Indo Concept Quotes

The word agriculture, after all, does not mean "agriscience," much less "agribusiness." It means "cultivation of land." And cultivation is at the root of the sense both of culture and of cult. The ideas of tillage and worship are thus joined in culture. And these words all come from an Indo-European root meaning both "to revolve" and "to dwell." To live, to survive on the earth, to care for the soil, and to worship, all are bound at the root to the idea of a cycle. It is only by understanding the cultural complexity and largeness of the concept of agriculture that we can see the threatening diminishments implied by the term "agribusiness." (pg. 285, The Use of Energy)

Even the word ‘science' comes from an Indo-European root meaning ‘to cut' or ‘to separate.' The same root led to the word ‘shit,' which of course means to separate living flesh from nonliving waste. The same root gave us ‘scythe' and ‘scissors' and ‘schism,' which have obvious connections to the concept of separation.

Racism quickly came to color the English usage of the Sanskrit word arya, the word that the Vedic poets used to refer to themselves, meaning “Us” or “Good Guys,” long before anyone had a concept of race. Properly speaking, “Aryan” (as it became in English) designates a linguistic family, not a racial group (just as Indo-European is basically a linguistic rather than demographic term); there are no Aryan noses, only Aryan verbs, no Aryan people, only Aryan-speaking people. Granted, the Sanskrit term does refer to people rather than to a language. But the people who spoke *Indo-European were not a people in the sense of a nation (for they may never have formed a political unity) or a race, but only in the sense of a linguistic community.10 After all those migrations, the blood of several different races had mingled in their veins.

The revulsion towards and violent detachment from nature leads to its desecration, to the destruction of the organic conception of the world as a cosmos, as an order of forms reflecting a higher meaning, as the ‘visible manifestation of the invisible’ - a conception (of Indo-European origin) which is an integral part of the Classical view of the world and which also lies at the basis of various forms of knowledge of a different sort compared to profane, modern science.

Awakening’ is the keystone and the symbol of the whole Buddhist ascesis: to think that ‘awakening’ and ‘nothingness’ can be equivalent is an extravagance that should be obvious to everyone. Nor should the notion of ‘vanishing,’ applied in a well-known simile of nibbāna to the fire that disappears when the flame is extinguished, be a source of misconception. It has been said with justice that, in similes of this sort, one must always have in mind the general Indo-Aryan concept that indicates that the extinguishing of the fire is not its annihilation, but its return to the invisible, pure, supersensible state in which it was before it manifested itself through a combustible in a given place and in given circumstances.

In patriarchal societies, the conception of life and death is often seen to be linear rather than circular. Because of a societal fear of death, death figures in patriarchal Indo-European cultures became horrific. Further, in these societies both the feminine divine and the mortal female became subjugated to the males and devalued. Many Indo-European female monsters carry bird and snake iconography. Baltic witches, raganas, take the shape of crows, and they have snakes in their hair. The Roman poet Vergil, in the Aeneid, gives snaky associations to Furies, Dirae, Sirens, and Harpies. Many of these fearsome figures are winged as well. Medusa was one of many monstrous figures who received this iconography.

This word ‘Aryan’ was a linguistic term, originally referring to the Indo-European group of languages. Since before the end of the nineteenth century it had already been distorted as a concept by a number of writers, among them Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who gave it racial connotations, and used it to denote superiority over the ‘Semitic’ races. Yet the term ‘Semitic’ itself was originally not a racial but a linguistic term, relating, not to Jews and non-Jews, but to a language group which includes Hebrew and Arabic. None of these refinements troubled the new racialism. For Hitler, ‘Aryan’ was synonymous with ‘pure’, while ‘Semitic’ was synonymous with ‘Jew’, and hence ‘impure’.

