The Iranian word “Kuruš”, which is written as Cyrus and pronounced incorrectly as “sairas”, is related to the Sanskrit “Kuru” - the very family which is immortalized in the Mahābhārata epic.
My opinion is that the word “kuruš” is also at the root of the word “Kurd” - the tribe speaking an Iranic language and living also in Turkey and Iraq. The word “kuruš” is most likely related in meaning to Sanskrit “karša” कर्ष meaning “farming”. These were farming civilizations.
Calling themselves “farming people” is a very common endonym of various nations. Another example is “Poland” (literally, the country of “field people”). This is a simple way to contrast themselves, especially if they are surrounded by nomadic tribes relying on hunting-gathering.
The word “Ārya” another commonly used endonym also refers to agricultural practices. The word “Āryam” means irrigated land in Sanskrit.
Obviously, idiots in the colonial era were not able to put together such a commonsensical observation.
Apart from farming and hunting-gathering, the most common source of sustenance in the early Iron Age would be animal husbandry - rearing animals for meat and milk. This is most likely the source of the word “Mlēccha” which has come to mean any barbaric tribe without civilization.
Before Indians warm up to cuddling with the extreme right in France, they should know the kind of literature beloved by these parties and how Indians are portrayed in them.
See “Le Camp des Saints” (The camp of the saints) by Jean Raspail.
I mean, sure, support France by all means. The consensus on showing the finger to the Islamists is pretty much unanimous across all political stripes in France. Why then throw your towel with Mme. Le Pen, of all people!?
The battle in France for “Laïcité” (secular rationalism) is a very different situation when compared with India. India is not “secular” despite the bogus framing in the constitution. The French Laïcité has an ancient history, going back to the fight against the catholic monarchy.
Interesting theory about why we are accumulating so much crap in this modern age.
May be, we should start redesigning our economy to move the largest volume of trade to be on perishable goods (food, services etc.) instead of making everything artificially perishable?
If we look at this from the other side, if the consumers have a reliable set of durable goods (whether furniture, electronics or vehicles), I think they will invest more and more of their income on perishables: higher quality food, better and consumer friendlier service etc..
With electronics, the current trend of cloud computing makes every device endlessly updatable anyways. The marginal value of buying the most recent smartphone with a slightly better screen or camera is not that exciting as modularity and mix-and-match that let us keep our stuff.
This is the opinion of Thomas Trautmann, foremost authority on "Dravidian linguistics", on the work of Bishop Caldwell. Where is the critique on the racist bullshit, or even a disclaimer!?
This is the best that comes up for a "critique" in a field oozing with racist assumptions from head to toe? What is the point of even doing this when you use the same comparative methodology and the same motivation for isolating pristine races of language?
The Gond tribals worship Komaram Bheem as a deity (“pen” in Gond language). This type of depiction is arguably a case of religious blasphemy, punishable by Indian law (shouldn’t be, but that’s another issue).
It is as offensive as depicting Prophet Mohammed as a Shiva devotee.
I have a feeling nobody would even bother to appeal to the Indian courts that such a depiction hurts religious beliefs. The Gonds are poor tribals, who were severely exploited by the British colonial state. What justice can they expect from the colonial institution of judiciary?
I have seen people arguing that Gond people are “Ādivāsis” (aborigines) and not connected to “Brahmanical Hinduism”. This is absurdly wrong. Why?
The Gond language is the closest language to Telugu amongst the so called Dravidian languages. Gonds and Telugus are the same people!
In Indian logic, formulating anything by the negative is done only in the rarest cases. A negative proof (proof by contradiction) is similarly employed very rarely.
It’s philosophically irresponsible to call oneself “atheist” when a positive(constructive) definition is possible.
Here is my earlier thread on various Hindu philosophical viewpoints, each defined by a positive constructive definition, which can all be considered “atheistic” based on what we mean by “atheism”.
People following Greco-Roman religions used the word “Atheist” to denote Christians.
Christians used the word “pagan” (villager, country bumpkin) to denote the ancient religions, essentially calling them “non-rationalist” (unintelligent). That’s the history of “rationality”.
Joke of an award. This @Javedakhtarjadu criticized none of the practices of his own religion, but puts on a convenient “Atheist” hat while justifying all the types of special pleading he does for his religion.
Also, “rationalism” is inherently rooted in a Biblical world-view where every phenomenon needs to be justified on the basis of a historical principle of causality. The chain of causality leads to the “Primal Cause” (which a straightforward honest Muslim would call “Allah”).
Richard Dawkins and his fan boys seem to have neither commonsense in how they choose awardees, nor an awareness of how philosophical discussions on “rationality” even occurred in history, as a dialogue between Christians and Muslims seeking to convert each other! See Ramon Llull.