Talk:Dyaus

Sanskrit Devnagri

Does anyone have any idea how to write the name "Dyaus" in Sanskrit? It is not clear from the enlish transliteration, how it should be pronounced. AaronCarson (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Note that the final स् -s becomes retroflex ष् -ṣ depending on the application of sandhi. PS, Wikipedia uses the standard spelling "Devanagari." Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Errors

1. The form "Dyausa" used repeatedly in this article does not exist. 2. The notion that an Indic term such as "Dyaus" could have been derived from Latin "Deus" is monstrously stupid (sorry, I can't put it any more nicely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictonon (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is saying it derives from Latin? I assume the article has been rewritten since then, because the article at present merely states that the two have a common ancestor.

--86.135.125.70 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the article's history, and found where someone entered that the Sanskrit name derived from Latin on April 14, 2009, shortly before the above objection was posted, so the objection was justified. On June 2, someone else flipped the statement around, to derive the Latin word from Sanskrit, which is equally wrong. That was quickly corrected. Finally, on August 26, the correct Proto-Indo-European etymology was added. Also: I've just removed the erroneous final -a. Another error I caught was the derivation of dik (<√diṣ) from the same IE root as Dyaus; actually it derives from IE *deik-, a different root. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dethroned or killed by Indra

Dyaus or DyausPitr is killed/dethroned by Indra, who is also considered to be his son. His relationship with other gods like Agni & him being the originator of the Thunderbolt weapon, which was later adopted by Indra as his Vajra, need more clarification in this article. -Ambar wiki (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is speculation based on comparative mythology. If you have the sources, and are capable of presenting them properly, this can certainly be added. I just hope people will stop adding random snippets they found on the internet as "fact" (because hey, in mythology everything can be a fact because it's made-up anyway, right?). This article needs to cleanly distinguish what is based on Vedic philology, what is based on medieval commentaries on the Vedas, and what is based in comparative philology. --dab (𒁳) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

False interpretation - interpretatio Graeca/Romana error

In the Rigveda "Dyaus" occurs as mere name of the physical sky without any mythical implication in particular and in about 20 passages the word dyaus is feminine sometimes even when personfied.
In the Rigveda the notion of paternity ascribed to Dyaus as the father (Dyaus pita) is found mentioned only in combination of the Earth as the mother (prthivi mata) - the dual compound: Heaven and Earth (Dyava-Prthivi).
It is described that in the beginning at first both were united as one (RV X.55.1), but they are said to have been fashioned out into two world-halves. But there is hardly anything in the hymns as to celebrating as independence personality of Dyaus.

Seemingly, the principal trait in the personification of Dyaus as father was not taken seriously in the Rigveda, and his fatherhood appears to be nothing more than a faded out myth.

Veda recognises an Unknowable, Timeless, Unnameable behind and above all things, and not seizable by the mind. It cannot be known by that which is in Space and Time. Our thinking which is moving within the bounds of Space and Time cannot have access to it. A clear enunciation of this view is to be found in the Rigveda (RV I.170.1).
The real basis is the Vedic vision of Oneness and unity of existence. The vision of oneness and unity is termed by the Veda as Knowledge, vidya; our normal experience of division is termed Ignorance, avidya. The aim of the Veda is to lead us to Knowledge as also to lifting of the mystery of Ignorance by a wonderful consciousness of One Reality which reconciles the One and the Many (RV I.164.46, X.114.5)
References:
Goddessess in Ancient India by Mr P.K. Agrawala
Glimpses Of Vedic Literature by K. Joshi
- Regards, A.B. --178.190.123.28 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this contradict anything in the article? -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words: In the Vedas there is no ancient sky god "Dyaus Pita" of Vedic pantheon as it is decribed in the article.

- Regards, A.B. --188.22.69.179 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is actually wrong as many verses in the Vedas and many Hindu scriptures actually mention Dyaus is a separate, real, Hindu male sky god as mentioned in this article and others, so the Hindu god Dyaus Pita dies really exist in Hinduism. Vishal Kandassamy (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• does

Vishal Kandassamy (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Uranus?

