Archive for category Immortal Language

Daksha-Vishnu, Kalki.


, , , ,

Leave a comment



Leave a comment

Sanskrit Language : A new Beginning

1. An Overview Of The State-Of-Affairs

What is Sanskrit?

Sometimes it is said, “Sanskrit is a context-free language.”

What is a context-free language? Surely, I caught this phrase earlier on from the Internet, a phrase which actually relates to an entirely different subject domain: software engineering.

So I went to the wiki for info, and understood that a context-free is a set of instructions fed to a computer that is able to calculate it without any glitch (i.e., without any problems of ambiguity in the “meaning” of the instructions). The trick is, in the set of instructions, profuse use is made of parentheses, so the computer at a time “concentrates” on “understanding” (calculating/ parsing) only what lies within a parenthesis, unmindful of what lies without. That is, the whole instruction (“sentence”) can be spread out into many different branches (calculated individually) each based on the occurrence of the parentheses. Within a parenthesis the jargon and the accompanying rules are simple enough for a computer-language, so no problems there either. High end computing languages, e.g. LISP, openly acknowledge the primacy of this parentheses based logic (called “S-expression”) as their very foundation.

Wiki also informs that pANini’s systemisation of Sanskrit grammar rules as algebraic formulas was the motivation behind this subject. Some rAkshasa-s, on the Internet, write in their blogs, “Sanskrit is just another language. That Panini created rule based grammar for Sanskrit is a credit to Panini, not Sanskrit.”

In long and short, there is a whole lot of misinformation and propaganda on Sanskrit, yet the so-called Hindu vidvAna-s, in reality better termed “the cultural Hindus”, who range anywhere between from theoretical physicists to actual Sanskrit professors “sucking-off” in foreign (and Indian) universities, who far from doing nothing to counter the malignant campaign on Sanskrit are doing their best to spread it even further.

Today a full-time career in Sanskrit is seen as a privilege of those below the poverty line who have kinda lost-out on their lives, and once there in their professions are required no more than to translate Sanskrit texts into other languages – thus further killing and rendering Sanskrit obsolete.

What is not told is that Sanskrit was studied by ill-intentioned people (rAkshasa-s) who wanted to create a genuine Artificial Intelligence (AI) by using a language “like Sanskrit” as a medium of direct interaction between humans and machines that could be naturally utilized by both. But this project failed, and today what we have is “fake AI” tidbits that try to convince us otherwise by using brute search power (they can search whole dictionaries in seconds) instead of a natural understanding; and Sanskrit too, features in the wiki article describing the grammar of just plain simple instructions – not AI instructions – for computers.

AI is a sinister project that aims not only at replacing soldiers full-fledged at the war-fronts with AI enabled war-machines, but also in doing so intends to define a world order where – as gauged by AI machines – there will be certain hierarchy of different races on the earth based on their average intelligence – and going still further to the logical conclusion – waging war against those less intelligent races (not capable of building AI machines themselves) and subjugating/ eliminating them, thus ensuring the earth of limited resources secure for the descendants of the intelligent races.

Yet another focus of major conflict is the way rAkshasa-s are propagating the myth – using linguistic mechanics – that Sanskrit is not aboriginal to bhArata. This is in addition to making Panini merely incidental to Sanskrit, as discussed earlier.

Now, this linguistic-mechanics is just like physics where inherently any process occurring in the world is theoretically reversible: that is, for example, it can be shown that if a sugar cube can dissolve in water, then the same sugar cube can come out of the water from the dissolved state: now this second process is not what we observe in our daily lives, but it is shown to be still possible, though with a small probability.

In this way, starting from the basic fact of the existence of Indo-European families of languages, any mechanics can show the direction of language spread from either side. In reality, the mechanics is very conveniently chosen to describe migration into bhArata, and the other scenario – migration out of bhArata – is not spared a thought even by mistake.

The West, overall, is under the impression that the world is moving towards order, opposite to what Hindus believe: that the world is moving from orderliness towards chaos. West is very confident of the material progress it has led, BhArata thinks otherwise.

The West would, therefore, see the orderliness in Sanskrit as a later phenomenon – and thus feels impelled to visualise a much more randomised and chaotic language as a precursor to Sanskrit. A Hindu, on the other hand, sees the order within Sanskrit as the starting point of the language, and understands all the present bhASA-s of today related to Sanskrit – be it Hindi, or Bangla, or English, or German – as corruptions of Sanskrit.

Which viewpoint is right? Is it the best of the times, or the worst of the times?

Seemingly, there has been a lot of progress – forests and wild-life (“less intelligent species”) are replaced with shining metros and civic order; true, there has been a lot of consumption and laying waste of earth’s resources in so doing, but it is hoped that with advance in Science our Technology will finally become 100% green.

