Re: Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review

Volume 5, Indices, Rgveda Samhita- Sontakke and Kashikar- Vaidika Samshodana Mandala has the following:

शुनः 1-182-4; 4-18-13 ; 8-55-3 ;

शुनः शेप: 1-24-12, 13

शुनः शेपम् 5-2-7

शुन ∫ पृष्ठ्ः 7-70-1

शुनम् 1-117-18 ; 3-30-22 , 30-22, 32-17, 34-11, 35-11, etc

शुना सीरा 4-57-8 , शुना सीरौ 4-57-5

निरुक्त 9-40 -

शुनासीरौ I शुनो वायुः I शु एत्यान्तरिक्षे I सीर आदित्यः सरणात् I तयोरेषा भवति I

शुनासिरविमां वाचम् जुषेथाम् यद्दिवि चक्रथुः पयः I

तेनेमामुप सिञ्चतं I I ऋग्वेद 4-57-5

इति सा निगदव्याख्याता I

Yaaska (Nirukta) interprets Shuna as Vaayu.

The word Sepah and Vaitasah are synonims of penis.

Related to Sepah is another word SipiviSTa a synonim of Vishnu, the Sun ; it also means a bald person.

The word Parucchepa in the Nirukta:

तत्परुच्छेपस्य शीलम् I परुच्छेप ऋषिः I परुषिपरुषि शेपो∫स्येति वा I

(निरुक्त 10-42.) . Well, list members can interpret this in accordance to their own views.

Vedic Rshis were pragmatic; the narrow restricted morality that we seem to bear these days is hardly a notion we could apply to ancient times when virility was deemed to be God´s gift.

Yaaska´s interpretations indicate the difficulties we face today in viewing the Rgveda. Classical Samskrta and the oldest portions of the Rgveda have an interveening gap of three to four millennia ???.

Hope this explains the necessity of a calm and scholarly approach to the problem.

Brgds.

Rajan Menon

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:17 PM, shobhan ganji <shobhan_ganji@...> wrote:

Atleast the Vedics may not have used the words like Bhakti or devotion but their reverence to their dieties like Indra, Agni , Brahmanspati can be seen in their hymns.
In any case, dog's genital serves no purpose in this Hymn 5.02.07.

शुनश चिच छेपं निदितं सहस्राद यूपाद अमुञ्चो अशमिष्ट हि षः |

From: Koenraad Elst <koenraadelst@...>
To: shobhan ganji <shobhan_ganji@...>; Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>; Lalit Mishra <litsol@...>
Cc: "koenraad.elst@..." <koenraad.elst@...>; "vajradanta5@..." <vajradanta5@...>; "kalyan97@..." <kalyan97@...>; "witzel@..." <witzel@...>; "padmakarvartak@..." <padmakarvartak@...>; "ancientarchaeologist@..." <ancientarchaeologist@...>; "paangloss@..." <paangloss@...>; "shivkhokra@..." <shivkhokra@...>; Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramnavaratna@...>; shrikant talageri <sgtalageri@...>; "varmha@..." <varmha@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [tied] RE: Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review

Dear list,

thanks for the valiant attempt to bring back some sense here.

>Why is this valuable discussion being hijacked by few comments filled with hate and intolerance ?. Please try to control your emotions to bring a logical conclusion to this debate.<

Unfortunately, the actual contribution to the debate leaves something to be desired:

>In my view the context and dog's penis doesn't make any sense. As shepa can also mean a Tail , the vedics may not have intended dog's genital when they are composing such beautiful and devotional hymns. A dog's tail is a common thing in India and people in general don't talk about dog's genital and sexual objects openly unless it is a romantic literature. Being a devotional literature dog's tail makes a perfect sense in in the rigvedic mantra 5.02.07. Wondering why a person has got a name Shuna:Shepa.<
You project two later Hindu traits onto the Vedic poets: prudishness and devotion. The Vedas are not prudish. If the Hindu Jagruti Samiti ever feels inclined to protest against lewd remarks as unbefitting a Hindu context, let them protest against the Vedas. Victorian Veda translator Griffith put the lewd passages in Latin rather than English, so that delicate but uneducated women would not be able to read them.

Secondly, the relation of the Vedic sacrificers to their gods was very different from the devotional (bhakti) relation of the modern Hindu to his God. Ancient Hindus walked with their gods, modern Hindus crawl before their God (as well as before the weight of scripture and tradition).

Hindus tend not to realize that they share this trait, of projecting their actual beliefs onto their scriptures and historical guides, with other peoples. Thus, the Jewish kabbalah is a Jewish appropriation of neo-Platonism, but a large part of its literature consists in projecting these neo-Platonic insights onto the Torah. Hindus consider themselves unique but in fact they share this widespread trait.

Kind regards,

Koenraad Elst