With Prithvi (equivalent to Gaia in Greek mythology) as his consort, could Dyaus also be interpreted as equivalent to Uranus? Edit: I noticed know that according to Interpretatio graeca, Uranus is considered equivalent to Dyaus/Akasha. Oddeivind (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Dyaus Deva's Greek equivalent is Uranus and his Roman equivalent is Caelus. Zeus and Jupiter are not his equivalents because they are more similar to the Hindu god of thunderstorms, Indra. Hera and Juno are the equivalents of Indrani and Dis Pater (Hades/Pluto) is the equivalent of Yama. Vishal Kandassamy (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Citations?

"Dyauṣ is also known for the rape of his own daughter, which is vaguely but vividly mentioned in the Ṛg·veda". I cannot find this line anywhere in the source. Is it really well researched. Can someone provide the accurate page for it. I tried finding it but failed. Shiraj chandra (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The page numbers are in the citation. Chariotrider555 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

please then share the rig vedic hymns with us.it cannot be solely based on british(oxford) interpretation of a culture they wanted to destroy/replace. this is called a proper bias. it should be discussed when this culture is not dead/replaced like most other Indo-European cultures and still practiced by many. its very insensitive Superlog47 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

^unlike most other indo-european cultures(which are now replaced by semetic origin Abrahamic faiths whose ideology is also to replace anything non abhramic).also it would be better instead of providing a source which is hard to get/access and posibly extremely biased, make everyone read those pages by posting the content of those pages here so that can also be discused Superlog47 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Superlog47, the source is written by scholars who have specialized on Vedic religion, and was published by an academic publisher, and it quite clearly qualifies as a reliable source. If you are aware of other reliable academic sources that dispute the statements about Dyauṣ please do include them. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

i asked you for refernces from original source..which is rigveda.and is widely available Superlog47 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

if you are writing osmething you have to prove it .when original source is availabe why would we consider western interpretation to be the best available source. Superlog47 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

and are you an idiot?if ssomething is not available in rigveda how can anyone give refernce of it not being there from rigveda.you have to prove its in rigveda. Superlog47 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. If the original religious scripture was cited as a source without any commentary by a reliable scholarly source, we would run the risk of doing original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

my point is give me the hymns which your secondary 'reliable' sources used .if you dont have it then your source is unreliable. why would a western scholars summary of rigveda be considered reliable when any commentary on rigveda by any scholar well versed in vedic sanskrit never mentioned it. or show a commentary by secondry reliable sources pn rigveda hymn by hymn which mentions it..if not, then you are just a propagandist Superlog47 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"A less beneficient aspect of Heaven's fatherhood is found in a myth, obliquely but vividly referred to a few times in the R̥gveda (I.71.5, 8; X.61.5-7) and told more clearly in Vedic prose (though with Prajāpati substituting for Heaven)-namely his rape of his own daughter". - Jamison and Brereton (2014), page 50. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

lets start with this

rigveda 1.71.5:

म॒हे यत्पि॒त्र ईं॒ रसं॑ दि॒वे करव॑ त्सरत्पृश॒न्य॑श्चिकि॒त्वान् । सृ॒जदस्ता॑ धृष॒ता दि॒द्युम॑स्मै॒ स्वायां॑ दे॒वो दु॑हि॒तरि॒ त्विषिं॑ धात् ॥

महे यत्पित्र ईं रसं दिवे करव त्सरत्पृशन्यश्चिकित्वान् । सृजदस्ता धृषता दिद्युमस्मै स्वायां देवो दुहितरि त्विषिं धात् ॥

English translation:

“When (the worshipper) offers an oblation to his great and illustrious protector, the grasping (rākṣas), recognizing you, Agni, retires; but Agni, the archer, sends after him a blazing arrow from his dreadful bow, and the god bestows light upon his own daughter (the dawn).”

now where i rape??? i mean you people will write anything? Superlog47 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

1.71.8

आ यदि॒षे नृ॒पतिं॒ तेज॒ आन॒ट् छुचि॒ रेतो॒ निषि॑क्तं॒ द्यौर॒भीके॑ । अ॒ग्निः शर्ध॑मनव॒द्यं युवा॑नं स्वा॒ध्यं॑ जनयत्सू॒दय॑च्च ॥

आ यदिषे नृपतिं तेज आनट् छुचि रेतो निषिक्तं द्यौरभीके । अग्निः शर्धमनवद्यं युवानं स्वाध्यं जनयत्सूदयच्च ॥