However, to better understand the “arrow of time”, to understand why processes only proceed in one direction and not the other (even though otherwise sanctioned by the mechanics), a new language was investigated. This is known as, “the 2nd law of thermodynamics” and it postulates: “processes take place predominantly in the direction of the increase in the chaos of universe.” Therefore, dissolving of the sugar-cube in the water is along the “arrow of time” because when the atoms of the sugar are dissolved and distributed in the water body, randomness “of the universe” is increased.

Just as the sugar cube has crystalline orderliness about it, Sanskrit too – in this view – originally has its own orderliness. The more we go down the “arrow of time”, the more this crystallinity of Sanskrit gets dissolved.

The most inner (and the finest) structure of Sanskrit is the way it is able to express AdhyAtma and Devata-s. And this structure pretty much gets dissolved within bhArata itself where we have seen how in classical Sanskrit onwards, we lost to a great extent what Vedic jargon and Devata-s really meant. And there is no point even going outside bhArata because the mythology outside bhArata though may have a few words cognate with Sanskrit, there is no heads or tails involved as far as transmission of AdhyAtmic idea-s is concerned.

And then, at the second layer of structuring within Sanskrit lies the system of declension – which ensures the free-word-order nature of clauses. We find only a few languages that retain this feature. Free-word-order is what a natural language requires in order to be “context-free” (free from ambiguity) because natural languages cannot employ parentheses to achieve so, the way computer languages do.

At the third layer we have Sanskrit words. We find here a much greater occurrence of transmission but still, the logical structure in the Sanskrit that gives rise to the words in first place – something that is not the handiwork of Panini or any other grammarian but is inbuilt in Sanskrit – is largely missing in other languages.

At the outermost layer we have sound systems. Here also, the chaos and disorder in other languages are apparent, so much so, even the Western Indologists are seen – not without justification – by Hindus as “mlechCha having tongues twisted like dog’s tail” that cannot get simple consonants and vowel sound of Sanskrit straight.

But the purpose of this post ultimately is much more. I talked about the four layers of the structure of Sanskrit; it is clear therefore that to create a clear shared understanding of Sanskrit, we need to get more near to the innermost layers (Devata and declension aspect), instead of wasting our efforts on the outermost ones (rules and sounds).

2. Sanskrit As A Language Of Computation

Can a “parantheses-free” computing language that employs “free word order” of ideas be the future of Computation such as in applications like Quantum Computation?
Surely that is one way forward for Computing & computers. But before that we will see a lot of sociological changes, passing through necessary milestones; one that comes to my mind is: the establishment of “online universities” and freeing up of the control of knowledge off the hands of a few. Knowledge imparting should be freed from commercial profiteering, just like the case in the Vedic age.
To say it in yet another way, “knowledge should be resolved from temporal urges.” This is the very principle that forms the essence of Sanskrit itself: free-word-order.

Programming languages are still English based, that is a huge sociological problem that will, if, take decades to the least to overcome. To understand with an example, let us talk about the state-of-art in Computing today, known as “object oriented programming (OOP)”. Now, programming has three components: data, control structure, and execution. OOP has taken forward programming from its infancy by evolving one of the three aspects – the data – in the correct direction by encapsulating data into “objects”. This is exactly how Sanskrit does it: declension, inflection is nothing but encapsulating data in various objects – be it nouns or verbs. But since the carrier of this idea is still English, the object concept is far from fully integrated; it is implemented by the use of clumsy expressions such as “MyAccount.AccountBalance”.

This is just an example. Computing is still in its infancy, even in the objects there is miles to go before the correct way of encapsulating data is understood. And the less said about the control-structure aspect, the better.

But some credit must be given to the leaders in this field- they stumbled upon a key principle that is going to last. The principle is (relates to the execution aspect of programming), “the resolving of knowledge from temporal necessities”, just what I wrote about earlier. This is achieved via “compiler-interpreter” duo, such as implemented by the programmers in JAVA-language.
This is the real foundation of Computing, just as in the Veda AsviniKumar(s) is the foundation. Computing will surely evolve out of its infancy, but this principle is going to last.

Sanskrit is the language for the Veda, and outrageous as it may sound now, I will not be surprised at all if Sanskrit in one of its avatar becomes the carrier of Computation in a hundred years from today. But as I said already, this should be preceded by other sociological revolutions, led by better evolved, and equipped, humans among us. If someone tries this before that, there is likely to be evil intent behind that, as pointed out in the OP.

3. More On Sanskrit & Computation

Indeed, there is some utility – of the language of computation – in understanding Sanskrit concepts (though one runs the risk of turning into rAkshasa while working at AI!).
Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing is today being increasingly used in applications (such as torrents). P2P is based on the idea of distributive computing – where the data flow takes place among many computers instead of from a single one (known as server). Classically (not P2P), when we request any data from the Internet, it is the owner of that data – the server computer – that decides to reply to our query.

