my family are bloody strict brahmins and they have always told me that we are aryans. my view of an aryan is a caucasianed skin person from central asia, but i have been told that i am also a decendant of the aryans is there anyone here who can help me work this out? ?
Here is something from wikipedia. "Since ancient times, Persians have used the term Aryan in the ethnic sense to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians (Encyclopedia Iranica, p. 681, Arya). In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." " There are many uses for the word "Aryan", so this might not be the one you are looking for. Hindus, buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians use the word to mean "spiritual" or "noble". Theres more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan Interesting. The begining of the article mentions PIE... I was thinking about your name when I opened it up. Here is the etymology of the word, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=aryan&searchmode=none "1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam). Aryan also was used (1861) by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) to refer to "worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans," which he took to be the original sense. In comparative philology, Aryan was applied (by Pritchard, Whitney, etc.) to "the original Aryan language" (1847; Arian was used in this sense from 1839, but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history), the presumed ancestor of a group of related, inflected languages mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. In this sense it gradually was replaced by Indo-European (q.v.) or Indo-Germanic, except when used to distinguish I.E. languages of India from non-I.E. ones. It came to be applied, however, to the speakers of this group of languages (1851), on the presumption that a race corresponded to the language, especially in racist writings of French diplomat and man of letters J.A. de Gobineau (1816–82), e.g. "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines," 1853–55, and thence it was taken up in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type."As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter. "
Why bother? It is so long ago that the aryans have supposedly settled in India and there were alot of intermarriages also with the dravidian brown skinned populations. There are so many brownskinned Brahmins , what is important though however is that we don't cling to the notions of our inherent superiority just because we are brahmins, it is good to see all as the same, because nowadays there isn't really much of a difference between a brahmin and a sudra. We are really brahmins only when we act like brahmins otherwise , we are all sudras.
The sanskrit word arya, which was often used in scripture to describe brahmins, has nothing to do with race. It merely means one of noble ideals, of a higher bent of mind. In that sense all are aryans.
In one theory, the Aryans descend from a group who once inhabited central Asia known to historians as the proto-Indo-Iranians. It seems some of this group settled in Persia, some moved south into the Indian sub-continent, and some moved west to become the ancestors of modern Europeans. The link between India and Iran seems to be proven by some similarities between the Vedas and the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster. It is further claimed by some that both sets of scriptures were probably originated somewhere in Asia not far from the Arctic circle. However - in modern times, the word 'Aryan', like the swastika symbol, has become identified with the bogus racial theories of the Nazis. The idea that it simply means a spiritually inclined person probably doesn't hold water. BTW - I think the idea of an hereditary priestly caste is equally nonsensical and dangerous. It is not by birth alone that one comes to know spiritual relities. It is a manifestation of a system which went wrong centuries ago.
Because of the era and country that I grew up in, I automatically associate "Aryan" with Nazism. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada drew a strong line between caste Brahminism and real Brahminical status, which is transcendental and not limited by nationality, religion, race, etc.
Yes - I think that for anyone born in the west during this period of history, both the swastika and the word 'Aryan' can't help but have the Nazi connection. This is inevitable I think, and it seems to me that it would be difficult to get away from that association. As hard as seeing the cross as a non-Christian symbol perhaps. I agree with Prabhupada on this issue - it is not by birth but by merit that one can be called a Brahmin. Incidentally, Sri Aurobindo called his magazine, which he began in the 1920's to publish his writings, 'Arya'. I think that by it, he meant an Aryan is a true follower of the Vedas.
hahahahhahahaha h ahaha h .. ermm i dont wear a loin cloth really but yeh my grandad wears one.. i kinda like them though.u know like freee without any clothes and only a little covering .. amazzingg
