PDA

View Full Version : What Are Your Thoughts on the Word "Aryan" (Wikipedia Entry)?



Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 12:36 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"For other uses, see Aryan (disambiguation).
Aryan (IPA: /ˈɛɹiən/) is an English language loanword. As the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states at the beginning of its definition, "[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India."[1]

As an adaptation of the Latin Arianus, referring to Iran, 'Aryan' has "long been in English language use".[2] Its history as a loan word began in the late 1700s, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ā́rya- meaning a speaker of North Indian languages.[2] When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 1800s, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.[3]

Then, in the 1830s, the term "Aryan" was adopted for speakers of Indo-European languages in general, in the unsubstantiated belief that this was an ethnic self-identifier used by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, i.e., the prehistoric speakers of Proto-Indo-European (this belief could not be substantiated since the Proto-Indo-Europeans had not yet adopted writing). This development was in turn instrumental to the development of the concept of an "Aryan race", which by the early 20th century became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). In Nazi Germany the classification of peoples as Aryan or not was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews.[4][n 1] This racialist interpretation engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, and – in a late 19th century British-mediated form – to a racialist reinterpretation of Indian society, texts and history. Following the end of World War II and the discovery of the genocide that the self-styled "Aryans" had caused, the word 'Aryan' ceased to have a positive meaning in general Western understanding. In colloquial modern English it is typically used to signify the Nordic racial ideal promoted by the Nazis.

In present-day India, the original ethno-linguistic signifier has been mostly lost, the denotation having been semantically replaced by other, secondary, meanings. In Iran, the original self-identifier lives on in ethnic names like "Alani", "Ir", and in the name of Iran itself.[5] In present-day academia, the terms "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-European" have made most uses of the term 'Aryan' obsolete, and 'Aryan' is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term "Indo-Aryan" to represent (speakers of) North Indian languages. Notions of an "Aryan race" only survive in the context of fascist nationalism, in which nationhood is defined by ancestry."
Any thoughts?

þeudiskaz
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 12:52 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any thoughts?

Seems to match roughly the definition I recieved from my High School history class. With the small exception that the Aryans were more described as having originating closer to modern-day Ukraine, and that they migrated Southwards, bringing with them parts of their linguistic/cultural tradition, the reason that Farsi, and Persian are so related to other European languages.

Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:21 PM
I found this Thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=47015)


Most people are confused about the word Aryan. Many Eurocentric preservationists, and even some National Socialists, are confused about it! http://forum.grossdeutsches-vaterland.net/images/smilies/hitler00.gif (http://forum.grossdeutsches-vaterland.net/images/smilies/hitler00.gif)

I consider this to be negative for the people, especially for National Socialists, since I believe the word Aryan is very important for Eurocentric people. It is my believe that every person for the preservation (and advancement) of our race should understand the word Aryan.


What does Aryan mean?


The word Aryan (Ar'y-an) is from the Indo-European language family.
Ar = superior / noble. So an Aryan is a person who is superior / noble. Aryans are persons who are superior / noble.

Ar is not just something which scholars started using in the 18th century, like some leftists would like people to believe. Nor is Ar something the National Socialists of the Third Reich just decided to distort or abuse (they did not distort nor abuse it). Ar/Ir is something which has been used by our people, Europids, since history began. Ar has been used in both east and west for a very long time! Spelled and pronounced differently sometimes, sure, but the meaning is the same.

I will now list related words (all having roughly the same meaning and many, not all, being etymologically related) in Indo-European languages.

Sanskrit: Arya (kind , favourable; attached to , true , devoted , dear; excellent, master , lord, a respectable, a man highly esteemed, or honourable or faithful man, an owner)
Anglo Saxon: Ár(honour, worth; glory, dignity; grace, prosperity; kindness, benefit, help)
Old German: era
Germanic: erilaz = (member of the noble class, Runemaster)
German: ehre = (honour, honesty, praise)
Irish: Aire
Dutch: eer
Greek: αριστος
Ancient Greek: Aristos = (best, noblest)
Persian: áriya
Latin: ars (Art)
Icelandic: aðall (nobility)
The list could be much longer.

The Sanskrit lexicon Amarakosha (ca. 450 AD) defines Arya as: "An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct."

I encourage people to do their own research on this, like finding similar words in their mother tongue and comparing it with other similar words in other languages.

Germanic Lexicon project (http://anonym.to/?http://207.245.90.61/%7Escrist1/scanned_books/query/aa_search.html)
Old English glossary for Beowulf (http://anonym.to/?http://www.heorot.dk/glossary.html)
English-Greek word search (http://anonym.to/?http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically)
Philology of Ethnic Epithet of Iranian Peoples (http://anonym.to/?http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/arya.htm)

Now that we understand the word Aryan we must ask
Who were Aryans in the past and who are Aryan now?!