Sociologically, this server-client model belongs to the TV age of communication (most of the 20th century) when the receiver (client) had no options to interact with the info-owner/broadcaster and therefore had to accept whatever came his way. And as we know, TV was to a big extent a propaganda tool in the hands of powerful politicians (who released one sided info and views) and rich industrialists (who used hypnotic advertisements).

So, to sum up thus far, how does distributive computing connects to object oriented programming (OOP)? In applied Sciences, many researchers have realised the limiting effects of linear models (thinking). Linear thinking means: step by step, procedural thinking. What they have found out is that a vast majority of natural phenomena can only be realistically modelled with non-linear models.

Non-linear means: the effect doesn’t strictly follow the cause; the effect itself is capable of changing the cause. Metaphorically, in non-linear models, cause and effect “interact with each other”.What is interesting is, it was found out that the only way to solving the non-linear models was with the help of computers (indeed, it isn’t unusual today to find Ph.D’s submitting their theses containing a lot of colourful graphical outputs generated in computers, instead of old-fashioned mathematically worked out results).
The computation technique used in solving such models is known as “agent based modelling” – and variants thereof – where there are no clearly defined causes and effects (or servers and clients); instead, everything is made equal – called “agents” – and then the agents thus created are simply left to communicate with each other: a solution naturally emerges after they have communicated enough.
Agents are created as objects in the programming stage – so here is the connection with OOP. The actual computation is along the lines of distributed computation since each of the agents is more or less independent of others and therefore can do its own computing sitting anywhere – one agent in Australia, other in Japan, and so on.

Now consider a simple sentence in Sanskrit:
vidyA dadAti vinayam.विद्या ददाति विनयं ।”Education gives humility.”

The English sentence (equivalent to the Sanskrit one) produced here necessarily belongs to a linear paradigm: therefore, “gives” follows “Education” and “humility” follows “gives”. This isn’t just linearity inherent in the basics of English the language – this is also the linearity inherent in the mental constitution of English speakers. And future is pressing us to remove this limitation.
In the Sanskrit sentence, we can express the same without any change in meaning as-
विद्या ददाति विनयं ।
विद्या विनयं ददाति ।
ददाति विद्या विनयं ।
ददाति विनयं विद्या ।
विनयं विद्या ददाति ।
विनयं ददाति विद्या ।
How is this possible?

With our homework already done, it is not very difficult to understand. All the three words in this sentence should be thought of as agents (or objects).
विद्या – feminine, nominative noun
ददाति – present tense verb, third person singular
विनयं – masc., accusative noun

So, each agent encapsulates data – and local computing (inflection) – within. There is no linear flow of knowledge – the agents interact with each other simultaneously. All agents interact with all agents, and the final picture, the understanding, emerges naturally; sounds almost fantastical, doesn’t it?
This is like an impressionistic painting where the color patches “mix” only in the consciousness of the onlooker to give the whole picture. Or, like quanta emerging from an undifferentiated field.
Importantly, in Sanskrit no basic distinction is made between the noun types (#expressions) and the verb types (#statements), as both are seen as agents. The role of #parentheses is performed by the indeclinables in Sanskrit.

4. Sanskrit : A Level Playing field

Sanskrit is a level playing field: Bhakta-s from different sampradaya-s can come here, from time to time, to gage their progress, by seeing how much of Sanskrit they are able to play.

I don’t think that mentally aggressive types – the Raks (rAkshasa-s) – can do that. They can memorise everything – like a rAvaNa – and even become known as great Sanskritists (like the Indologists), or even teach their computers to do all that instead – but the soul of Sanskrit will ever elude them.

Sanskrit as taught today is wholly memory based. This is because these Sanskrit pandita-s themselves are the problem, the reason why this language is in disuse, and how the Raks have been able so far to take away this heritage (yes the outer forms only) from Hindus.

If we don’t have the access to the Devata layer of Sanskrit, we should very well forget about its revival.

5. Sanskrit : The Devata Layer

Eight Vasu-s, Eleven Rudra-s, Twelve Aditya-s, and so on.. indeed, we are in the right place!
One thing, that is always overlooked is, suppose a Devata X is a Vasu. Does that exclude the possibility of Sri X being a Rudra as well? Or an Aditya as well?

That is a point to ponder, particularly in the context of the unitary field of awareness lived by the Rsis.

“Context” – the word is interesting. Is Sanskrit only approachable via a strictly Vedic route? Or, can Sanskrit be equally approachable by each sampradAya of Hinduism in their own unique ways?

The consistency of Dharma demands that indeed all sampradaya-s do have gateways to the core of Sanskrit. But, we thought a short while ago that the core of Sanskrit, the innermost layer, belongs to Devata. That is, it was understood that it is the Devata-s who hold the keys to the core of Sanskrit.

So, does that mean: the same Vedic Devata-s are worshipped under different names in the various sampradaya-s?

