Unity, Union, unseperated
1. सुरभी f. surabhIfearofgod
2. सुरभूय n. surabhUyabecomingadeity
3. सुरभवन n. surabhavanagod’sabode
4. सुरभाव m. surabhAvadignityofagod
5. सुरभीगोत्र n. surabhIgotra raceofsurabhI
5. असुर adj. asura divine
6. असुर्य adj. asuryadivine
7. दिव्य adj. divya divine
I know i’m asking a difficult question and i guess i’ll get no answer. Anyway…It’s easy to notice Sur being root in all of these Sanskrit examples. Except for all of the English translations all connected to divine there is a different one in 5th row.
Is there anyone on this forum who can explain these Sanskrit words, how is Sur connected to divine and if it’s some Deity since there is also race of surabhi, maybe people pulling their origin from the same God Sur, if that deity existed. Since these English translations are shallow i’d prefer a bit better interpretation to better understand their meaning.
Might it also be somehow connected to Assyrian Empire? I guess this character सुर is the key
In 2,000 BC, Ašur/Asura was the main God who was worshipped in the north of Mesopotamia and the west of modern Iran, but about 1,500 BC Indo-Iranian language broke up and Asura and Deva (the main Indo-European God) became the enemies of each other, Indians (Indo-Aryans) with the help of Mitanni captured the Assyrian empire and ruled there for about 200 years, as we see in the Mittani inscriptions, they just worshipped Devas, such as Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatya. Iranians migrated to the east and considered Deva as demon, and Ahura (s>h) as still the main God. This new land was Xvaniratha (Land of Vanir in Germanic), the cradle or seed of the Aryans (Iranians).
The place to look for Sanskrit etymologies is Mayrhofer’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, which records all the suggestions, good or bad. For asura- (vol. I pp. 147-8) Mayrhofer gives his vote to a suggestion by Schlerath according to which Skt. asura- and Av. ahura– are cognate with Av. ahu- “lord, overlord” (not identical with Av. ahu-, Skt. asu- “life”), and with Hittite hassu “king”, suggesting an IE *h²n̥s-u(ro)-.
Other, more problematic, suggestions include the proposal that Indo-Iranian asura– was either borrowed from or influenced by the name of the principal Assyrian god Aššur. This old theory has been revamped in an article in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Oriental Society (available on JSTOR): Ṛgveda, Avesta, and Beyond—ex occidente lux? on JSTOR
Old Norse æsir is, indeed, plural, the singular being áss (u-stem) – meaning “(a class of) gods”. The proposed Avestan cognate is ahu- (overlord). The Avestan ahura- (god) and Sanskrit asura- (god > demon) are thus a -ra extension to this stem. All the Avestan and Sanskrit examples are word stems (as indicated by the final -). They are neither singular nor plural. In fact, they are not even valid words (well, strictly speaking, the Sanskrit one can be the vocative singular form), but the theoretical base forms (i.e. stems), to which case-number endings are added. Traditionally that’s how Old Indo-Iranian nouns and adjectives are cited – a convention which derives from the Indian grammatical tradition. Note that all these terms are common nouns, not name of any specific god/lord.
In the “deva” group also, there are two separate stems. There is firstly the basic root-noun, Sanskrit div-~dyu-(sky,day), Latin Iuppiter, Greek Zeus (patēr), etc. This is clearly the daytime sky being personified as the “Father Heaven” – also in Sanskrit as a minor deity in the Vedas. Sanskrit deva- (god) is an -a extension of this root-noun. Avestan daēva- (demon), Latin deus (god), Old English Tīw belong to this last stem.
Finally, sura- (god) in Sanskrit is most likely a late back-formation from asura-, after the meaning of asura- shifted to demon, because a(n)- is a common prefix meaning “not” (i.e. privative prefix) in Sanskrit (and Greek, etc.). As far as I know, this word doesn’t occur in the earlier parts of the Vedic corpus, nor does it have any cognates in the other IE languages.
Word div must have lost it’s godlike features with christianisation, just because Christian’s main enemy is old and “pagan” div, godlike giant (In Serbian word pogan-disgusting, very similar to pagan).Luckily we still have word divan (wonderful) which pretty much explains and reminds us of what div is. The only giant that can be divan (wonderful) is God. After all Turks don’t have word divan to describe their div but we do and our div used to be god, unlike theirs.
After all demon is also a type of God, but a bad one.Example: With arrival of Anglo-Saxons to Britain who brought their own Gods, an old Celtic White Goddess was satanized. I’m not entirely sure about how the whole story goes since i learnt about this quite long time ago, but supposedly one of Celtic deities was believed to live in the Loch Ness lake. The myth says that there is a monster dwelling in Loch Ness now. If Anglo-Saxonic Gods didn’t dominate but Celtish, there would be no monster there now. Or might it be this deity became a monster because of christianization? You get the point. Could something similar happen to divs in Persia? The case in Serbia is people were too dedicated to their old Gods (Divs) that they didn’t dare proclaim them demons. This is why we present day have Ilija the Thunderlord, what was Perun and then Saint Vid day, which was Svetovid. We incorporated them in Christianity and proclaimed them Christian Saints. True story.
Deva (/ˈdeɪvə/; Sanskrit: देव, Deva) means “heavenly, divine, anything of excellence“, and is also one of the terms for a deity in Hinduism.
A Deva (Sanskrit: meaning “radiant” or “shining”) refers to a “god” or “deity” found in both Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism’s oldest scripture, the Rig Veda, contains hymns of praise to thirty-three different devas (gods) who help to regulate the cosmos in opposition to asuras (demonic forces). While devas are viewed positively in Hinduism as celestial beings of high excellence, they are, however, seen as demonic figures in Zoroastrianism. Devas are also a classification of beings in Buddhism that are viewed as higher than humans but not the absolute powers in the universe. In Buddhism, devas differ from gods because they are not seen as eternal as they are trapped in the cycle of suffering.
The word Deva likely derives from the Proto-Indo-European deiwos, originally an adjective meaning “celestial” or “shining.” It may also have some relation to the root diiv meaning “to play.” Cognate to deva are the Lithuanian Dievas, Latvian Dievs, Prussian Deiwas, Latin deus “god” and divus “divine,” from which the English words “divine,” “deity,” and the French “dieu,” and Italian “dio” are derived. Related but distinct is the proper name Dyeus, which while from the same root, may originally have referred to the sky, and hence to “Father Sky,” the chief god of the Indo-European pantheon, continued in Sanskrit as Dyaus. Today, Hindus also refer to Devas as Devatā and the feminine of Deva is Devi (“goddess”).