Christianity embodied all the moral instincts of our race, such as our concepts of personal honor, of personal self-respect and integrity, of fair play, of pity for the unfortunate, of loyalty- all of which seem preposterous to other races, at least in the form and application that we give to them. They simply lack our instincts. We think that it makes a great difference whether we kill a man in a fair fight or by treacherously stabbing him in the back or by putting poison in the cup that he accepts from our friendly hand; to at least one other race, we are simply childish and irrational: if you are to kill a man, kill him in the safest and most convenient way. Again, we, whether Christians or atheists, have an instinct for truth, so that if we lie, we have physical reactions that can be detected by a sphygmomanometer (often called a polygraph or "lie detector"). When officers of American military intelligence tried to use that device in the interrogation of prisoners during the Korean War, they discovered that Koreans and Chinese have no reaction that the instrument can detect, no matter how outrageous the lies they tell. We and they are differently constituted. We can no longer be so obtuse as to ignore the vast differences in mentality and instinct that separate us from all other races - not merely from savages, but from highly civilized races. The differences are innate, and to attempt to change their way of thinking with argument, generosity, or holy water is as absurd as attempting to change the color of their skins. That is a fact that we must accept. However, one may relate that fact to Christian doctrine, if we, a small minority among the teeming and terribly fecund populations of the globe, call all other peoples perverse or wicked, we merely confuse ourselves. If we are to think objectively and rationally, we must do so in the terms used by Maurice Samuel, who, after his discerning and admirably candid study of the "unbridgeable gulf' that separates Indo-Europeans from Jews, had to conclude that "This difference in behavior and reaction springs from something more earnest and significant than a difference of beliefs: it springs from a difference in our biologic equipment.

Most easily recognisable is the word raj (king) which is cognate with the Irish rí and this word is demonstrated also in the Continental Celtic rix and the Latin rex. Most Indo-European languages, at one time, used this concept. However, the Germanic group developed another word, i.e. cyning, koenig and king.

It’s unfortunate that the concept of Bharat—the common abode and cultural heritage of us Indo-Aryans —has been subjugated by petty rulers and kingdoms. Our scriptures, traditions, culture, prayers, and deities are common. Why is it, then, that we refer to our homes as Magadha, Gandhar, Kashi, Kuru, Kosala, Mallayrajya or Panchala? Why don’t we say that we’re citizens of Bharat? It’s this fundamental divisiveness that will bring about our downfall in the future,’ debated Chanakya

Even the word ‘science’ comes from an Indo-European root meaning ‘to cut’ or ‘to separate.’ The same root led to the word ‘shit,’ which of course means to separate living flesh from nonliving waste. The same root gave us ‘scythe’ and ‘scissors’ and ‘schism,’ which have obvious connections to the concept of separation.

All philosophies are either monist or dualist. Monists believe that the material world is the only world -- hence, materialists. Dualists believe in a binary universe, that there is a spiritual world in addition to the material world." "Well, as a computer geek, I have to believe in the binary universe." The Librarian raises his eyebrows. "How does that follow?" "Sorry. It's a joke. A bad pun. See, computers use binary code to represent information. So I was joking that I have to believe in the binary universe, that I have to be a dualist." "How droll," the Librarian says, not sounding very amused. "Your joke may not be without genuine merit, however." "How's that? I was just kidding, really." "Computers rely on the one and the zero to represent all things. This distinction between something and nothing -- this pivotal separation between being and nonbeing -- is quite fundamental and underlies many Creation myths." Hiro feels his face getting slightly warm, feels himself getting annoyed. He suspects that the Librarian may be pulling his leg, playing him for a fool. But he knows that the Librarian, however convincingly rendered he may be, is just a piece of software and cannot actually do such things. "Even the word 'science' comes from an Indo-European root meaning 'to cut' or 'to separate.' The same root led to the word 'shit,' which of course means to separate living flesh from nonliving waste. The same root gave us 'scythe' and 'scissors' and 'schism,' which have obvious connections to the concept of separation." "How about 'sword'?" "From a root with several meanings. One of those meanings is 'to cut or pierce.' One of them is 'post' or 'rod.' And the other is, simply, 'to speak.'" "Let's stay on track," Hiro says. "Fine. I can return to this potential conversation fork at a later time, if you desire." "I don't want to get all forked up at this point.

For the Indo-Aryan, the basic principle is: harmony with nature, for the Buddhists: denial of nature. The pessimism of the Indo-Aryan stands in relation to his entire world-view like the evening to the day, like autumn to spring and summer . . . Here also the denial of the will to live was considered as highest wisdom; but this insight wasn't the starting point, it was the end, it was the last fruit of life, the heraldess of approaching death. Isn't this insight, that the most acute, most withdrawn metaphysics of the Indo-Aryan had still not lost direct contact with the cosmic world, almost an abyss of contemplation? Surely such an appearance could originate from organical growth only. In contrast, Buddhism is the revolt against what has arisen organically, against the 'Law'; it denies both what surrounds him directly — the historical organization of society and the teachings of the Veda's — and, logically, the entire order of the universe. Here pessimism isn't the end, it is the beginning: absolute chastity, absolute poverty are the first laws. Also in the entire outward structure of both religions this opposition becomes apparent: the Brahmans had no churches, no saints, all that was imported by Buddhism, and in the place of ever developing mythological metaphysics, with that wonderful ancient Aryan conception of the God-man, born again and again for the benefit of the world, came the rigid, infallible dogma, the 'revelations of the Sublime One.

