PDA

View Full Version : Two words "Yad" and "Smriti"



maddhan1979
May 27th, 2014, 08:51 AM
In ancient times,when there was no way to record your ancesstory or geneology, so what was the easiest way to remember Which people u came from or what kind of people u share your ancestry with? or Which place you came from?

How will people remember such things when there is no recorded history? or history is lost in movement, wars, etc?

The easiest way was to attach yourself with a kind of work your ancestors did? place you came from or some other root word which holds value in-terms of longevity.

Longevity is carried forward through root words, language, totems, etc.

So, lot of people write word/words which connect with occupation, lot of people write name of a place and so on.

This can also be called passive memory, where people recongnized their ancesstory through generations of oral traditions.

Such oral traditions were often called "Smirit" or "Yad".

Both the words mean "memory"

Both the words do not hold any personal identity to a person until and unless religion, mythology or any other crap gives it an idol figure or personification.

maddhan1979
May 27th, 2014, 08:57 AM
In ancient times,when there was no way to record your ancesstory or geneology and easiest way to remember Which people u came from? or Which place you came from?

How will people remember such things what there is no recorded history? or history is lost in movement, wars, etc?

The easiest way was to attach yourself with a kind of work your ancestors did? place you came from or some other root word which holds value in-terms of longevity.

So, lot of people write word/words which connect with occupation, lot of people write name of a place and so on.

This can also be called passive memory, where people people recongnized their ancesstory through generations of oral traditions.

Such oral traditions were often called "Smirit" or "Yad".

Both the words mean "memory"

Both the words do not hold any personal identity to a person until and unless religion, mythology or any other crap gives it an idol figure or personification.



A simple example is "Manu Smriti".

Now who was this person called "Manu" and he existed at what point of time in history?

There is no archaeological or scientific fact that proves his existence, rather it is a glimpse into the past that was passed on through oral traditions and that is why it is called "Smriti" or "Yad" .

Such oral traditions of historic memories or tribal identities have been recorded very late in history in comparison to the existence so called "Ancient existence of human beings/people/tribes, etc".

maddhan1979
May 27th, 2014, 09:28 AM
A simple example is "Manu Smriti".

Now who was this person called "Manu" and he existed at what point of time in history?

There is no archaeological or scientific fact, rather it is a glimpse into the past that was passed on through oral traditions.

Such oral traditions have been recorded very late in history in comparison to their so called "Ancient existence".

Another simple example is the totem "Sin".

So the memory of their totem clan is "Sin" and their work is "Gaupalak" or "Gopal", which is present in their "Yad" or "Smirit" or "memory". Again it is very much possible that religion has given it a human figure or ideolozed it or personified it.

This also means that person to person ancestry is much older then their written history, i.e. in their "Yad" or "Smriti" becomes a vague term based on oral traditions, but their clan is "Sin" and their work was/is "keeping/making their livelihood with cows".

This is an excellent example of transition from "oral tradition of family tracking" to "Written tradition of family genealogy"

maddhan1979
May 27th, 2014, 01:59 PM
Another simple example is the totem "Sin".

So the memory of their totem clan is "Sin" and their work is "Gaupalak" or "Gopal", which is present in their "Yad" or "Smirit" or "memory". Again it is very much possible that religion has given it a human figure or ideolozed it or personified it.

This also means that person to person ancestry is much older then their written history, i.e. in their "Yad" or "Smriti" becomes a vague term based on oral traditions, but their clan is "Sin" and their work was/is "keeping/making their livelihood with cows".

This is an excellent example of transition from "oral tradition of family tracking" to "Written tradition of family genealogy"

So people of oral tradition i.e. "Smriti" or "Yad" are based on non scientific, mythological people, whose archaeological or scientific verification of existence is not possible.

maddhan1979
May 27th, 2014, 02:02 PM
So people of oral tradition i.e. "Smriti" or "Yad" are based on non scientific, mythological people, whose archaeological or scientific verification of existence is not possible.


Whereas the totem verification had been archaeologically proved.

maddhan1979
May 31st, 2014, 10:48 AM
Whereas the totem verification had been archaeologically proved.


The "Kull" of "Cow" or the people who used to depend on their livelihood on cattle.

It had four kinds of people, whose lives depended on the "Kull" of "Cow" (or in simple words, people whose life depended on cow herds):

1. The warriors: In ancient times wealth of a person depended on the number of animals a person had, as the society in ancient times was an agrarian society. The warriors were in the form of horse riding warriors in form of kings and other knights and so on. As the society depended on them to establish order in the kingdom and society. These people were involved in improving their fighting skills, administration capacities, etc. The real owners of these herds of cows were these horse riding warrior people and we have proof of that as well " we all know that if there used to be fight between kingdoms, cows of the kingdom were the first prized possession. Kings arouse out of normal tribes by being elected or gaining power through inheritance.

2. Priests: Priests always depended on the society and the kings for their livelihood as they would try to tell the future of the person or in bad cases create a future of the person artificially by creating situations in life of the person or group of people from the birth till the death of a person, priest or group of priest will follow families of preach families about life. Often the priests were given cows in reward for their preaching, etc.

3. Cow caretakers/ cow grazers: These were the people who could graze the cattle of the warriors and the priests. They were the people, who would come to the house of the owner of the cow Warrior/priest and take the cows out to graze in the field. These people were also responsible for collecting Cow dung (or Gu) for stove or cooking etc. They were also responsible for harnessing milk and other products from the cow herd.

4. People using cow parts to make clothes, shoes, etc. Then there would be people would use cow parts for different use for the society.