“May that (digestive) faculty (of Agni) with regards food, be imparted to the devout and illustrious protector of priests, as the source of virile vigour; and may Agni be born as (his) robust, irreproachable, youthful and intelligent son, and instrumental gate him (to acts of worship).”

again where is rape?

i can go on and on.. but you people have set agenda and wikipedia is infested by people like you so i dont have much power here..

also i asked you for hymn by hymn commentary by secondry scholar not a stupid summary which has no relation to reality Superlog47 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

and also dyaus pitri of rigveda is personification of sky not a human like person (like in greek or other mythology).do u understand what a metaphor is?i dont know why people with no understanding of anything wants to edit sensitive stuff like this.what is your agenda mate? Superlog47 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you have utilized the translation of Horace Hayman Wilson, published in the latter 19th century. Unfortunately his translation and that of Ralph T. H. Griffith is considered "unsatisfactory and outmoded" by modern Vedic scholars.. The previously cited source (Jamison and Brereton 2014) translates the stanzas as such:

"When he made the sap[=semen] for great Father Heaven, noting the caresses he stealthily crept up (on him). The archer boldly loosed a missile at him (when) the god placed his "spark" in his own daugther." - I.71.5

"When the (missile's) sharp point reached the lord of men [=Agni] (for him) to release it, Heaven, at the moment of contact, (released) the blazing semen poured out. Agni engendered teh faultless young troop of good intention [=Aṅgirases] and sweetened it." - I.71.8

"He whose (penis,) which performs the virile work, stretched out, discharging (the semen)-(that one,) the manly one, then pulled away (his penis, which had been) "attending on" (her). Again he tears out from the maiden, his daughter, what had been "brought to bear on her - he the unassailable.

When what was to be done was at its middle, at the encounter when the father was making love to the young girl - as they were going apart, the two left behind a little semen sprinked down on the back and in the womb of the well-performed (sacrifice).

When the father "sprang on" his own daughter, he, uniting (with her), poured down his semen upon the earth. The gods, very concerned, begat the sacred formulation, and they fashioned out (of it?) the Lord of the Dwelling Place, protector of commandments.

Like a bull in a contest he threw off foram. Heedless, she went away, hither and yon. Twisting away, she hastened like the Gift-Cow on foot. [The father:] "Now those caresses of mine have not grasped (her)." X.61.5-8. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

i see you are hellbent on it.what stupid translations are these? and what genuine vedic scholars" disregard this? and why should modern anti brahmin scholars be given any importance? which words of sanskrit are you translating to penis and semen and rape? and what part of dyaus pitr as sky and daughter as dawn you dont understand?can you penetrate dawn? and u earlier mentioned though with prajapati substituting for heaven.how does prjapati(brahma) relates to dyaus here?it dosent matter who later became what.topic is about dyaus not brahma or prajapati.brahma is not even worsshipped.but clearly none of the sanskrit shlokas translates to this stupidity you mentioned. whatever suits your agenda is reliable? you people are so hateful and biased that you even diregard western scholars who dosent transslate your way let alone indian ones. they were also hindutva people i guess right? neways the translation you mentioned i extremely stupid and wrong.but a i said wikipedia is infested with people like you. Superlog47 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

t the whole point is dyaus raping his daughter. Superlog47 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

also "रेतो" (reto) can be understood metaphorically as the essence or vital energy associated with Agni, the deity being praised. It symbolizes the potency, vitality, and creative power attributed to Agni. Therefore, in this verse, the use of "रेतो" (reto) signifies the generative and life-sustaining aspect of Agni's power rather than a literal reference to semen. Superlog47 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

i dont think you will even understand what a metaphour is and in what context what is sad or written .people like you will always try their best to make dyaus a human like figure with human like penis and usha also a human like female and agni a human like man.and i understand , all these concepts are beyond you Superlog47 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

word by word translation of remaining verses:

X.61.5 :प्रथि॑ष्ट॒ यस्य॑ वी॒रक॑र्ममि॒ष्णदनु॑ष्ठितं॒ नु नर्यो॒ अपौ॑हत् । पुन॒स्तदा वृ॑हति॒ यत्क॒नाया॑ दुहि॒तुरा अनु॑भृतमन॒र्वा ॥