The answer is yes and no. Because each sampradaya is a different “context”. And by this “context” I don’t mean a passive word here: the context itself is a deity, is real. For example, in Vaishnavism, the “context” is Lord Vishnu.

In this way, the “context” becomes important. Even in the Vedic knowledge itself; therefore, what we know as Vasu-s, Rudrá-s, Aditya-s or Maruta-s are mostly the “same Devata-s” under “different contexts”. And, as discussed before, they also aren’t the “same Devata-s” at all.

Let us, therefore, start with the “smallest context”, and that would be, the “Eight Vasu”. And we know Sanskrit noun cases are also eight in number.

Maruta-s (marud•gaNa) are the smallest context, smaller than even the EightVasu (beside the point, but their numbers are quoted always in fractally increased orders). Therefore, the “original” Maruta, who is the “leader” of the marud•gaNa, is likely present in other (larger) contexts.Lord Vayu can be said a marut, when He moves together in the marud•gaNa. However, Maruta himself is different from Vayu.

“mara” means, “die”. The “ta” sound is the sound of Death, as in mrtyu, hatya, etc. On the other hand, the sound related to Vayu – who’s murty is the breath – is the “ha” sound, the same as in “hu” which means, “to sacrifice” or “to do Yagya”. Sacrifice is a precursor to Death; we will come back to this important piece of information when(ever) discussing the Sanskrit Noun cases, the vibhakti-s.

6. Sanskrit : More on the Devata Context

An assertion was made in the last part, regarding the “context”. Let me further illustrate that with relevant examples.

Lord Indra is always listed in as an Aditya. In mahA•bhArata, He is also addressed as vAsava {literally, “of the Vasu (community)”}. So we see, the same Devata can be a Vasu and an Aditya, depending on the “context”.Again, this “context” itself can be a deity. We shouldn’t mistake this word for “different regional contexts, evolved due to differently (and, linearly!) evolved local histories”.

To understand this fully — in mahA•bhArata, a man, in flesh and blood, is also called vAsava. Who is that?

Śri Bhishma!

He was not only a vAsava, but “the vAsava”, because he was the eighth issue from mA gangA. Bhishma was thus the “Eight•Vasu”, the upper bound of all perfections and fullness of nAma and rUpa.

Yet, there is still something to be said: we have vAsudeva Sri KrishNa also there! vAsudeva means “the son of vasudeva”, alright, but we know that vAsudeva is among the thousand nAma-s of Lord Vishnu. And then Krishna was the eighth child as well!

So we have a vAsava and a vAsudeva existing right there at the same place and the same time!

So the “context” has nothing to do with place or time. Let us understand this clearly. These are cosmic movements. Bhishma was the son of Mother•gangA, so we may say that the context here, the dynamics, is Lord Shiva. Or it could be that the ashTa•vasu itself be the context here.

And when KrishNa is addressed as vAsudeva, we know this under the dynamics of Lord Vishnu. On the mundane level, Krishna is “the son of Vasudeva”, and is addressed as such, but the inner meaning many a time is different: Lord Vishnu Himself is called out, who we know — that by “in-to mapping”/ ava•taraNa — can come to be born a Vasu, or an Upendra, or the varAha, so on.
The bottom line is, we don’t even need to go to mahA•bhArata to see it — this great play is unfolding full throttle right here and now in front of our very own souls.

, , ,

1 Comment


Rig veda 

RV [10-121.10]

Prajapati! thou only comprehendest all these created things, and none beside thee.
Grant us our hearts’ desire when we invoke thee: may we have store of riches in possession.

, ,

Leave a comment


“Hindu” comes from “Indu” which stands for Soma PavamAna (Soma juice).

RV 8.48.3 (Devata: Soma, Rsi: Kanva)

अपा॑म । सोम॑म् । अ॒मृताः॑ । अ॒भू॒म॒ । अग॑न्म । ज्योतिः॑ । अवि॑दाम । दे॒वान् । किम् । नू॒नम् । अ॒स्मान् । कृ॒ण॒व॒त् । अरा॑ति । किम् । ऊँ॒ इति॑ । धू॒र्तिः । अ॒मृ॒त॒ । मर्त्य॑स्य ॥

apāma | somam | amṛtāḥ | abhūma | aganma | jyotiḥ | avidāma | devān | kim | nūnam | asmān | kṛṇavat | arāti | kim | oṃ iti | dhūrtiḥ | amṛta | martyasya

meaning: “We have drunk Soma (Indu), become Immortal, of Light, and discovered the Gods. Now what harm mortals’ trickery could possibly do to us (the Immortals)?”

This rica from the Veda is very definitive of Āstika ideals. So, whether you use Hindu or Indu, Hindustan or India, doesnt matter.

Soma PavamAna is known as Indu, e.g.