The Aryans of the past were the most noble / superior people of the past. The most noble / superior people of the past were of what would be called a Nordic / Europid race. Why were they Aryans (noble/superior)? Be cause they were the most creative! We define superiority on demonstrated ability and/or achievement. They as the Master-race founded all civilizations and dominated inferior slave-race peoples.

See indogermanen.de.vu (http://web.archive.org/web/20060221042718/http://www.indogermanen.de.vu/)

Are all of the Nordic / Europid race Aryans?


The Euoropid as a whole compared to the Negroid race can be considered Aryans. But can we truly say the being of the Europid race automatically makes one Aryan? No, since most of the Europid race in this point in time are non-creative slave people. Only an Elite of the Europid race in this point in time are creative with a Master mentality, thus only an Elite of the Europid race can be considered Aryan.


Can other races be Aryan?


Yes, but only if we put them in groups. For example the most superior people of Asia would be the Japanese, they could thus be considered Asian Aryans. However they could not be called Aryans when compared on a global scale since the Europids are superior as demonstrated by ability and/or achievement.

Now that we know what Aryan means and who are Aryans we must ask ourselves

Why should we use the word Aryan?


As explained above the word Aryan, sometimes spelled differently, is a word that has been used by the Europids since the dawn of history (at least 7000 years). It is a part of our culture, the culture we are fighting to preserve and advance. Even though the meaning of the word is widely misunderstood we should never stop using it, seeing that our enemies distort the meaning of all our words. For example they have distorted the meaning National Socialism (pro-Life) in the eyes of the masses into something which is "evil" and dishonorable, they dub it Nazism. It has become clear to me that our enemies think that by distorting and destroying the meaning of our words (our tools for communication) they can distort our movement. If we do as they will and stop using words just be cause they have been distorted we let our enemies see how effective their methods are. Aryan is a part of our identity. We must use and guard our great words!

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Myatt
National-Socialism believes that it is natural and necessary for individuals to have a real sense of belonging and identity: to have roots in a particular land which they value and respect as the home of their ancestors and thus of their own culture. National-Socialism is Aryan culture.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:24 PM
There is nothing wrong with using the word "Aryan". The NS used it, and many nationalists still use it today.

Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:35 PM
There is nothing wrong with using the word "Aryan". The NS used it, and many nationalists still use it today.

I wasn’t inquiring to the correctness of the word, rather what can be deducted from the picture painted by our "Friends" over at Wikipedia.:oldman:

Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:38 PM
I wasn’t inquiring to the correctness of the word, rather what can be deducted from the picture painted by our "Friends" over at Wikipedia.:oldman:
I don't see a problem. Words often change meaning overtime. :)

Bärin
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:41 PM
[it] is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany...
Bullshit. Aryan referred to all German races, not just blond-haired, blue-eyed people.

Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:59 PM
I don't see a problem. Words often change meaning overtime. :)

I recon in this case it takes more then time to change the meaning of a word:dgrin

Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 02:19 PM
From Wiki answers


It is a word that is synonymous with Indo-European, and it designates a certain group of people that developed language as a community. Many believe that these people constitute a separate race.

rainman
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 05:44 PM
There has been a recent attempt to peg the Aryan homeland as in the middle east and to emphasize that Indians are Aryan. This seems to be pretty skewed if not false. Up until recently the Aryan homeland was given as somewhere around modern day Ukraine, possibly Russia or the Baltics. With absolutely no new evidence suddenly they are saying that the homeland is in Turkey or something. Yes Aryans were there very early in history but there's nothing conclusive that this is a homeland. Yet modern Lithuanian and old Prussian was almost exactly the same language as the anceint Aryan language and the people in that area are the least changed physically from the original Aryan skeletal remains (note that modern Baltics have some of the highest percentage of blondes. Though there doesn't seem to be any higher rate of intelligence or anything that I'm aware of. I don't think Dinaric/Alpine Caucasions were less intelligent, though they may have been less inventive or less likely to lead. It seems the groups that are most mixed with Nordic and Dinaric (possibly med as well)were historically most successful (English, Germans, French etc.). Also some of the oldest remains of their civilization is found in the Baltic states. We can deduce that if they didn't originate in the Baltics, then at least their earliest major settlements were in that area (we theorize some nomadic origin around east europe then permanent settlement in the Baltics though we could just as well give the baltics as a homeland, but if you look at their expansion you see a central circle around ukrain and then radiating out to turkey in the south and balts in the north etc.).

