From: shivkhokra
Message: 66701
Date: 2010-10-08
>Well Panini also gives etymology of Na-asatya (not untruth: hence truth) and it makes sense since their names appear on treaties i.e they are considered protectors of truth.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>
> > But weren't Mitanni Aryans from India? The names of Gods that
> > appear in RV 10.125.1 are present in the Mitanni treaty of 1380 BCE
> > in the exact same order:
> >
> > ahám mitraáváruNobhaá bibharmy ahám indraagnií ahám ashvínobhaá
> >
> > The reason that these Gods are mentioned in the treaty is not
> > a random choice on the part of the scribe. Instead it is because
> > one of the functions assigned to these gods by Rgveda deals with
> > treaties...
>
> Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the names of these same deities, or possibly their older forms, might have invoked to ask them to guard against the breach of treaties also at the time the Indo-Aryans were still residing in Central Asia? From there, the worship of these deities, along with this special funcion of theirs, might have been carried through migratory movements to both North Syria/Mesopotamia (by the ancestors of the Mitanni Aryans) and the Greater Panjab (by the the ancestors of the Rgvedic Aryans).
>
> Did the composers of Rgvedic hymns create Mitra-Varun.a, Indra, and the Nâsatyas (or As'vins) as well as their function as guardians of treaties, _ex nihilo_? Or did these gods and this special function of theirs have some antecedents? In the affirmative, why should we assume that the antecedents of these gods and of this special function of theirs (viz., as guardians of treaties) could have developed in South Asia *only*, and *only* after the Rgvedic hymns were composed in that geographic area?
>
> > In RV 1.120.8, the Asvins are also invoked to guard against the
> > breach of a treaty. Yaska in Nirukta 6.13 shows that they were
> > regarded as protectors of the truth: "they are (na-asatya) i.e they
> > are true and not false". Without Rig Ved and Yaska we cannot
> > understand why these Gods of India would be used on the treaties by
> > the Mitanni as these Indian Gods were not gods in Iran or any other
> > country of the world.
>
> For a discussion of the *three* (not just the one you mention!) different etymologies for the Sanskrit theonym Nâsatya being provided in Yâska's _Nirukta_ 6.13, as well as, in general, for the value of the Sanskrit etymologies offered by Yâska himself (who perhaps lived in the fifth century BCE), see already A.A. Macdonell, _A Vedic Reader for Students_, Oxford 1917:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/32lmm65
> << In the earlier period of Vedic studies, commencing about the, middle of the nineteenth century, the traditional method, which follows the great commentary of Sâyan.a (fourteenth century A.D.), and is represented by the translation of the RV, begun by H.H. Wilson in 1850, was considered adequate. It has since been proved that, though the native Indian commentators are invaluable guides in explaining the theological and ritual texts of the Brâhman.as and Sûtras, with the atmosphere of which they were familiar, they did not possess a continuous tradition from the time when the Vedic hymns were composed. That the gap between the poets and the interpreters even earlier than Yâska must have been considerable, is shown by the divergences of opinion among his predecessors as quoted by him. Thus one of these, Aurn.avâbha, interprets nâsatyau, an epithet of the As'vins, as 'true, not false', another, Agrâyan.a, as 'leaders of truth' (satyasya pran.etârau), while Yâska himself thinks it may mean 'nose-born' (nâsikâ-prabhavau)! Yâska, moreover, mentions several different schools of interpretation, each of which explained difficulties in accordance with its own particular theory. Yâska's own interpretations, which in all cases of doubt are based on etymology, are evidently often merely conjectural, for he frequently gives several alternative explanations of a word. >>
>Indo-Iranian root does not make much sense because in Avesta Nasatya are destrucive demons and don't play much of a role in their mythology. What is interesting though is that in Rk veda the dvanda compound "Indra Nasatya" occurs while in Vendidad we have Indra..Saurva..Nanhaithim, all demons. Sarva as a God does not occur in Rk Veda but in later texts.
> Several modern linguists have proposed that the name Nâsatya may go back to the Indo-Iranian verbal root *nas- 'to come together (at home)' < PIE *nes- 'to return home safely'. Compare Sanskrit nasate- 'to unite with, associate oneself with, approach, embrace', Greek neomai- 'to return home (happily), get off from trouble', nostos- 'returning home', Gothic ganisan- 'to be saved, escape from (danger)', nasjan- 'to save'. True, the semantics of *nes- are hardly precise, yet it is possible to interpret this PIE root as denoting, through the meaning 'return to the starting point', either the idea of 'safe/happy return home' and that of '(safety through) restoration of health/vigor (thanks to feeding at home)'. In Sanskrit, the name Nâsatya attributed to the As'vins would, thus, have originally meant something like 'the Saviors', which would correspond to one of the epithets of the Greek Dioskouroi, Sôtêres ('the Saviors') -- and, of course, the Dioskouroi twins are generally considered to correspond to the As'vin twins from the perspective of Indo-European comparative mythology. See J. Haudry,"Les Asvins dans le Rigveda et les jumeaux divins indoeuropéens", _Bulletin des Études Indiennes_ 6 (1988), pp. 275-303)
>