RV 09.113.11 (Devata: Soma PavmAna, Rsi: Kashyapa)

यत्र॑ । आ॒न॒न्दाः । च॒ । मोदाः॑ । च॒ । मुदः॑ । प्र॒ऽमुदः॑ । आस॑ते । काम॑स्य । यत्र॑ । आ॒प्ताः । कामाः॑ । तत्र॑ । माम् । अ॒मृत॑म् । कृ॒धि॒ । इन्द्रा॑य । इ॒न्दो॒ इति॑ । परि॑ । स्र॒व॒ ॥

yatra | ānandāḥ | ca | modāḥ | ca | mudaḥ | pra-mudaḥ | āsate | kāmasya | yatra | āptāḥ | kāmāḥ | tatra | mām | amṛtam | kṛdhi | indrāya | indo iti | pari | srava

Make me immortal in that realm (Prithvi in this pada) where happiness and transports, where Joys and felicities combine, and longing wishes are fulfilled. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra’s sake.

From “Indu” to “Hindu” there is hardly any journey, to warrant an overreaction. Indian/ Indu/ Bharatiya/ Hindu/ Hindustan/ Indus all mean the same thing in Vedic Sanskrit.


Sindhu originally means : Ocean, Sea. SaptaSindhu (HaptaHindu) is the region near Ocean where Seven rivers (used to) end their journey. This region is known as Sindh. SaptaSindhavah (plural) means those seven rivers meeting the ocean, in the Sindh region, the leading most of whom is (was) Sarasvati (river).

Sindhu also denotes the “Fourth” realm (see here) which equates it to the word Samudra of the Veda.

Sindhu only later came to be identified with a river when Sarasvati started to flow into that (needs more research though).

We also have HinduKush/ HinduKo west of Indus, and not the east of it.


If we see that the Greek branch of IE is older than Avestan (the latest to migrate out of India), then “Indu” is original just as “Hindu”.


1. Hindu stands for original Indu, notwithstanding the SaptaSindhu-HaptaHindu identity.

2. In Veda, Indu means “Soma flow”/ “Soma-river” and is related to “Indra” who intakes (as in receiving from indriya-s) the Soma through the tongue “which is Agni”. Agni (the janus faced god) has these aspects: bhArata, bhArati. Agni is explicitly called bhArata in Veda. So in the Vedic understanding, bhArat and Indu are on the same level. Again, bhArata means “Indra-like” (like Arjuna is addressed as bhArata by Krishna). bhArati, on the other hand, is like goddess IlA. So in the mystical sense bhArata is the kingdom of Indra, whereas ilA-vrata is the spiritual loka hovering directly over it.

Indu in Aryan Languages

1) Indigo (English) : Greek indikon (ινδικόν), Roman indicum

Literally, “of/ from India”. Also, indikon (and English indigo) is the Greek word for “dye”.

That is, “dye from India”.

On the other hand, indigo as a color is a prominent (sixth) color of Indradhanuhsa. Indra Himself is related to six (as the leader of the six loka-s of dyAvAprithvi), and also originally the lord of the sixth chakra (now it is Soma/ Indu, in Tantra). This is the mystical meaning behind indigo the color, which is the sixth color among the seven of the Indradhanusha light-spectrum. Interestingly, in the modern yoga practices the 6th chakra is shown in indigo color.

2) Indigenous : Latin indu+gena

Indu people (gena/jana) are the indigenous people. That is the psychological reason why the westerners christened many aboriginal races as Indians (Red Indians, West Indians, Indonesians, etc). “The Homeland”/ “Motherland” is subconsciously attached with India.

3) Induction : Latin inducere/ induco : induce, lead in, bring in.

Indra = Indu + ra

Indra drinking indu denotes the receiving of spiritual intuition. “Induction” derives from that.

This has to be seen distinct from Greek [endos], which means “within” and not “leading into”.

4) Industry :

industry (n.)

late 15c., “cleverness, skill,” from Old French industrie “activity; aptitude” (14c.) or directly from Latinindustria “diligence, activity, zeal,” fem. of industrius “industrious, diligent,” used as a noun, from early Latin indostruus “diligent,” from indu “in, within” + stem of struere “to build” (see structure (n.)). Sense of “diligence, effort” is from 1530s; meaning “trade or manufacture” first recorded 1560s; that of “systematic work” is 1610s.

The word is reflective of the Indus (Vedic) civilisation of India which was, as is commonly known, innovations and industry driven. “Indus Civilisation” can be seen thus as “Industrial Civilisation”.

So, we have plenty there on the IE side of the story. Closer to home, I don’t see ancients were so dumb as to equate Sindh with the whole of India. Again, HinduKush/ HinduKo is more along the lines of indiko discussed earlier, and geographically as well doesn’t sit well with Sindh idea. Sindh is still there, as well as the Sindhis.

And India of Indra and Indu is also, still here.

