Considering Worldview, Language, & Intended Meaning
There are The Dravidians, then there are The Indo-Aryans; two different people groups with two competing objectives. The Dravidians are one of the aboriginals (original peoples) of India who may have settled the Indus River Valley as early as the 32nd Century BCE (see Mohenjo Daro and Harappa). On the other hand, The Indo-Aryans (also referred to popularly as the Indo Europeans or Proto Indo Europeans), were a group originally from the North of Europe – the Black Sea area in and around Ukraine, that invaded India about 1900 years later in the 16th-15th century BCE.
Indo-Aryan imperialism and colonization was characterized by a parasitic type of cooptation; whereby which it would capture already preexisting systems of thought and recast it into their own image and likeness – so that their foreign system could in time be better ingested by aboriginal subjects (and even embraced by them). The approach gave to the colonized familiar terms and symbols on the surface that would be detected as familiar, but once consumed acted as a trojan horse of sorts – containing foreign values and principles that would take over the mind of the people. What eventually emerged from their exploits in Dravidian lands was a newly structured language (Sanskrit), a newly constructed religion (Hinduism), and a complete remodeling of the ancient caste system into a new system which featured making the aboriginal Dravidians into the despised untouchable Dalits.
The Indo-Aryans were never successful creating any communities worthy of note in lands from where they originated. Their modus operandi was to leach on to already pre-existing civilizations.[1] Much of this same marauding approach (as well as the thought behind it) eventually did spread (see Persia, Arabized Arabs, etc..) and the Indo European/Aryan name and way still reverberates loudly today in certain geographical places (see Iran), and amongst white supremacist groups (see “Aryan Nation” & the “swastika”, etc…) carrying similar political ideology. Even in 2022 these groups continue to look to the Indo-European Aryans for inspiration. Its principles, values, and traditions are embedded in many systems of the West. As in India, it’s unrecognizable as foreign, because it’s cloaked in familiar symbols and acceptable forms, but just a simple word search reveals the continuity.
For example the PIE “ghedh” (“good” in modern English) pertains to something that is “suitable”. Its Sanskrit roots actually connotes an entity that has been “seized" or made into “booty” or spoils of war. In other words, when those from cultures descended from PIE ideals declare that “God” is “Good”, they may very well be making a number of clear statements, when looked at in the proper cultural context.
(1) That their deity is “able to be manipulated as desired” (suitable).
(2) That their deity endows them/their systems with the authority to steal or seize a thing that does not belong to them.
(3) That their deity exists for the sole purpose of war
(4) That their deity does not respect the property of others
Within this cosmology – the deity blesses his subjects that take property by force. Furthermore, authority is not earned through patience or relationship building, but taken at a whim; violently. When we view the term “holy” or “kailo” certain similarities emerge.
If we recall from Part 1, kailo was defined as an entity that was uninjured. The term is loaded, actually describing those that were on the side of the Indo-Aryan conquering armies (in whichever forms they took). Although the Indo-Aryans, in their exploits, may have been dealt blows, or even may have lost some men, they remained uninjured (in their casting of reality). The Dravidians could only be identified as “kailo” when they turned against their own aboriginal minds. Otherwise, they were injured, or blemished. Ultimately, their deep structure of thought and the practices that emerged from this thought, as it existed prior to the foreign invasion, became that which deemed them unfit in the new regime. They could only be “kailo” when their hearts were "ghedh" (able to be manipulated) towards the allowance of foreign entities into their lands. This is reminiscent of the label of “noble savage” on Native Americans that would assist the English in their capture of Native American territories. Although they were identified as “noble” they could never escape their “Savage” DNA.
In India, because it was mainly people of the homeland carrying out these ideas the aboriginals were soon overtaken. The Indo Aryan ideas and ways emerged and spread forth like wildfire and eventually India developed a caste system that replaced the old indigenous system – and in the new system the Dravidians becoming the bottom untouchables (Dalits) and those aligned with and eventually sharing blood with the Indo-Aryans became the elite. Eventually, centuries later, the system put in place that would lead to the Moorish expulsion from Spain in the 15th century CE, eventually became the same Anglo-Saxon system of race expressed in everything from general biblical interpretations (and translations) to sociopolitical and economic systems of the “West”.
In the common era – soon after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the English/Anglo-Saxons of France and England emerged. They descended from the Scandinavian Vikings (Northern Germanics/Nordics) that invaded France, who themselves were descendants of the Proto-Indo-European people that – rather than extending East to India and Africa – extended West deeper into Europe. As expected, the modern English language altogether takes its language and many of its cultural assumptions from its early Proto Indo European Aryan ancestors. One such term that is used quite often – without much thought of its origins is the term “God”.
Earlier, we looked at the term “good” in PIE, but the term “God” finds its roots in the PIE concept of “good” (“ghedh”). Informed heavily by Hindu, Greek, and Roman mythology, for the Anglo-Saxons, “God” starts off as a name for the deities of the mythological systems, then when the English begin to codify the Israelite text and mass produce it, they identify the Power Source of the Israelites as the “God”, not only of the Hebrews, but the “God” of the Holy Church of England (centuries earlier the empire – backed/controlled by the Catholic Church was known as the Holy Roman Empire). But what or who was the God of the Anglo Saxons? And what usage could the Israelite power serve to their interests?
Again, if we recall the approach of the Proto Indo-European Aryans, they learned the belief systems of the east, infused their DNA into the surface level symbols, then refashioned the internal essential parts of these systems into their own likeness – while maintaining the aboriginal skin. The people that were probably already moving away from their traditions – seeking new things - saw that which was familiar on the surface and took the bait and in turn were used to further Indo-Aryan influence- creating new religious systems that captured the imagination and mind of their own people. We see this with the Dravidian system coopted into Hinduism, the Kemetic system eventually coopted by Greeks into its Mythological System, the Israelite tradition coopted into a PIE style European rabbinical tradition, and even the cooptation of the original Islam of Arabia (as attempted through the forms of Mohammed) coopted into an Arabized Arab religious system. Much of the same went for The Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which until this day are very radically different from the original Christianity formed in Ethiopia.
Part 2 featured a deeper dive into the Anglo-Saxon and Proto Indo-European constructs of “kail”, from which English concepts of holy is derived. In Part 3 we will get into the Israelite conceptual framework that translators influenced by the Indo-European/Aryan epistemology attempted to capture by usage of the term “holy”.
Peace be to you. Peace be to your house. And peace be unto all that is yours! Shalom Shalom!
Bn Shmû ÉL is the the founder of HaDBR Media, Chief Editor at Bn Shmû ÉL Publishing House, and author of The Land Of Milk and Honey: The Heart Of The World. Order your copy now at https://www.bn-shmu-el.com/shop .
[1] I recall The Chief discussing the tick – and the imagery of this blood sucking animal came to mind immediately – especially when I considered the way the Indo- European Aryans (and much of their progeny for that matter) operate.
Comments