The original Aryan tribe were Nordic. A blond race with blue, green, or grey eyes. Some people who are Nordic may have light brown hair in certain periods of their life or later grey or white hair for example, but overall was a blond race. We just later used it as a term to apply to all Caucasion Europeans as the Dinaric/Aplinid subgrou which was closely related to Aryans mix bred with the Nordic Aryans almost so completely that they became one race in modern times. There is evidence though that some of the "Aryan" invasion of India and the east actually included the Dinaric (dark haired whites) subgroup as well.

Here's some changes made to modern science:

Aryan's are no longer European in origin but now originate in India or the middle east despite no real evidence for this.

Aryan is not a race and never was despite historical evidence to the contrary.

Aryans never called themselves Aryans despite written evidence in India dating back at least to 2,000 B.C. (possibly earlier) (the original Aryan tribe originated only around 3,000 B.C.) that state otherwise and despite modern linguistic evidence to the contrary (Ireland is called the land of "Eire" as in "Ar" in "Aryan" "Ar-y-land".

Cro-Magnons the original ancestors of modern Europeans are no longer a distinct race but instead are lumped in with "earlier modern humans" despite clear cultural, physical and technological differences from other early modern humans.

Science is being rewritten to be less racist. The wikipedia article is incorrect. Well its politically correct and corresponds to what is being taught in Academia and on science programs today.

Brief Aryan history (I give this in my book on Asatru):

around 35,000 B.C. we have what I call proto-caucasions. The Cro-Magnon man pops up in europe from somewhere. There is a genetic bottleneck. We don't know where they came from. Either from genetic change from an earlier more asian or black like group, from atlantis or thule, outerspace who knows. The first evidence of their existance is at the end of the last ice age in Europe 35,000 B.C. a relatively small population exists and there's a genetic bottleneck. They are similar to modern Europeans exept larger, more robust and larger brains. They have advanced art, music, religion, tool making etc. that is superior to the rest of the world at that time.

3,500 B.C. (thereabouts) a tribe of Cro-Magnons somehow evolves. They suddenly emerge with a slightly different culture, and much more advanced technology. This group is very Nordic in apearance and very cro-magnon exept more gracile (not as thick boned). Mummified remains have been found in a chinese desert dating to about 3,000 B.C. they have redish and blond hair. This group expanded outward into the middle east, India, and Europe. They spread their language and culture. In Europe they mixed with a closely related cro-magnon people creating modern Europeans. Elsewhere they mixed with others. Though overall they made an effort to keep their blood distinct in non-European areas.

It seems also Europeans mixed somewhat with another more asian like human group that was in East Europe. They were smaller and less robust and less culturally advanced. This could be one reason that modern europeans have smaller brains and smaller stature to the original Cro-Magnons. Likewise dysgenics especially of the christian era (dark ages) could have had an effect. Despite technological progress we seem to be a somewhat dumbed down, weaker version of our ancestors. This degenerate nature of modern Europeans is where the Nazi conclusion that "no one is pure" comes from and one of the ideas behind a need for a "new evolution" towards a more ideal physical and mental state of our people comes from.

exit
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 02:54 PM
My thoughts are that Aryan definitely refers to a race; using the Griffith translation of the Rig Veda one finds various references: "subdue the tribes of the Dasa to the Arya" (VI.25), "both races, Indra, of opposing foemen, O Hero, both the Arya and the Dasa" (VI.33), and so on.

I believe that the Aryans were Nordic and that the word refers not only to race but to the elite or even simply the twice-born (initiated) castes (artisan, warrior, priest) and thus to a traditional path.

That the word contains three or more meanings is not unusual.

Thusnelda
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 07:22 PM
I know that not less nationalist movements use or have used the term "Aryan" but it has a negative connotation to me, it´s a personal bias. If I hear or read "Aryan" I´ve to think of ancient Indian or Iranian people (and such) more or less automatically...:| So I try to don´t use this word, I prefer "Germanic", "European" or even "White" instead.

An other issue is the laughable "Pan Aryan movement" which includes Turks, Arabs, Persians and Berberids among others.:thumbdown

Catterick
Friday, July 1st, 2016, 08:20 PM
The Aryans of the Vedas were surely not European Nordics but they were still a related type like the Kalash today. As we know after WW2 it became unfashionable to use the word Aryan outside of an In-Ir context. However its PIE root was the self-identification of either the PIEs or their elites. Aryaman, Armenak, Erimon, Irmin(?) etc are all mythological figures with names coming from this root.

