Is the Iranian condemnation of the movie "300" a positive sign?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm


candour, courtesy, straight dealing, courage, humanity, compassion, liberality, eagerness of knowledge

I'm not candid either. Courteous only to hot women. Compassionate only towards cute animals. Not liberal in the hippie sense.

[aneeshm]

Anyway - traditionalists do not use it to refer to race. Neither do modernists. I'd say it's a perfectly good term.

[aneeshm]

If Arya were a purely racial term, a more probable derivation would be 'ar', meaning strength or valour, from 'ar' to fight, whence we have the name of the Greek war-god Ares, areios, brave or warlike, perhaps even arete, virtue, signifying, like the Latin virtus, first, physical strength and courage and then moral force and elevation. This sense of the word also we may accept. "We fight to win sublime Wisdom, therefore men call us warriors." For Wisdom implies the choice as well as the knowledge of that which is best, noblest, most luminous, most divine. Certainly, it means also the knowledge of all things and charity and reverence for all things, even the most apparently mean, ugly or dark, for the sake of the universal Deity who chooses to dwell equally in all. But, also, the law of right action is a choice, the preference of that which expresses the godhead to that which conceals it. And the choice entails a battle, a struggle. It is not easily made, it is not easily enforced.

Whoever makes that choice, whoever seeks to climb from level to level up the hill of the divine, fearing nothing, deterred by no retardation or defeat, shrinking from no vastness because it is too vast for his intelligence, no height because it is too high for his spirit, no greatness because it is too great for his force and courage, he is the Aryan, the divine fighter and victor, the noble man, aristos, best, the srestha of the Gita.

Intrinsically, in its most fundamental sense, Arya means an effort or an uprising and overcoming. The Aryan is he who strives and overcomes all outside him and within him that stands opposed to the human advance. Self-conquest is the first law of his nature. He overcomes earth and the body and does not consent like ordinary men to their dullness, inertia, dead routine and tamasic limitations. He overcomes life and its energies and refuses to be dominated by their hungers and cravings or enslaved by their rajasic passions. He overcomes the mind and its habits, he does not live in a shell of ignorance, inherited prejudices, customary ideas, pleasant opinions, but knows how to seek and choose, to be large and flexible in intelligence even as he is firm and strong in his will. For in everything he seeks truth, in everything right, in everything height and freedom.

Self-perfection is the aim of his self-conquest. Therefore, what he conquers he does not destroy, but ennobles and fulfils. He knows that the body, life and mind are given him in order to attain to something higher than they; therefore they must be transcended and overcome, their limitations denied, the absorption of their gratifications rejected. But he knows also that the Highest is something which is no nullity in the world, but increasingly expresses itself here, - a divine Will, Consciousness, Love, Beatitude which pours itself out, when found, through the terms of the lower life on the finder and on all in his environment that is capable of receiving it. Of that he is the servant, lover and seeker. When it is attained, he pours it forth in work, love, joy and knowledge upon mankind. For always the Aryan is a worker and warrior. He spares himself no labour of mind or body whether to seek the Highest or to serve it. He avoids no difficulty, he accepts no cessation from fatigue. Always he fights for the coming of that kingdom within himself and in the world.

The Aryan perfected is the Arhat. There is a transcendent Consciousness which surpasses the universe and of which all these worlds are only a side-issue and a by-play. To that consciousness he aspires and attains. There is a Consciousness which, being transcendent, is yet the universe and all that the universe contains. Into that consciousness he enlarges his limited ego; he becomes one with all beings and all inanimate objects in a single self-awareness, love, delight, all-embracing energy. There is a consciousness which, being both transcendental and universal, yet accepts the apparent limitations of individuality for work, for various standpoints of knowledge, for the play of the Lord with His creations; for the ego is there that it may finally convert itself into a free centre of the divine work and the divine play. That consciousness too he has sufficient love, joy and knowledge to accept; he is puissant enough to effect that conversion. To embrace individuality after transcending it is the last and divine sacrifice. The perfect Arhat is he who is able to live simultaneously in all these three apparent states of existence, elevate the lower into the higher, receive the higher into the lower, so that he may represent perfectly in the symbols of the world that with he is identified in all parts of his being, - the triple and triune Brahman.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm

the attributes you quote sound strikingly (with some exceptions) like the code of honor of western chivalry. which was derived from germanic (and celtic) warrior codes. Also like the Homeric ideals.