[Advanced readings: In RgVeda Sindhu (Ocean, Samudra) has a mystical meaning more than anything. So, even though the Ocean there is called Sindhu mahAsAgar, we very well know Sindhu means Samudra in general in even Hindi. The best picture imo (in RV thought) is this: Indu (Soma) originates from Samudra (Sindhu) and finally pours into Samudra (Sindhu) as well. Indeed, there are two Samudra-s (one above, one below) in Vedic thought. Sarasvati, too, is called in one place “sindhu-mAtA” (bahuvrihi) meaning: having Samudra (Sindhu) as Her Origin (Mother), which all sounds to be too counter-intuitive if understood in very literal terms. To continue with the Indu flow picture, when it enters into mystical dyAvAprithvi realm through the efforts of Indra, it branches out in six/seven streams each one of which finally merges into the Samudra.]

Indian-Hindu-Āstika :: Political:Cultural:Religious

The “directory”, apparently, is:

Indian > Hindu > Āstika

Here I am taking the words according to their present meaning (so, “Hindu” is cultural, and “Indian” is political, even though both derive from the same word Indu).

Or, let us say:


Today it has already suffered ellipsis and we have:


And tomorrow, devoid of the cultural assets, the bindi and the sari, it will be:


This can be the western route. By that time, to counterbalance that, there will be no India left.

This is based on pure observation. The story on this end of spectrum is going on like this:





Already we are into the phase in India where Hindu word has been orchestrated.

It is already into the last phase where the idea of India is in peril. Foreigners and Indian intellectuals (not to forget the immigrants)have joined a chorus: “there never was an India” (la-la-..background music).

Yet, pick any Indian among the billions of them, and run a narco on him/her, you will hear Vedic rica-s straight coming one after one from the mouth.

*But, again, that one is from the third innermost, obsolete, layer i.e. Āstika.

[The idea “India” received a major setback during the mass exodus of thousands of “educated Indians” especially during the nineties, the consequences of which will be most readily visible in the next twenty-five years.]

“Indu” went under some other morphisms too. One example is “Bindu”.

Bindu: drop, point, ajna chakra, soma.

Yet another is: “Bindi” which women folk put on their foreheads (again, the 3rd eye, ajna chakra).

That Bindu and Bindi are sound morphisms becomes evident from their non-derivation from any sandhi or other rules in Sanskrit.

“Indu” is obviously a less understood word and its significance is not grasped fully even by pundits of Hindu Dharma. So, I will not be surprised if it still takes many decades before Hindus themselves are able to understand and visualise this word Hindu/ Indu properly in its full light.

Ultimately, however, I do see the point of having the freedom to choose ones own name, instead of relying on terms given by others no matter however much Vedic in origin or not.

So, the focal point is this word, “Indu”. Why should we accept it?

Why should we, of all Devatā-s in our pantheon, relate ourselves, for the denomination, to Indra only?

Where is the evidence, if there at all, that our Rishis called themselves as Indu-s?

However, we know that we have always used BhArata and BhArati for self-identity.

But, who is this BhArata and this BhArati?

Well, there have been illustrious kings, chakravartins, going by that name. There was a Vedic tribe, a very prominent one, also of name BhArata.

But ultimately it is our spirituality, our worldview, that gives us a meaningful insight into the meaning of these two words.

Though I have touched on this earlier, briefly, I will rather avoid dwelling on it right now. Except, emphasising on that there is a point where BhArata meets BhArati. That point is to be understood (again, IMO) as Indu.

In Indu, both BhArata and BhArati are simultaneously present.

Then, it might be asked here: why the hell we don’t remember all this?

Because, this was a real, long, long time ago.

Another hint that I will leave here is, the whole world was dominated and in a way controlled by Aryan armies from India. India, therefore, when seen through the eyes of the world, was an icon, murthy, of Lord Indra.

[Advanced Readings:

bhArata and bhAratī —

Let us think of these as mere words (so, Sanskrit is the key, again).

Both these words mean: “of bharata” (Hindi: भरत का).

Mostly, bhArata = son of bharata

bhAratī = daughter of bharata

This much is clear as day. But, now, just imagine,

Who (ka?) is that divine power that could be the Father of Mother BhArati Herself?

PrajApati. It is PrajApati.

So the next immediate question: is PrajApati called bharata anywhere? Or, who are the deities that are called bharata?


Satpatha BrAhmaNa 1.8.14

‘Far, far famed is this Agni of the Bharata (tribe),’–the Bharata, doubtless, is Pragâpati, for he sustains (bhar) this entire (universe);–‘that his great light shineth brightly, as the sun(Surya),’–that is, ‘that, like the sun(Surya), his great light shines brightly;’

My further opinion on this;

Agni and Prajāpati together form the Whole. It is as if the coming together of Finite and Infinite. When we start Yagya, we first become inflated and one with Agni, and then invoke Prajapati to unite with us (this is somewhere in some BrAhmaNa). This is still only a very generic understanding. Actually, just as a rectangular field can be divided by any line running across it, similarly, Rsis used to dissect the Map Of Reality in as many ways as possible, so in that sense we can say, the division into Agni and PrajApati is one such (and of particular interest to us in the present context).