With the genetics components research its now possible to identify the Indo-Europeans with a Metal Age migration. Some astute people now refer to the Ancient North Eurasian in Europe and India as "they who must not be named".

When I think of Aryans I think of white steppe riders. A bit like white Mongols. Words like Germanic or Celtic are surely more relatable to most people, who are not racial nationalists. Europe is merely geography or politics. Then Whiteness is either anthropological science else colonial social constructs. (The defining of Whiteness changes over time in America.)

Reclaim the correct use of language.

Englisc
Saturday, July 2nd, 2016, 08:40 AM
So how did the word Aryan, originally used to refer to the eastern parts of the Indo-European space including Iran (whose name is of the same root) and India, come to refer to northern Europeans and be used by the NS?

Personally, in reference to our own people, I don't like the term. Prefer Germanic, white, Nordic, etc.

Catterick
Saturday, July 2nd, 2016, 05:09 PM
So how did the word Aryan, originally used to refer to the eastern parts of the Indo-European space including Iran (whose name is of the same root) and India, come to refer to northern Europeans and be used by the NS?

Personally, in reference to our own people, I don't like the term. Prefer Germanic, white, Nordic, etc.

Historically the self-designation of "Aryan" was re-introduced into Germany, England and such with the rise of Indo-European philology. Likewise the "de-Nazification" hysteria after WW2 saw philological approaches themselves downplayed in Germany itself as well as the Anglosphere and to a lesser degree Scandinavia.

(I'm off a while now, will have access in a few days.)

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Saturday, July 2nd, 2016, 08:29 PM
3.1 Sanskrit Literature
References abound to an Aryan invasion in Sanskrit literature.
The ancient singer praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." [Rg.V. III.34.9]
and "the thunderer who bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." [Rg.V. I.100.18]
Numerous are the references to "the black skin" `Krishnam Vacham' [Rg.V. IX.41.1, Sama Veda I.491, II.242] which is mentioned with abhorrence.
Again " stromy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin." [Rg.V. IX.73.5]
The singers mention "the black skin, the hated of Indra", being swept ourtof heaven [RgV. IX.73.5] "Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conqured the black skin." [Rg.V. I.130.8]
The sacrificer poured out thanks to his god for "scattering the slave bands of black descent", and for stamping out " the vile Dasyan colour." [Rg.V. II.20.7, II.12.4]
"Dasam varnam adharam" [Rg.V. II.12.4]
[Muir part I, p.43, II, p.284, 323 etc.]





The Aryans of the Vedas were surely not European Nordics
don´t bother replying, but i present this: google.is/search?q=arctic+home+vedas



When I think of Aryans I think of white steppe riders. A bit like white Mongols.
granted.


The Rigveda mentions fortifications (púr), mostly made of mud and wood (palisades), mainly as the abode of hostile peoples, while the Aryan tribes live in víś, a term translated as "settlement, homestead, house, dwelling," but also "community, tribe, troops".[Mallory, 1989]
Indra in particular has been described as "destroyer of fortifications," e.g. RV 4.30.20ab:
satám asmanmáyinaam / purām índro ví asiyat
"Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."
The Rigveda contains, according to some, phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. For example, Indra is compared to the lord of a fortification (pūrpatis) in RV 1.173.10, while quotations such as a ship with a hundred oars in 1.116 and metal forts (puras ayasis) in 10.101.8 all occur in mythological contexts only.



Aryans have traditionally worshiped fire. 'Ar' in Icelandic means 'fire'. Romans worshiped fire. Germanics did. "Indians" did. Greeks did. it was a Cult of Fire.

so-called red-haired people have a "hair of fire". some have blonde or ashen-blond hair and a fiery beard (red, white, yellow, mix).

even some of the pharaohs of Egypt had red bears. this is not Nazi pseudoscience, but mainstream info anyone can find.

i encourage people also to look into Tocharian mummies.

Rhaegar Thorwald
Sunday, July 3rd, 2016, 02:12 PM
Personally I don't like the term, it's outdated and comes with too much baggage and I've never understood why so much fuss is made over it.

Indians, Afghans and Persians are Aryans, yet Finns and Hungarians are not?.

Calling somebody an "Aryan" is just like saying someone is an "American."

Catterick
Monday, July 4th, 2016, 01:18 AM
don´t bother replying, but i present this: google.is/search?q=arctic+home+vedas

Sure the IEs came from the North and the Vedic Aryans can be termed Nordic, but broadly speaking. But still different from their wider-headed relatives near the Baltic.


even some of the pharaohs of Egypt had red bears. this is not Nazi pseudoscience, but mainstream info anyone can find.