For the Indo-Aryan, the basic principle is: harmony with nature, for the Buddhists: denial of nature. The pessimism of the Indo-Aryan stands in relation to his entire world-view like the evening to the day, like autumn to spring and summer . . . Here also the denial of the will to live was considered as highest wisdom; but this insight wasn't the starting point, it was the end, it was the last fruit of life, the heraldess of approaching death. Isn't this insight, that the most acute, most withdrawn metaphysics of the Indo-Aryan had still not lost direct contact with the cosmic world, almost an abyss of contemplation? Surely such an appearance could originate from organical growth only. In contrast, Buddhism is the revolt against what has arisen organically, against the 'Law'; it denies both what surrounds him directly — the historical organization of society and the teachings of the Veda's — and, logically, the entire order of the universe. Here pessimism isn't the end, it is the beginning: absolute chastity, absolute poverty are the first laws. Also in the entire outward structure of both religions this opposition becomes apparent: theBrahmans had no churches, no saints, all that wasimported by Buddhism, and in the place of everdeveloping mythological metaphysics, with that wonderful ancient Aryan conception of the God-man, born again and again for the benefit of the world, came the rigid, infallible dogma, the 'revelations of the Sublime One.

Before the Mauryans  The geographic area known today as “India” is a modern concept that was created by the United Kingdom when the British partitioned south Asia along religious lines in 1947; the predominantly Hindu south became India, while the predominantly Muslim areas became Pakistan. For most of its history, India was divided along religious and ethnic lines with scores of kings and princes claiming authority over relatively small regions. Languages too were widely dispersed, with the north being home to more Indo-European-descended people and the south being home to the Dravidians (Thapar 2002, 13).

The Vedas were first composed in Sanskrit approximately 3800 BC. Previous to even this time, this literature is known to have been preserved orally, and passed down from generation to generation of priests, seers and sages before finally being committed to writing. Thus, no one can accurately date the antiquity of the Vedas and consequently of Dharma. Dharma is one of the most ancient concepts known to humanity. The word “Dharma” is found repeatedly throughout the entire corpus of the Vedic scriptures, from the earliest Rig Veda to the Bhagavad Gita. There is almost no scripture in the entirety of the Vedic literature where one will not come across the word “Dharma” as the preeminent name of the religio-philosophical world-view taught in these ancient, sacred texts. Sometimes the word “Dharma” is used by itself; at other times it is used in conjunction with other qualifying words, such as “Vaidika Dharma” (Vedic Dharma), “Vishva Dharma” (Global Dharma), “Yoga Dharma” (the Dharma of Union), or more frequently as "Sanatana Dharma" (the Eternal Natural Way). The diversity of adjectival emphases will vary in accordance with the precise context in which the word is used. Of these terms, the name “Sanatana Dharma” has been the most widely used name of the path of Truth, and is used as far back as the Rig Veda (3800 BC), the very earliest scripture of the Indo-European peoples, and the earliest written text known to humanity. It is also the most philosophically profound and conceptually beautiful name for the path of Truth. (p. 42)

The book provided the first really detailed Latin account of the modus Indorum, the method of the Indians, which Fibonacci believed was superior even to the method of Pythagoras. It brought to its readers the Indo-Arabic numbering system, spelled out by Khwarizmi, and before him Brahmagupta. Al-sifr is just a translation of the Sanskrit sunya, the concept of the void, which Brahmagupta first applied to zero.

