some one who is not
Vedic nor writes any content; as usual, in order to tarnish in defence of
some other ignorant, without going deep, as written here and elsewhere,
entered into controversy and got back the punch.
Now the Chitra baanu the fire is again represented through another
Devatha in the Ushas- VIVASVATHA father of Yama. The west was writing hard
to establish that the rig vedam was older than the Indians think; but Jones
and Max muller, as if extolling, could not bring the sanathana dharma,
after the Christianity. So had to accept the oldest literature was /is/will
be only The Rigvedam. At the same time as Maha Periyava said that our rig
vedam was adopted by the Jews in TORA, by recitals through the Kanchi mutt
shishyas, so the west attempted to raise the Egypt, Aztek, and Greek as
pioneer to India; in this some wrote the IRAN, The Persians @ Parsis, Zend
Avesta was pioneer to Rigveda by comparing the YIMA, VIVAHVANT, HOAMA,
YASNA were root word of Sanskrit VIVASVATA, YAMA, YAGNA AND HOMA. However,
that too failed miserably, sine History proved that Parsi was much later by
era, and long before Rig Vedam existed. And E Poecocke Greek author in the
GREECE wrote, after the Mahabharatham war, soldiers left out alive,
travelled to IRAN and EAST GREECE. But by that period of 3100 BCE, all the
four Vedas were in vogue, so the chances of Rigvedam descended from the
Parsi was proved false.}}}
Such thematic connections (cf. also 1.44.1, 1.96.2, 3.30.13) serve as
confirmation of the etymology:
the vas– of vivásvat– is derived from the verb vas-/uṣ– ‘shine’, and
so, too, is the uṣ– of uṣas– ‘dawn’. {{{KR RV 7 9 3 visves word root is
being discussed}}} Furthermore, the vas– of vivásvat– is cognate with the
Latin ues– of Vesta, Roman goddess of the domestic fireplace. {{KR How
hard west tried to deface Indian Veda can be seen by comparing to so many
outsiders including the LATIN AND ROME}}} As for the domestic aspect of
Vivasvat, it is best understood in relation to the Indic Triple Fire. {{{KR
vide yesterday and today on triple fire and triple partion
explained}}} Matching
the tripartite nature of Agni, there evolved certain Indic cult practices
that involve a triple sacrificial fire, as documented in minute detail by
the Brāhmaṇas.
Whereas the single sacrificial fire is suitable for domestic
purposes, the triple sacrificial fire is a priestly institution associated
with the cult centers of the Indic peoples (cf. Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa
2.1.4.4). Some sacrifices, such as the offerings at sunrise and sunset, can
he enacted with either a single or a triple fire, but others are restricted
to one or the other: for example, rites related to family life belong to
the single fire, whereas Soma-rites are restricted to a triple fire.
Among the three fires of the Triple Fire, one is still specifically
associated with the domestic aspects: it is the Gārhapatya, meaning ‘fire
of the gr̥hápati-’. The word gr̥hápati-, like viśpáti-, means ‘lord of the
household’; both are common Rig-Vedic epithets of Agni.
Significantly, if the fire of the Gārhapatya is extinguished, it must
be rekindled with aráṇi-s (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 12.4.3.2). By contrast, if
another of the three fires, the Āhavanīya (from preverb ā– plus root hav–
‘pour libation’), is extinguished, it is to be relit from the fire of the
Gārhapatya (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 12.4.3.3). The specific association of the
Gārhapatya with the aráṇi-s (see also Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 2.1.4.5-9) is
parallel to the association of Vivasvat with the aráṇi-s:
In the Mātariśvan myth, Agni is produced with manth– friction’.
Mātariśvan is the messenger of Vat. Vivasvat is the first, to receive fire
by virtue of being the first sacrificer on earth. {{{KR Matarisivan is not
a myth vide yesterday and todat morning notes}}}
Agni is produced with the manth– ‘friction’ of fire-slicks called aráṇi-s
in Rig-Veda 3.29.1-2 We note that the fire apparatus in the latter passage,
Rig-Veda 3.29.1-2, is called viśpátnī ‘mistress of the household’: here,
too, the domestic implication is pertinent to the function of the
Gārhapatya. Finally, besides the aráṇi-s, still another feature of the
Gārhapatya links it to the Mātariśvan myth: it is the designation of its
enclosure as the yóni– ‘uterus’ (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 7.1.1.1).
The connection between Indic Vivasvat/Mātariśvan/Gārhapatya and Italic
Vesta extends beyond the general feature of the domestic fireplace. Even in
such specific details as the relighting of the Garhapatya with the friction
of wood, the cult of Vesta (KR of latin?) affords specific parallels. The
fire in the Roman sanctuary of Vesta {{{KR?}}} was supposed to be kept
going at all times (cf. Cicero Philippics 11.10), and it was a grave matter
if it ever went out:
ignis Vestae si quando interstinctus esset, uirgines uerberibus
adficiebantur a pontifice, quibus mos erat tabulam felicis materiae tamdiu
terebrare, quousque exceptum ignem cribro aeneo uirgo in aedem ferret.
Paulus ex Festo 94 ed. Lindsay {KR: Latin was nowhere when Sanskrit
existed is to be remembered yet by writing the Latin quotes above a
parallel is being created to justify the link of Indo-European language
inclusions}}}
Whenever the fire of Vesta was interrupted, the Virgins were beaten by the
pontifex; their custom was to bore a tabula of fēlix māteria until a fire
(Latin text) could be taken and brought in a brazen cribrum to the
sanctuary by a Virgin.