Mostly Mitannian admixture in the Egyptian elites. Amenhotep III was racially Corded and could have passed in Scandinavia.


i encourage people also to look into Tocharian mummies.

Xinjiang is near Afghanistan so its not as big a thing as people think. Many Afghans and tribal Pakistanis are depigmented. Same with the hybrid Uyhurs of Xinjiang itself.

Not counting the Mongoloids, arriving from Tibet first, there were three Caucasoid races. The first was the Pamirid type arriving as settled farmers. Then two more white types - the robust type found in the Pit Graves and the gracilised Indo-Afghan.

Catterick
Monday, July 4th, 2016, 01:31 AM
Indians, Afghans and Persians are Aryans, yet Finns and Hungarians are not?.

Finns have a couple of Mongoloid frequencies of dental traits though they are overall whites.

Shadow
Monday, July 4th, 2016, 05:38 AM
If you are in school in anthropology and use the word Aryan in a:

Linguistics course----OK
Cultural Anthropology course---instant F
Archaeology course-------better be talkin' about India
Physical Anthropology course---one way or another you are headed out the door.

Hauke Haien
Monday, July 4th, 2016, 05:54 PM
Here Follow My Ramblings Over the Word "Aryan":

The superficial problem is that we do not have reliable knowledge of common words the proto-Indo-Europeans used to refer to themselves, which is why we usually circumscribe them in the manner I just did. To some extent, this mirrors our difficulties in reconstructing common names of the Gods, with well-known exceptions.

The real problem is one of usage. Paul Thieme famously investigated it in Der Fremdling im Rigveda for the word "arya" and related terms. Others have made similar attempts without realising the inner unity of their divergent readings. Then, Eric Hamp wrote in The Dag(h)d(h)ae and his relatives about the possibility that *Danu might be related to Latin bonus, Old Latin duenos, Faliscan duenas, meaning "good". This would be from proto-Italic *dwenos, PIE *dueno-, also yielding proto-Celtic *Duonū, largely matching the word "arya" in denoting well-ordered, well-fitting, cosmically just, aristocratic persons without having any etymological relationship with it. Additionally, it shines some light on the naming of the Tuatha Dé Danann (the Irish Gods) and possibly the Danaans (the Greeks in Homeric poetry) and maybe the Danava (from the Mahabharata). How do the various rivers and river goddesses who seem to continue this name material "fit in"? Not sure!

So, after having established a second shaky semantic field, let us think about what we are talking about.

If we accept that it is wrong to use the word "Indra" when talking about Thunor, because we are not talking about Indra, then surely ethel (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethel) and thede (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thede) (þeoden æþeling) can never retreat an inch before foreign words that will never, ever be charged in quite the same way. To my mind the attempt to popularise "Aryan" over native words is the same foolishness that leads people to believe their real tribe is called "R1b". "Deutsch" and "edelblütig" must be the name of the game.

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Tuesday, July 12th, 2016, 08:59 AM
If you are in school in anthropology and use the word Aryan in a:

Linguistics course----OK
Cultural Anthropology course---instant F
Archaeology course-------better be talkin' about India
Physical Anthropology course---one way or another you are headed out the door.

There does exist such a thing as 'Academic Prejudice'.


Our use of the term Aryan in connection with this doctrine is primarily justified by direct reference to the texts. The term ariya (Skt.: ārya), which in fact means "Aryan," recurs throughout the canon. The path of awakening is called Aryan — ariya magga: the four fundamental truths are Aryan — ariya-saccāni; the mode of knowledge is Aryan — ariya-naya; the teaching is called Aryan (particularly that which considers the contingency of the world') and is, in turn, addressed to the āriyā; the doctrine is spoken of as accessible and intelligible, not to the common crowd, but only to the ariya.

The term ariya has sometimes been translated as "saint." This, however, is an incomplete translation; it is even discordant when we consider the notable divergence between what is concerned and all that "saintliness" means to a Western man. Nor is the translation of ariya as "noble" or "sublime" any more satis*factory. They are all later meanings of the word, and they do not convey the fullness of the original nor the spiritual, aristocratic, and racial significance that, neverthe*less, is largely preserved in Buddhism.