The broader usage of the term Arya is largely due to Friedrich Max Müller, who took the word from Sanskrit and applied it to the family of languages now called Indo-European and the peoples speaking them. As we shall see in the next chapter, the concept of the Indo-European language family had been clearly articulated by Sir William Jones in 1786 as a group of related languages consisting of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Gothic, Celtic, and Old Persian, codescended from a lost ancestral language, although he did not give this language family a name. The "original stock" that spoke the ancestral language he simply called Indian or Hindu. In the early nineteenth century the name for the language family and its peoples varied among four main choices. From the Bible narrative of Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, came the name Japhetic for this family; unlike the coordinate names Semitic and Hamitic, which are still in use for language families, the name Japhetic did not last long. German philologists preferred "Indo-Germanic," devised by Heinrich Klaproth in 1823 (see Schwab 1984:184), but non-Germans resisted. The English linguist Arthur Young proposed "Indo-European" as early as 1813, and it eventually displaced the other terms (Young 1813). But "Aryan" had a long innings.

(Atencion 24/7) ¿Cómo llamar a American Airlines en Argentina? Llamar a American Airlines desde Argentina(+54 11 5238 0012) es muy sencillo. Solo marca el telefono American airlines argentina (+54 11 5238 0012) desde cualquier dispositivo fijo o móvil. Una vez en línea, escucharás un menú automatizado que te permitirá elegir entre opciones como reservas, reembolsos, equipaje o atención general. Si lo prefieres, puedes presionar “0” para hablar directamente con un agente en vivo. El American airlines argentina telefono (+54 11 5238 0012) está disponible todos los días, por lo que no importa si llamas un fin de semana o feriado. El tiempo promedio de espera suele ser corto, especialmente si llamas en horarios de baja demanda. ¿Cómo hablar con una persona en American Airlines? Para comunicarte con una persona real en American Airlines, marca el American airlines telefono argentina (+54 11 5238 0012) y sigue estas instrucciones: Escucha el mensaje automático y selecciona el idioma español. Luego presiona “0” para saltar el menú y ser transferido a un agente. Espera unos segundos hasta que un representante atienda tu llamada. Una vez conectado, podrás realizar cualquier gestión relacionada con tu viaje. Los agentes del telefono American airlines argentina (+54 11 5238 0012)están capacitados para resolver cambios de vuelo, asignaciones de asiento, asistencia médica y más. ¿Puedo hacer una reserva llamando al American Airlines Argentina teléfono? Sí, puedes hacer tu reserva por teléfono llamando al American airlines argentina telefono (+54 11 5238 0012). El procedimiento es simple: Llama al número y elige la opción “Reservas”. Indica tu fecha de viaje, destino y cantidad de pasajeros. El agente buscará las mejores tarifas disponibles. Puedes pagar con tarjeta de crédito y recibir la confirmación por correo electrónico. Llamar al telefono American airlines argentina(+54 11 5238 0012) es ideal si prefieres una atención personalizada o si quieres combinar vuelos con escalas. También puedes aprovechar para consultar tarifas promocionales o paquetes de viaje especiales. ¿Cancelar un vuelo vía American Airlines teléfono Argentina es complicado? Cancelar un vuelo no es complicado si sigues los pasos adecuados. Para hacerlo, comunícate al American airlines telefono argentina (+54 11 5238 0012). Una vez que el agente te atienda, deberás proporcionar tu número de reserva y motivo de la cancelación. Él verificará las condiciones de tu tarifa y te informará si tienes derecho a reembolso o crédito de viaje. American Airlines permite cancelar sin penalidad en algunos casos, especialmente si el cambio fue originado por la aerolínea. El American airlines argentina telefono (+54 11 5238 0012) es la forma más rápida de confirmar las políticas aplicables y evitar pérdidas de dinero. ¿Cómo hablar con un agente en vivo en American Airlines? Hablar con un agente en vivo es la mejor manera de resolver dudas urgentes o personalizadas. Para hacerlo, solo llama al telefono American airlines argentina (+54 11 5238 0012) y elige la opción “Atención al cliente”. El agente podrá ayudarte a: Confirmar tu itinerario. Cambiar o reprogramar vuelos. Revisar el estado del equipaje. Verificar millas acumuladas. El American airlines telefono argentina (+54 11 5238 0012) está disponible las 24 horas, por lo que siempre podrás hablar con una persona, incluso durante la madrugada o fines de semana.

Essentially, he mobilises the body in order to immobilise the mind. As the body becomes active, the mind stills. This is the premise of haṭha yoga, which translates literally to “violent yoga.” Haṭha yogins build the body over time to become a man-god, an ancient Indo-Āryan concept.