From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41825
Date: 2005-11-06
----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)
Langauges
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:26 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian)
> Languages
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:
<snip>
No it was not. Soma also refers to moon and water. The supposed
intoxicating properties are based on a misreading of the Rig Veda.
<http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0901/ejvs0901b.txt>
<http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0901/ejvs0901e.txt>
Quotes from the second link:
"Falk's view that "there is
nothing shamanistic or visionary either in early Vedic or in Old Iranian
texts" [Falk, 1989, p.79]."
"The first point is his (Falk's) insistence, rather
surprising to me, that there is no evidence of shamanic or visionary
experience in Vedic, and no evidence whatsoever also that the Soma-drink
was hallucinogenic, itself also surprising [not that I claim that Soma
*was* hallucinogenic; rather, I reject the suggestion that it could not
have been so] (Thompson, 2003)."
***
Patrick:
First, let me thank you, especially for the second link, which I found
highly interesting.
There is nothing at those links, and nothing of which I know, which suggests
the _non_-specific nature of soma. The question seems to be, rather, what
exactly its specific ingredient(s) might have been.
When you write: "Soma also refers to moon and water", you are conflating
philosophical with pharmacological considerations. We are concerned, when
discussing specificity, only with the pharmacological. '*Soma also refers to
Jupiter' may be mildly interesting but has no bearing on the question of
what soma actually was physically: ephedra, mead, or mushroom, etal.
I suppose we could argue what 'intoxicating' means, but RV 10.119, discussed
at the second link, certainly describes, for any objective reader, an
unusual mental state. Call it intoxication or hallucination as you will; and
this abnormal mental state is unquestionably connected with soma intake.
And the author, Thompson, clearly argues for an instance of intoxication or
hallucination.
Frankly, your "misreading" seems to me to be the serious consequence of your
misreading.
***
>
> Whether it was from a 'magic mushroom' or 'fermented juice' of some
fruit
> (wild pears are a good possibility).
>
> If we look at Bharati culture, the only drug that seems to be in
general
> disfavor is alcohol. And, of course, só:ma is no longer in evidence
either.
>
> I suspect the Indo-Aryan speakers were users of alcohol; and the
population
> they came into were, like Native Americans, were genetically
incapable of
> handling it.
Such philology based claims are not verifiable. Anything can be read
into a text if one reads it with preconceived ideas.
***
Patrick:
You are, of course, absolutely right about "preconceived ideas".
But you are absolutely wrong about "philology based claims". My suggested
hypothesis for the non-presence of soma in current Bharati society has
nothing to do with philology.
Now, perhaps you are in a better position to know if any genetic studies
have been done on Bharatis to suggest any genetic similarities with Native
Americans.
But, quite aside, how do you explain the absence of soma in present Bharati
culture?
***
M. Kelkar