This is why Orientalists, such as Rhys Davids and Woodward, have maintained that it is better not to translate the term at all, and they have left ariya wherever it occurs in the texts, either as an adjective or as a noun meaning a certain class of individuals. In the texts of the canon the ariya are the Awakened Ones, those who have achieved Liberation and those who are united to them since they understand, accept, and follow the ariya Doctrine of Awakening:

It is necessary, however, that we should emphasize the Aryan-ness of the Bud*dhist doctrine for various reasons, In the first place, we must anticipate those who will put forward the argument of Asiatic exclusiveness, saying that Buddhism is remote from "our" traditions and "our" races. We have to remember that behind the various caprices of modern historical theories, and as a more profound and primor*dial reality, there stands the unity of blood and spirit of the white races who created the greatest civilizations both of the East and West, the Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman and the Germanic.

Buddhism has the right to call itself Aryan both because it reflects in great measure the spirit of common origins and since it has preserved important parts of a heritage that, as we have already said, Western man has little by little forgotten, not only by reason of involved processes of intermarriage, but also since he himself — to a far greater extent than the Eastern Aryans — has come under foreign influences. particularly in the religious field. As we have pointed out, Buddhist asceticism, when certain supplementary elements have been removed, is truly "classical" in its clarity, realism, precision, and firm and articulate structure; we may say it reflects the noblest style of the ancient Aryo-Mediterranean world.

Furthermore, it is not only a question of form. The ascesis proclaimed by Prince Siddhattha is suffused throughout with an intimate congeniality and with an accen*tuation of the intellectual and Olympian element that is the mark of Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Roman Stoicism. Other points of contact are to be found where Christianity has been rectified by a transfusion of Aryan blood that had remained comparatively pure — that is to say, in what we know as German mysticism: there is Meister Eckhart's sermon on detachment, on Abgeschiedenheit, and his theory of the "noble mind," and we must not forget Tauter and Silesius, To insist here, as in every other field of thought, on the antithesis between East and West is pure dilet*tantism.

The real contrast exists in the first place between concepts of a modern kind and those of a traditional kind, whether the latter are Eastern or Western; and sec*ondly, between the real creations of the Aryan spirit and blood and those which, in East and West alike, have resulted from the admixture of non-Aryan influences. As Dahlke has justly said, "Among the principal ways of thought in ancient times, Bud*dhism can best claim to be of pure Aryan origin."'

This is true also more specifically. Although we can apply the term Aryan as a generalization to the mass of Indo-European races as regards their common origin (the original homeland of such races, the ariyānem-vaējō, according to the memory consciously preserved in the ancient Iranian tradition, was a hyperborean region or, more generally, northwestern),' yet, later, it became a designation of caste.

Ārya stood essentially for an aristocracy opposed, both in mind and body, not only to ob*scure, bastard, "demoniacal" races among which must be included the Kosalian and Dravidian strains found by the Hyperboreans in the Asiatic lands they conquered, but also, more generally, to that substrafum that corresponds to what we would prob*ably call today the proletarian and plebeian masses born in the normal way to serve, and that in India as in Rome were excluded from the bright cults characteristic of the higher patrician, warrior, and priestly castes.

Buddhism can claim to be called Aryan in this more particular social sense also, notwithstanding the attitude, of which we shall have more to say later, that it adopted toward the castes of those times.

The man who was later known as the Awakened One, thaf is, the Buddha, was the Prince Siddhattha. According to some, he was the son of a king; according to ofhers, at least of the most ancient warrior nobility of the Sākiya race, proverbial for its pride: there was a saying, "Proud as a Sākiya."5 This race claimed descent, like the most illustrious and ancient Hindu dynasties, from the so-called solar race — sūrya vamsa — and from the very ancient king Ikśvāku.6

"He, of the solar race," one reads of the Buddha.' He says so himself: "I am descended from the solar dynasty and I was born a Sākiya,"8 and by becoming an ascetic who has renounced the world he vindicates his royal dignity, the dignity of an Aryan king.'' Tradition has it that his person appeared as "a form adorned with all the signs of beauty and surrounded by a radiant aureole."10

To a sovereign who meets him and does not know who he is, he immediately gives the impression of an equal: "Thou hast a perfect body, thou art resplendent, well born, of noble aspect, thou hast a golden colour and white teeth, thou art strong. All the signs that thou art of noble birfh are in thy form, all the marks of a superior man."11

The most fearsome bandit, meeting him, asks himself in amaze*ment who might be "this ascetic who comes alone with no companions, like a conqueror." — And not only do we find in his body and hearing the characteristics of a khattiya, of a noble warrior of high lineage, but tradition has it that he was en*dowed with the "thirty-two attributes" that according to an ancient brahmanical doc*trine were the mark of the "superior man" — mahāpurisa-lakkhana — for whom "exist only two possibilities, without a third": either, to remain in the world and to become a cakkavatti, that is, a king of kings, a "universal sovereign," the Aryan prototype of the "Lord of the Earth," or else to renounce the world and to become perfectly awak*ened, the Sambuddha, "one who has removed the veil.'"