We note that the wood used here is called māteria, a noun apparently
derived from māter ‘mother’, and that māteria is qualified as fēlix, an
adjective appropriate to the theme of fertility. Immediately comparable in
theme are the name mātariśvan– ‘swelling in the mother’ and the name for
the enclosure of the Gārhapatya, yóni– ‘uterus’.
If the fire of the Gārhapatya went out, it was likewise a grave matter: the
fire must not be relit by borrowing from the fire of the Āhavanīya, nor by
substituting the Āhavanīya for the Gārhapatya; rather, fire must be rubbed
from the aráni-s (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 12.4.3.3). This ritual hierarchy
reflects symbolically the Indo-European custom of borrowing fire from the
domestic fireplace of a fellow member of a cunity: we may compare such
expressions as Greek πῦρ αὔειν/λαβεῖν, Lithuanian ùgnį im̃ti, Latin ignem
accipere, Italian fuoco prendre, all meaning ‘take fire’; as Wilhelm
Schulze has noticed, the contexts of these expressions point back to the
same ancestral custom. The point remains that the Gārhapatya, by virtue of
being the domestic fire, is the central point from which all other fires
emanate. Having observed the primacy of the Gārhapatya, let us examine how
the distinction between the Gārhapatya and the Āhavanīya symbolizes the
distinction between terrestrial and celestial fire. To repeat, whereas
terrestrial fire is obviously incompatible with its opposite element,
water, the nature of water-born celestial fire is different in Indic myth:
—the sun plunges into the waters of the west only to be reborn the next day
from the waters of the east;—celestial fire is hidden in raindrops will
impregnate the earth; it remains hidden in plants dial grow out of the
earth; then it is rubbed out of wood as terrestrial fire.(KR Hope the
idiots now understand who wrote yesterday some nonsense)
The distinction in myth, as we shall now see, is partially conveyed by the
interplay of the Gārhapatya and the Āhavanīya.The fireplace of the
Gārhapatya is set up in a circular enclosure, with the space on the inside
representing the earth and the space on the outside representing the ocean
around it (these ritual symbols are definitively and explicitly recounted
in Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 7.1.1.8, 13); the enclosure, set off with bricks, is
circular because the shape of the earth is circular (7.1.1.37). We note
that the waters are symbolized, as being outside the enclosure that is to
receive the terrestrial fire, the Gārhapatya.
By contrast, the fireplace of the Āhavanīya is set up in a quadrilateral
enclosure representing the dyáus ‘sky’, with a lotus leaf placed inside the
enclosure for the specific purpose of representing the waters (again, these
symbols are definitively and explicitly recounted in Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa
7.3.1.9). The enclosure of the Āhavanīya is quadrilateral because the four
directions—north, south, east, west—can be ascertained from the dynamics of
the sky (the sun’s path, the stars’ positions); orientation comes from the
sky, not from earth—which is therefore symbolized as circular, that is,
without directional coordinates of its own. We note that the waters are
symbolized as being inside the enclosure that is to receive the celestial
fire, the Āhavanīya. Unlike terrestrial fire, celestial fire is compatible
with its opposite element, water; in macrocosm, the sun dips into the
waters of the west only to be reborn the next clay in the waters of the
east.
While duly taking into account the distinctions between the cults of the
Indic peoples, attested at a nomadic stage, and the cults of the Italic
peoples, attested at a sedentary stage of development, Georges Dumézil has
noticed a remarkable parallelism between the Indic Āhavanīya and the
ordinary Roman templum, a quadrilateral precinct drawn along the lines of
the four cardinal points of the sky (cf. Vitruvius 4.5); also between the
Indic Gārhapatya and the aedēs of Vesta, with its foundations built in the
shape of a circle (hence the designation aedēs instead of templum). Just as
the Gārhapatya represents the domestic aspects of fire, so also the Roman
Vesta is the goddess of the domestic fireplace. Dumézil has also noticed
further parallelisms. Just as he Gārhapatya is incompatible with water, so
also aedēs of Vesta: in the course of the rituals that take place within
the aedēs no water may touch the ground, not even if it is put down in a
container. In line with this prohibition is the essence of a water jar
called the futtile, derived from the adjective futtilis (‘which is
poured’); besides the radical variant fu-t-, Latin also preserves fu-d– as
in fundō ‘pour’). The use of this jar is explicitly described as follows:
futile uas quoddam est lato ore, fundo angusto, quo utebantur in sacris
Vestae, quia aqua ad sacra Vestae hausta in terra non ponitur, quod si
fiat, piaculum est. unde excogitatum uas est, quod non stare posset sed
positum statim effunderetur. Servius on Aeneid 11.339
The futtile is a container with a wide mouth and a narrow base which they
used in the rites of Vesta, since water drawn for the rites of Vesta is not
put down. And if it does happen, it is a matter for expiation. Hence the
invention of a vase which could not stand up and which, once it is put
down, would immediately spill.
The third aspect of the Indic Triple Fire has yet to be mentioned: besides
the Gārhapatya situated toward the west and the Āhavanīya toward the east,
there is also the Dakṣiṇa toward the south. Meaning ‘the right-hand one’,
the Dakṣiṇa serves primarily to ward off the evil spirits from the
sacrifice (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 4.6.6.1, 5.2.4.15-16). Given the associations
of the earth-born Agni with the Gārhapatya and of the water-born Agni with
the Āhavanīya, it follows that the sky-born Agni of lightning should be
associated with the Dakṣiṇa.
K Rajaram IRS end of part 5 12724
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopcdm_2AEQMNWmjfE5s8r55i-Bq%2BPR4CO6OE1hsEAyMXA%40mail.gmail.com.