Im afraid you just added another piece of evidence for the Aryan invasion theory.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the attributes you quote sound strikingly (with some exceptions) like the code of honor of western chivalry. which was derived from germanic (and celtic) warrior codes. Also like the Homeric ideals.

Im afraid you just added another piece of evidence for the Aryan invasion theory.

Till now, the only proof for the theory of invasion is the linguistic evidence, which could point either way.

That is, if it was the Indian subcontinent which had held off the Muslims, while Europe had succumbed, the entire basis of comparative linguistics would have been the Puranic accounts, not the Biblical ones.

[Barnabas]

Either way?

Only a few wackos believe indo european langauges originated in India.

And I dont see how islam is relevant to comparative linguistics, the only indo european language which disappeared due to the islamic conquest is the latin romance spoken by north africans from the maghreb, Kurds, Spaniards, sicilians, persians, armenians, greeks, south slavs and indians kept their indo european languages, tough with arab loanwords.

[Last Conformist]

WTF? The Bible wasn't the base for comparative linguistics, Classical and ancient Indian writings were.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
WTF? The Bible wasn't the base for comparative linguistics, Classical and ancient Indian writings were.

I think hes referring to the lineages of Ham, shem, and Japeth, which are described in the bible, and seem to refer to Hamitic, semitic, and IE language families, respectively.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think hes referring to the lineages of Ham, shem, and Japeth, which are described in the bible, and seem to refer to Hamitic, semitic, and IE language families, respectively.

In which century is he living? The IE=Japhetite identification is only slightly less outdated that the stegosaurs. "Hamitic" isn't the most modern of terminology either ...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think hes referring to the lineages of Ham, shem, and Japeth, which are described in the bible, and seem to refer to Hamitic, semitic, and IE language families, respectively.

Spot on.

In the beginning, the entire basis of the "science" of linguistics was to somehow find the language spoken at the fall of Babel. I'm serious. People spent their entire lives taking the Biblical framework for granted, and all the foundational texts of this field of study have been written with that framework in mind.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Till now, the only proof for the theory of invasion is the linguistic evidence, which could point either way.

That is, if it was the Indian subcontinent which had held off the Muslims, while Europe had succumbed, the entire basis of comparative linguistics would have been the Puranic accounts, not the Biblical ones.

the vedi ideals you cite are those a warrior class dominated society, perhaps esp one using chariots and horses to conquer vast areas, basically the standard picture of the IE spread through Europe. So unless one posits such a thread, but starting in India, it would suggest the AIT.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by aneeshm

In the beginning, the entire basis of the "science" of linguistics was to somehow find the language spoken at the fall of Babel. I'm serious. People spent their entire lives taking the Biblical framework for granted, and all the foundational texts of this field of study have been written with that framework in mind.

That's like saying that all the foundational works of modern chemistry were written by people who believed in the four elements.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
In which century is he living? The IE=Japhetite identification is only slightly less outdated that the stegosaurs. "Hamitic" isn't the most modern of terminology either ...

One of Japhets sons is named Yavan, a hebrew name for "Greece" going back at least to the book of Maccabees, IIUC. One grandson is named Ashkenaz - how old that name for Germany is, I dont know. medieval I think. All the other identifications have no Jewish roots, IIUC.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Why?

Because we can then get another fact free lecture on the glories of Aryan blah de blah de blah and how Yama-Dharma yakkety yak yak yak and how Sanskrit is the boop boopy doop of Bhagavad bag ladies and Mahatmacoat are hanging in the hallway and awopbopaloobopalopbamboom...

It's all so much clearer looked at this way.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


One of Japhets sons is named Yavan, a hebrew name for "Greece" going back at least to the book of Maccabees, IIUC.

I'll hazard a guess that that name derives from Old Persian Yaunâ "Greeks", in turn from "Ionians".

One grandson is named Ashkenaz - how old that name for Germany is, I dont know. medieval I think. All the other identifications have no Jewish roots, IIUC.

I was refering to the use of the terms in comparative linguistics. "Semitic", of course, is still current, but "Hamitic", which used to refer to, essentially, the non-Semitic languages of the Afroasiatic family, has been out of fashion for half a century now, and "Japhetitic" was abandoned for "Indo-European" (or "Indo-Germanic") way back in the 19th century.