Legend tells us that in a prophetic vision of a whirling wheel an imperial destiny was foretold for Prince Siddhattha; a destiny that, however, he rejected in favor of the other path.14 It is equally significant that, according to tradition, the Buddha directed that his funeral rite should not be that of an ascetic, but of an imperial sovereign, a cakkavatti.15 In spite of the aittitude of Buddhism toward the caste problem, it was generally held that the bodhisatta, those who may one day become awakened, are never horn into a peasant or servile caste but into a warrior or Brāhman caste, that is to say, into the two purest and highest of the Aryan castes: indeed, in the conditions then prevailing, the warrior caste, the khattiya, was said to be the more favored.'

This Aryan nobility and this warrior spirit are reflected in the Doctrine of Awak*ening itself. Analogies between the Buddhist ascesis and war, between the qualities of an ascetic and the virtues of a warrior and of a hero recur frequently in the canoni*cal texts: "a struggling ascetic with fighting breast," "an advance with a fighter's steps," "hero, victor of the battle," "supreme triumph of the battle," "favorable con*ditions for the combat," qualifies of "a warrior becoming to a king, well worthy of a king, attributes of a king," etc." — and in such maxims as: "to die in battle is better than to live defeated."

As for "nobility," it is bound up here with aspiration toward superhumanly inspired liberty. "As a bull, I have broken every bond" — says Prince Siddhattha.19 "Having laid aside the burden, he has destroyed the bonds of exist*ence": this is a theme that continually recurs in the texts, and refers to one who follows the path they indicate. As "summits hard to climb, like solitary lions" the enlightened are described.20

The Awakened One is "a proud saint who has climbed the most sublime mountain peaks, who has penetrated the remotest forests, who has descended into profound abysses."21 He himself said, "I serve no man, l have no need to serve any man";22 an idea that recalls the "autonomous and immaterial race," the race "without a king" (αβασίλεντος) — being itself kingly — a race that is also mentioned in the West 23 He is "ascetic, pure, the knower, free, sovereign."24

These, which are frequent even in the oldest texts, are some of the attributes. not only of the Buddha, but also of those who travel along the same path. The natural exaggeration of some of these attributes does not alter their significance at least as symbols and indications of the nature of the path and ideal indicated by Prince Siddhattha, and of his spiritual race.

The Buddha is an outstanding example of a royal ascetic; his natural counterpart in dignity is a sovereign who, like a Caesar, could claim that his race comprehended the majesty of kings as well as the sacred*ness of the gods who hold even the rulers of men in their power 2 We have seen that the ancient tradition has this precise significance when it speaks of the essential nature of individuals who can only be either imperial or perfectly awakened. We are close to the summits of the Aryan spiritual world.

A particular characteristic of the Aryan-ness of the original Buddhist teaching is the absence of those proselytizing manias that exist, almost without exception, in direct proportion to the plebeian and anti-aristocratic character of a belief. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced to allow it to impose its own ideas upon others, even when it knows that its ideas are correct.

Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so con*cerned with mankind as to come near to pursuing them in order to gain their adher*ence and to "save" them. The so-called salvationist religions-the Erlösungsreligionen, in German-make their appearance both in Europe and Asia at a later date, together with a lessening of the preceding spiritual tension, with a fall from Olympian consciousness and, not least, with influxes of inferior ethnic and social elements.

That the divinities can do little for men, that man is fundamentally the artificer of his own destiny, even of his development beyond this world — this char*acteristic view held by original Buddhism demonstrates its difference from some later forms, especially of the Mahāyāna schools, into which infiltrated the idea of a power from on high busying itself with mankind in order to lead each individual to salvation.

In point of method and teaching, in the original texts we see that the Buddha expounds the truth as he has discovered it, without imposing himself on anyone and without employing outside means to persuade or "convert." "He who has eyes will see" — is a much repeated saying of the texts. "Let an intelligent man come to me"—we read—"a man without a tortuous mind, without hypocrisy, an upright man: I will instruct him, I will expound the doctrine. If he follows the instruction, after a short while he himself will recognize, he himself will see, that thus indeed one liberates oneself from the bonds, the bonds, that is, of ignorance."