प्रथिष्ट यस्य वीरकर्ममिष्णदनुष्ठितं नु नर्यो अपौहत् । पुनस्तदा वृहति यत्कनाया दुहितुरा अनुभृतमनर्वा ॥

प्रथिष्ट (prathiṣṭa) - Established or installed यस्य (yasya) - Whose वीरकर्मम् (vīrakarmam) - Heroic deeds or valorous actions इष्णद् (iṣṇad) - Desiring or seeking अनुष्ठितं (anuṣṭhitaṁ) - Performed or accomplished नु (nu) - Indeed नर्यः (naryaḥ) - Men or warriors अपौहत् (apauhat) - Carried away or led पुनः (punaḥ) - Again or once more तदा (tadā) - Then वृहति (vṛhati) - Growth or increase यत् (yat) - That which कनाया (kanāyā) - Daughter दुहितुरा (duhiturā) - By the daughter अनुभृतम् (anubhṛtam) - Followed or supported अनर्वा (anarvā) - Without defeat or invincible..

In this verse, the speaker refers to someone whose heroic deeds or valorous actions have been established and accomplished, and men or warriors are led by the desire to achieve similar deeds. The verse then speaks of the growth or increase that comes when the daughter (kanāyā) follows or supports the person, making them invincible.NO PENIS!

X.61.6 :म॒ध्या यत्कर्त्व॒मभ॑वद॒भीके॒ कामं॑ कृण्वा॒ने पि॒तरि॑ युव॒त्याम् । म॒ना॒नग्रेतो॑ जहतुर्वि॒यन्ता॒ सानौ॒ निषि॑क्तं सुकृ॒तस्य॒ योनौ॑ ॥

मध्या यत्कर्त्वमभवदभीके कामं कृण्वाने पितरि युवत्याम् । मनानग्रेतो जहतुर्वियन्ता सानौ निषिक्तं सुकृतस्य योनौ ॥

मध्या (madhyā) - In the midst or middle यत् (yat) - That which कर्त्वम् (kartvam) - You do or perform अभवत् (abhavat) - Became or arose अभीके (abhīke) - In the womb or female reproductive organ कामं (kāmaṁ) - Desire or pleasure कृण्वाने (kṛṇvāne) - Engaged in or enjoying पितरि (pitari) - In the husband or father युवत्याम् (yuvatyām) - In the young woman or wife मनानग्रेतः (manānagretaḥ) - Desires or intentions जहतुः (jahatuḥ) - Left or abandoned वियन्ता (viyantā) - The weaver or creator सानौ (sānau) - In the act or process निषिक्तं (niṣiktaṁ) - Firmly established or joined सुकृतस्य (sukṛtasya) - Of the righteous or virtuous योनौ (yonau) - In the womb or reproductive organ.

the verse suggests that the person's desires or pleasures arise within the womb or reproductive organ, specifically within the young woman, who is referred to as the wife or daughter. The verse metaphorically depicts desires and intentions as weavers or creators, firmly established or joined in the act, process, or reproductive organ of the virtuous or righteous.

X.61.7: पि॒ता यत्स्वां दु॑हि॒तर॑मधि॒ष्कन्क्ष्म॒या रेत॑: संजग्मा॒नो नि षि॑ञ्चत् । स्वा॒ध्यो॑ऽजनय॒न्ब्रह्म॑ दे॒वा वास्तो॒ष्पतिं॑ व्रत॒पां निर॑तक्षन् ॥

पिता यत्स्वां दुहितरमधिष्कन्क्ष्मया रेतः संजग्मानो नि षिञ्चत् । स्वाध्योऽजनयन्ब्रह्म देवा वास्तोष्पतिं व्रतपां निरतक्षन् ॥

पिता (pitā) - Father यत् (yat) - Whose स्वां (svāṁ) - Own दुहितरम् (duhitaram) - Daughter अधिष्कन्क्ष्मया (adhiṣkankṣmayā) - With the desire or intention रेतः (retaḥ) - essence संजग्मानो (saṁjagmāno) - Coming together or uniting नि (ni) - Into षिञ्चत् (ṣiñcat) - Pouring or depositing स्वाध्यः (svādhyaḥ) - Self-sacrifice or self-offering अजनयन् (ajayan) - Begetting or generating ब्रह्म (brahma) - Cosmic principle or ultimate reality देवाः (devāḥ) - Deities or gods वास्तोष्पतिं (vāstoṣpatiṁ) - Lord of the dwelling or abode व्रतपां (vratapāṁ) - Observers of vows or rituals निरतक्षन् (niratakṣan) - Preservers or protectors