Now let us have a look at this pada of RgVeda [9.5.9] regarding Indu (Soma) PavamAna,

“Indu is Indra, tawny Steer; PavamAna is PrajApati.”

So “Indu PavamAna” is purposely broken into Indu and PavamAna to showcase the duality inherent in Indu.

One part is, clearly, on the side of Infinite Godhead, the PrajApati, while the other is on the side of the Finite Godhead, Indra.

But, instead of themselves fully entering inside the DNA of Indu (ain’t possible )- PrajApati and Indra elect their representations. Indra selects bhArata from this side and PrajApati sends BhArati from His side. So that’s why I said in an earlier post that BhArata is “Indra-like”.

But I also said that BhArati is ILA-like, but here I write She is a representation of PrajApati, how? Actually, it is in the same manner as “bhArata is Indra-like, yet also a representation of Agni”. It isn’t clear at all, I guess, but let it be, for now.

So this kind of, “logically”, illustrates that “Indu is bhArata-bhArati”.]


1) Indu doesn’t mean “Moon” originally, neither does soma. Indu is infact more related to Surya Deva. “Moon” is a symbol of “mind-body” and thus is the last receiver of the nectar, here on the mortal Earth, and hence soma can be seen on this level only symbolically as Moon. Indu, however, is the level of soma not on Earth but on Swarga. So connecting Indu with Moon is not OK.

2) PrajApati has undergone some change after the Vedic age, but still, as this wiki-page amply shows, He still remained a very formidable Deity, and could well be on a resurgence today. The wiki-page also suggests the relationship between PrajApati and the geographical map of India.

1 Comment

brahman, brahma, brahmA

In this post the meaning of brahmanब्रह्मन्-brahmaब्रह्म-brahmAब्रह्मा is discussed and explained, along-with the other derived and related words found in Hindu texts.

“brahma”ब्रह्म is often used something like an attribute (as in brahma-loka, brahma-vidya, brahma-gyAna, etc), in other words, brahma is adjective-like. Analogy is: rudra which means “angry” but still is a Vedic god’s name. Or, daksha means “skilled” but still many times a god’s name (theonym). Similarly, brahma means “creating”, but still…what?

1) So we come to the occurrences of brahma in RigVeda. We are told that the prAtipadika प्रातिपदिक (nominal stem) bráhman = prayer/ creation, and the prAtipadika brahmán = a type of ritvija priest.

2) So in their nominative forms प्रथमा विभक्ति, we have bráhma for the “prayer”, and (brahmá turned into) brahmA for the latter, i.e. the “priest”.

3) brahma in this way, is the unnamed (because it has never been used as a theonym in RV) trinity god of Veda (“the-you-know-who”, the 12th aditya) with the other mighty two as mentioned in the above: rudra and daksha.

4) From the Rig-Veda, brahma-daksha-rudra are the core aspects of brahmA-Vishnu-Shiva, respectively. Of course this is neutrally speaking, not with respect to any sectarian viewpoint (e.g., the Vaishnava pov: “brahmA came from Vishnu, not from brahma, and Vishnu himself being brahma”, and so on, etc).


To further illustrate on the meaning of brahman-brahma-brahmA, we can use analogy.

Say, in Atman-Atma-AtmA, the first word “Atman” आत्मन् is a prAtipadika प्रातिपदिक (nominal stem), and both “Atma” आत्म and “AtmA” आत्मा are two different words (the nominative प्रथमा विभक्ति) formed from the same prAtipadika, Atman आत्मन् .

It gets easier if we use some imagination (and theory) to understand their meaning:
Let us think of Átman, and Atmán. Now, both are the same Atman but with accents on different a’s. It is not difficult to see how the nominative Átma comes from Átman, and the nominative Atmá comes from Atmán.

Of course this we will not find in the grammar-treatises on classical Sanskrit (i.e., post Vedic), but have to construct (and in fact has been already) this picture about accents (note: accents went extinct in classical Sanskrit).

So, by the time of  classical Sanskrit, words like Atmá gave way to words like AtmA. There are many such examples: amman-amma/ammi-ammA, amban(?)-amba/ambi-ambA, etc. Though we dont have any clue anymore, this should be the case with words such as rudra, daksha etc also.

Now, what all this says about the meaning part?

When the accented letter is nearer to the first letter of the word, we can expect the meaning “essence” of something. Whereas when the accented letter is nearer to the last letter of the word, we can expect the meaning “envelope” of something.(As we are told, “the first can be like abstract noun, and the second could be like agent noun.”)

Thus amba अम्ब means “mother” which is the essence of a lady’s relationship with her child. But “ambA” अम्बा means “someone who possesses motherhood” (apart from being other things).

So one can call his mother “ammi” अम्मी but any lady (including one’s own mother) can be called “ammA” अम्मा.