Here follows a simile of an infant freeing itself gradually from its early limitations; this image exactly corresponds to the Platonic simile of the expert midwife and the art of aiding births. Again: "I will not force you, as the potter his raw clay. By reproving I will instruct, and by urging you. He who is sound will endure."27'

Besides, the original intention of Prince Siddhattha was, having once achieved his knowledge of truth, to communicate it to no one, not from ill-mindedness, but because he realized its profundity and foresaw that few would understand it. Having then recognized the existence of a few individuals of a nobler nature with clearer vision, he expounded the doctrine out of compassion, maintaining, however, his distance, his detachment, and his dignity. Whether disciples come to him or not, whether or not they follow his ascetic precepts, "always he remains the same."28

This is his manner: "Know persuasion and know dissuasion; knowing persuasion and knowing dissuasion do not persuade and do not dissuade: expound only reality."29 "It is wonderful"—says another text—"it is astonishing that no one exalts his own teaching and no one despises the teaching of another in an order where there are so many guides to show the doctrine."




Cf. Samyutta-nikātya. 35,84; 42.12.
The racial significance of the term ariya is clear in certain texts. e.g.. where it is considered as a difficult birth to achieve and where it is a privilege to he born in the land of the Aryans (Anguttara. 6.96).
P. Dahlke, Buddhismus als Weltanschauung (Munich and Neubiberg, undated). p. 35. [English transla*tion. Buddhism and Science (London. t913). p. 29.]
In this connection cf. our works: Rivolta contra il mondo modem° (Milan, 1934) !English translation, Revolt Against the Modem World (Rochester. Vt., 1995)]; Sintesi di dottrina delft razza (Milan, t941).
Ma jib., 86.
Suttanipāta, 3.S; 5.1.25-28; Majjh., 91; Dīgha, 3.1,5. etc.'. Suttanipāta, 3.).16, 19. A raciait detaiit, not without interest, is thar among the disringuishing marks inctuded a dark blue color of the eyes.
Jātaka, inrr. (W. 64).
Digha. 16.5.11; 17.1.8.
Jātaka, inrr. (W. 40-4 I).
Cf. Majjh., 53; 26; Angutt., 4.151. 196; 5.90. 73 ff.
Suttanipāta, 3.2.16.
Ibid., 1.2.12.
Majjh.. 92; Suttanipāta. 3.7.25.
H. Oldenberg, Buddha (Sturtgart and Beritin. 1923). p. 1(1). Prince Siddhattha seems to retain his pride even when he is the Buddha uttering such words as these: "In the world of angels. of demons and of gods, among the ranks of ascerics and of priests, I do not see. O Brāhman. any one whom I should respectfully salute nor before whom I should rise for him ro be seated" (Anguttara-nikāya. 8.111.
Suttanipāta. 3.6.31. It is worth noting that Ikśvāku was conceived as rhe son of Manu, that is. of the primordial legislator of the Indo-Aryan races, and that these references in Buddhism are significant: in fact, the same royal and solar origin is attributed to the doctrine expounded in the Bhagavadgītā (4.1-2); a doctrine that was revealed after a period of oblivion to a ksatriya, that is, to an exponent of warrior nobility, and that shows us how the path of detachment can also produce an unconditioned and irresisrible fotm of heroism; cf. Revolt Against the Modern World.
Samyutt., 22.95.
Suttanipāta, 3.1.t9.
Ibid.. 3.7.7.
Jātaka, I.
11. Suttanipāta, 3.7.1-2; 5-6.

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Saturday, July 23rd, 2016, 08:48 PM
I just love the root 'ar' — it´s a complete word in Icelandic meaning 'fire'.


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ar
google.com/search?q=icelandic+ar+etymology

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Saturday, July 23rd, 2016, 08:50 PM
Not unrelated

{ Eldar is both a Hebrew first/last name meaning "god resides" and a rare Norse first name meaning "Warrior who fights with fire"(Eld+ar (ar=Harjar)) Eld=fire. It is also a name meaning 'ruler' in the Turkic language. "El" means state or country in Turkic language, dar is a suffix from Persian language. It is also the word for 'fire' in the Icelandic, Swedish (eld) and Norwegian (ild) language. It is also a common first name among the Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, the Azerbaijanis, the Georgians and the Bashkirs.

Eldar (Middle-earth), division of the Elves in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium
Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), ancient race of elf-like aliens in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe

Eldar Pine, species of pines
Eldar Pine State Reserve in Azerbaijan
Eldaring, Germanic Neopagan organization
A European server for the MMO The Lord of the Rings Online
}

Shadow
Sunday, July 24th, 2016, 04:01 AM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any thoughts?

This is such total BS it sounds like it was written in a New York synagogue.

Thulean Imperial Inquisitor
Sunday, July 24th, 2016, 03:30 PM
This is such total BS it sounds like it was written in a New York synagogue.

Chill with it, this is not VNN forum.