Such a society was not an uneven society. As no person was high or low depending on the work. These kind of self sustaining societies were a normal phenomena in any agrarian/nomadic societies with cattle and other livestock as main animals throughout the world.
Each section of society was there to make the entire system run smoothly.

maddhan1979
May 31st, 2014, 01:26 PM
The "Kull" of "Cow" or the people who used to depend on their livelihood on cattle.

It had four kinds of people, whose lives depended on the "Kull" of "Cow" (or in simple words, people whose life depended on cow herds):

1. The warriors: In ancient times wealth of a person depended on the number of animals a person had, as the society in ancient times was an agrarian society. The warriors were in the form of horse riding warriors in form of kings and other knights and so on. As the society depended on them to establish order in the kingdom and society. These people were involved in improving their fighting skills, administration capacities, etc. The real owners of these herds of cows were these horse riding warrior people and we have proof of that as well " we all know that if there used to be fight between kingdoms, cows of the kingdom were the first prized possession. Kings arouse out of normal tribes by being elected or gaining power through inheritance.

2. Priests: Priests always depended on the society and the kings for their livelihood as they would try to tell the future of the person or in bad cases create a future of the person artificially by creating situations in life of the person or group of people from the birth till the death of a person, priest or group of priest will follow families of preach families about life. Often the priests were given cows in reward for their preaching, etc.

3. Cow caretakers/ cow grazers: These were the people who could graze the cattle of the warriors and the priests. They were the people, who would come to the house of the owner of the cow Warrior/priest and take the cows out to graze in the field. These people were also responsible for collecting Cow dung (or Gu) for stove or cooking etc. They were also responsible for harnessing milk and other products from the cow herd.

4. People using cow parts to make clothes, shoes, etc. Then there would be people would use cow parts for different use for the society.

Such a society was not an uneven society. As no person was high or low depending on the work. These kind of self sustaining societies were a normal phenomena in any agrarian/nomadic societies with cattle and other livestock as main animals throughout the world.
Each section of society was there to make the entire system run smoothly.


It is also interesting to see that all of these sections of people who depended on cow for their basic everyday need depended on cow dung "Gu" or "Gobar" for their fuel. It can also mean that these people were nomadic in nature, either at certain point of time in their life or were making camps/habitations at different places at different points of time.

We also know, how much village life in India depended on cow dung.

maddhan1979
June 1st, 2014, 09:05 PM
A simple example is "Manu Smriti".

Now who was this person called "Manu" and he existed at what point of time in history?

There is no archaeological or scientific fact that proves his existence, rather it is a glimpse into the past that was passed on through oral traditions and that is why it is called "Smriti" or "Yad" .

Such oral traditions of historic memories or tribal identities have been recorded very late in history in comparison to the existence so called "Ancient existence of human beings/people/tribes, etc".


The main question at this point is "How old are the documents(which can be archaeologically verified) that talk about this "Yad" or "Smriti" and when were these words coined, or when were these words included in the myths, genealogy, folklore, etc?"

I think the answer is "No one knows for sure and these can not be verified"


This is the main problem created by Indian belief system and blind faith. People talk about "Yad" and "Smirit" and put blind faith, time, money and importance in them thereby giving rise to idol worship. In many or most of these cases there might not be any truth at all or there might be only a small instance which has been proliferated throughout ages through religion and blind following.

maddhan1979
June 3rd, 2014, 08:23 AM
The "Kull" of "Cow" or the people who used to depend on their livelihood on cattle.

It had four kinds of people, whose lives depended on the "Kull" of "Cow" (or in simple words, people whose life depended on cow herds):

1. The warriors: In ancient times wealth of a person depended on the number of animals a person had, as the society in ancient times was an agrarian society. The warriors were in the form of horse riding warriors in form of kings and other knights and so on. As the society depended on them to establish order in the kingdom and society. These people were involved in improving their fighting skills, administration capacities, etc. The real owners of these herds of cows were these horse riding warrior people and we have proof of that as well " we all know that if there used to be fight between kingdoms, cows of the kingdom were the first prized possession. Kings arouse out of normal tribes by being elected or gaining power through inheritance.

2. Priests: Priests always depended on the society and the kings for their livelihood as they would try to tell the future of the person or in bad cases create a future of the person artificially by creating situations in life of the person or group of people from the birth till the death of a person, priest or group of priest will follow families of preach families about life. Often the priests were given cows in reward for their preaching, etc.

3. Cow caretakers/ cow grazers: These were the people who could graze the cattle of the warriors and the priests. They were the people, who would come to the house of the owner of the cow Warrior/priest and take the cows out to graze in the field. These people were also responsible for collecting Cow dung (or Gu) for stove or cooking etc. They were also responsible for harnessing milk and other products from the cow herd.

4. People using cow parts to make clothes, shoes, etc. Then there would be people would use cow parts for different use for the society.

Such a society was not an uneven society. As no person was high or low depending on the work. These kind of self sustaining societies were a normal phenomena in any agrarian/nomadic societies with cattle and other livestock as main animals throughout the world.
Each section of society was there to make the entire system run smoothly.


Jats in this sense are one of the people who have always been on top of this warrior hierarchy as they have been part of various feudal and different armies throughout the ages. Warrior hierarchy was never made of a single warrior or his sole representation, rather it was made by number of warriors representing the tribe, community, etc. In this sense, Jats were never represented by single warrior identity, rather the entire community were involved in farming and fighting for the feudal system , kings, tribes, etc.

rekhasmriti
June 21st, 2014, 10:34 PM
No clue how far I am right however " Smriti & Shruti " always use together .

agodara
June 22nd, 2014, 12:09 AM
sis rekha
shruti and smriti have always two diffrentt words
smriti .means you heard and composed into epics
shrutis.meas it happend in front of your eyes.like vedas
hope this will help