In this verse, the father (Pitā) is seen as Dyaus Pitar, the Heavenly Father. It portrays the act of the father uniting his own daughter (duhitaram) with his essence(retaḥ), symbolizing the cosmic creative process. The self-sacrifice or self-offering (svādhyaḥ) of the father in this act is believed to be instrumental in the generation of the cosmic principle (Brahma). The deities (devāḥ) are invoked as the observers of vows or rituals (vratapāṁ), who act as preservers or protectors (niratakṣan) of the Lord of the dwelling or abode (Vāstoṣpatiṁ).

WGERE IS THE RAPE? DO YOU KNOW WHAT RAPE iS?

also anyone can make their own interpretation to suit their own agenda just by twisting some words and adding their own context. but in any case here everything is metaphorical and yet there is not even metamorphically any "rape". Superlog47 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

From where are you getting these translations and interpretations from? Wikipedia is based on verifiable, reliable sources. Moreover, if you cannot maintain good faith in editors or shrug off reliable academic sources without good reason, then this discussion is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

if the translation is wrong or not in good faith it will be challenged. no source or human in this world is infallible these translations are not original research ,these are word by word translations..please bring someone then who can refute these translations of sanskrit words.or are you a vedic scholar? propagandists like you will decide whats reliable? altough as i mentioned wikipedia is infested with people like you. here you are in majority. you people disregard sources that dosent suit your narrative. if a source is indian u say there are a billion indian who all wants to believe their own thing so they are biased, if its not indian u say its unreliable (cause it supports indian ).there is no end to your hatred or stupidity. this whole article is mainly based on 'modern' sources(primarily one) calling some ones religious book mythology in the title.(mythology or not is a separate topic) what will be expected from that? proper translation? and when do modern scholars became more reliable than old scholars of religion? its like saying for translation of islamic sources we will rely more on modern pakistani urdu scholars rather than ibn al-Khattab, abu bakr etc.i am now convinced you are a propogandist. ofcourse you can do all this with hindu/dharmic sources only .freely writing whatever without context because no will be coming to chop your head off. and at this point i am also convinced you have a set agenda and logic is not applicable to you nor you want to understand or are interested in understanding. but will keep on crying reliable source reliable source(source which you agree with)...lol. you writing this sentence "shrug off reliable academic sources without good reason" after explaining everything tells me i am giving quantum mechanics lesson to a monkey.(its an analogy not calling you one so dont cry foul again as you do) also you dont want to improve the article. lets call spade spade. its pretty evident what you want to do. so many like you in this world. ofcource armageddon awaits! i dont know why am i even wasting my time here..no need explaining anything to you .its like self harm. Superlog47 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Word-by-word translations by a guy on Wikipedia is the very definition of original research. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wisdomlib article link here, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/rig-veda-english-translation/d/doc829746.html shows that there is no rape between Dyaus and Ushas, his daughter with Prithvi, so what these two editors are saying is true 100%. 59.92.142.31 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS. Secondary sources are preferred. Wisdomlib is not a reliable source. It seems the article you linked contains HH Wilson's 1866 translation of the Rigveda (a primary source), but no commentary/explanation by Wilson. So all we are really looking at here is the exact word-for-word translation, which I don't think is in dispute. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it seems it is in dispute: I just saw mentioned above that Wilson's translation is generally not considered a good one, which I didn't know. So that's a triple "no" on Wisdomlib as a reference. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Brahma as Prajapati and Dyaus is different. Brahma and Dyaus are not same and different deities. Brahma and Dyaus did not become other deities! The article is about Dyaus, and not about Brahma and Brahma as Prajapati. Brahma is worshipped in Hinduism as a Hindu Creator God in Hinduism and Prajapati is a form of Brahma worshipped as a Hindu Creator God in Hinduism but Dyaus is a separate Hindu Sky God in Hinduism and Brahma as Prajapati is not mentioned in this verse! 117.252.146.88 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

References