The suffix “Na” ण is also interesting. And what we get to see in RV is that bráhmaNa (from bráhma) and brahmáNa (from brahmá) are also seemingly present.

“Na” suffix makes a change in the meaning, which looks like:-

1) whereas bráhma = supreme-creativity/ creative, bráhmaNa = hymn/ prayer (a product of supreme-creativity). So when bráhma became brahma, bráhmaNa became brAhmaNa, which we know as “brAhmaNa-texts”. The varna brAhmaNa also comes from this, and should mean “a creative-man-product stamped out of Rsis’ varna-ashrama”.

2) whereas brahmá = a possessor of supreme-creativity, brahmáNa = a kind of mystic (a manifestation of supreme-creativity into man). And when (in fact in the RV itself) brahmá became brahmA (the divine possessor of brahma), brahmáNa becomes brahmANa (a brahma-possessor mystic or priest).



Rig 06.052.003
किम् । अ॒ङ्ग । त्वा॒ । ब्रह्म॑णः । सो॒म॒ । गो॒पाम् । किम् । अ॒ङ्ग । त्वा॒ । आ॒हुः॒ । अ॒भि॒श॒स्ति॒ऽपाम् । नः॒ ।
किम् । अ॒ङ्ग । नः॒ । प॒श्य॒सि॒ । नि॒द्यमा॑नान् । ब्र॒ह्म॒ऽद्विषे॑ । तपु॑षिम् । हे॒तिम् । अ॒स्य॒ ॥
kim | aṅga | tvā | bráhmaṇaḥ | soma | gopām | kim | aṅga | tvā | āhuḥ | abhiśasti-pām | naḥ |
kim | aṅga | naḥ | paśyasi | nidyamānān | bráhma-dviṣe | tapuṣim | hetim | asya
Why then, O Soma, do they call thee keeper of prayer? Why then thou not guard our devotion from reproaches?
Why then beholdest thou how men revile us? Cast thy hot dart at him who hates devotion.

Rig 02.001.002

तव॑ । अ॒ग्ने॒ । हो॒त्रम् । तव॑ । पो॒त्रम् । ऋ॒त्विय॑म् । तव॑ । ने॒ष्ट्रम् । त्वम् । अ॒ग्नित् । ऋ॒त॒ऽय॒तः ।
तव॑ । प्र॒ऽशा॒स्त्रम् । त्वम् । अ॒ध्व॒रि॒ऽय॒सि॒ । ब्र॒ह्मा । च॒ । असि॑ । गृ॒ठऽप॑तिः । च॒ । नः॒ । दमे॑ ॥
tava | agne | hotram | tava | potram | ṛtviyam | tava | neṣṭram | tvam | agnit | ṛta-yataḥ | tava | pra-śāstram | tvam | adhvari-yasi | brahmā | ca | asi | gṛṭha-patiḥ | ca | naḥ | dame
Thine is the Herald’s task and Cleanser’s duly timed; Leader art thou, and Kindler for the pious
Thou art Director, thou the ministering Priest: thou art the Brahmā (ritvija priest), Lord and Master in our home. (Griffith)

1) brahman ब्रह्मन् is a root, and should not be used.
2) The root brahman ब्रह्मन् has two nominative words: brahma ब्रह्म and brahmā ब्रह्मा.
3) brahma ब्रह्म = creation, devotion, creative, the unnamed deity of RgVeda, the 12th Aditya, the central deity of advaita-vedānta.
4) brahmā ब्रह्मा = a ritvija (vedic) priest, one of the trinity gods in Hinduism, the deity (brahmā) whose core aspect is brahma ब्रह्म.
5) brāhmaNa ब्राह्मण = prayer, prayer-book, any creative product, brāhmaNa varNa.
6) brahmāNa ब्रह्माण (?) = a mystic.

, , , ,




RV [05-81.05]

उ॒तेशि॑षे प्रस॒वस्य॒ त्वमेक॒ इदु॒त पू॒षा भ॑वसि देव॒ याम॑भिः । उ॒तेदं विश्वं॒ भुव॑नं॒ वि रा॑जसि श्या॒वाश्व॑स्ते सवित॒ स्तोम॑मानशे ॥

You are the One Lord over all (your very own) Creation, also you’re like Pusan through your forbearing acts, O God. And this whole world of beings is your reign, Savitr, for you SuryaHorse (also a Rsi) has created the hymn.

RV [01-35.09]

हिरण्यपाणिः सविता विचर्षणिरुभे द्यावापृथिवी अन्तरीयते । अपामीवां बाधते वेति सूर्यमभि कृष्णेन रजसा द्यामृणोति ॥

Savitr the golden-handed, busy with both of them, manifests in the inter DyavaPrithvi space. He overpowers sickening limitation, impels Surya (through it), and thus spreads Dyo’s Light out of the dark realm.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: