It has been said by some prominent, albeit controversial, intellectuals of the 19th century, that the name Solomon is a compound of the words “Sol” {Latin} – “Om” {Sanskrit} – and “On” {Egyptian} – and that Sol-Om-On refers to the Sun, or something like that.
Undoubtedtly, I have very strong doubts about the existence of the Biblical Solomon – but why would the authors of the Bible pick up one Latin word, one Sanskrit word, one Egyptian word – and combine them to form the name of one character in the immense text of the Bible?
Why aren’t there other such “portmanteau”-like names?
This seems like a most curious fabrication to me.
As unnecessary as it is unconvincing.
But there are links of Hebrew-Biblical names & words to Sanskrit, and I’ve forayed cautiously into this territory; or instance in this post:
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2022/08/is-abraham-same-as-brahma-few-notes.html
Here, I’ve tried to link the name of Abraham, i.e. Av-Raham or Av-Ram to the Sanskrit words Rama & Rāma – and the name of Sarai {i.e. Sarah} to the Sanskrit words śrī & śira.
Do note that Rama & Rāma are 2 distinct words, but they can be seen as interchangeable, and they more or less mean the same things, conceptually.
Rama is a name of the Indian God of Love, Kāma.
Rāma is a name of the one of the incarnations of Viṣṇu – the hero of the Sanskrit epic Rāmāyaṇa – and a highly revered deity within Hinduism itself.
At some level, though, all gods merge and are interchangable.
Kāma is Agni, and Viṣṇu is also Agni – so in a sense, Rāma is Rama – but this is quite beyond the conceptual & etymological links between these words & the Semitic, Middle-Eastern consonantal cluster rm-rhm.
{In the same way, Vasudeva is a word distinct from Vāsudeva – the first being the father of the second – but the essential meanings of both are not different.}
The links exist, though they are unrecognized by the intellectual establishment.
My guess about Solomon is that Solomon is the same as the Sanskrit śarman.
If we ignore the terminating “n” – and read “Solomon” as “Shlomo” – then it is nothing but the Sanskrit “śarma” i.e. “sharma”, a very common surname amongst Brāhmaṇas in India, till today.
Remember: L is interchangeable with R.
There are many cases in India itself, for instance “ilā” and “irā” – or “shukla” and “shukra”.
Till today, in many instances, the “l” is rendered “r” or vice-versa.
So “baadal” {cloud} is often called “badariya” – and “bijuli” {lightning} is called “bijuriya”.
The Sanskrit Sharman thus becomes the Hebrew Shalaman, or Salman, or Solomon, or {later} Suleiman.
In the same way, Sharma becomes Shalem, Shalim, Salem, Salma, Shlomo, Shalom, etc.
There is connection with the variant of Sharma/Sharman, i.e. the Sanskrit words Śrama & Śrāma.
These are pronounced as Shrama & Shrāma.
Fact is, Sharma & Shrama are conceptually interrelated words – indeed, permutations of the same word.
I leave it to the intelligent reader to discover the conceptual connection between the words :)
They’re there for all to find & to discover.
Similarly, half the Biblical name Elizabeth = Eli + Sabet is derived from the Sanskrit word “shapath”, i.e. an oath.
Related is the Sanskrit śapita.
The meaning is identical to the Semitic.
The root of these words, which in Sanskrit is śap {“to swear”}, is also the same.
“Sheba” and “Bath-Sheba” come from this very Sanskrit root.
The “Beth” is another word which has innumerable connections with Indian languages.
It is undoubtedly related to the
« Tamil pētti: “grand-daughter”
« Tamil peṭṭai: “female of animals & birds, woman, girl”
« Tamil peṭai: “female of birds”
« Malayalam peṭṭa: “female of birds, of asses & camels”
« Malayalam pēṭa: “female of a deer, turtle; a pea-hen”
« Telugu peṭa: “female of birds”
« Tamil paṭṭi: “son”
« Telugu paṭṭi: “a child”
« Sanskrit pota: “a young animal or plant”; “fetus which has no enveloping membrane”
« Latin putus: a young, small boy
« Telugu biḍḍa: “infant; a child, son or daughter”
« Telugu boṭṭe: “a son or a daughter”
« Sanskrit putra & putrī: son & daughter – the pretended derivations being misleading esoteric glosses
As we shall see below, the sexes are actually irrelevant.
The Hebrew “ben” means “son”.
This is actually related to the
« Tamil peṇ – “woman; daughter; girl; wife”
« Malayalam peṇ – “a female, esp. a female child, girl, maidservant, bride”
« Telugu pinna, pina: pinnaṭa or pinnaṭi – “adj. little, small, tiny, diminutive, young”
« Malayalam peṇṭi: “girl”, etc.
The Semitic “El” could come from anywhere: it is too vague & short a term, to be assigned a specific root or place of origin.
The case of “David” is trickier.
It is traceable to the Proto-West Semitic “dād” – which means “paternal uncle”.
But if one starts digging, one immediately finds that, like the Sanskrit consonantal cluster ram-rama-rāma-ramā etc., the root of “dad/dod/dud” is more complex, and has undeniably romantic connotations.
There 2 distinctive subsets of meanings – one pertaining to the father & paternal uncle – the other to affection & love in general.
We have:
Akkadian: dādu OldAkk. “love-making; darling, favourite”
Ugaritic: dd “amado, amor”
Hebrew:
« dōd “beloved, lover; father’s brother”
« dōd “friend, lover, beloved; uncle, father’s brother”
Aramaic: dd “paternal uncle”
Judaic Aramaic: dōdā “friend, lover, beloved; uncle, father’s brother”
Syrian Aramaic: dād- “uncle; beloved”
Mandaic Aramaic: dada “father’s brother”
Arabic: dād- “foster father”
Geʕez (Ethiopian): dud “uncle”
Harari: däd “love, affection, friendship”
East Ethiopic: däd “friendship, love”
How can all these words NOT be related to the English “dad” & “daddy” – which specifically mean “father”?
We also have:
« Middle English dadd
« Welsh tad
« Breton tad
« Old Irish data {“sire, father, foster-father, guardian, godfather”}
« Low German detta {“grandfather”}
« Telugu tāta {“grandfather”}
« German tate
« Icelandic táte
« Malayam tātan
« Tamil tāttai
« Kannada tāta {“father; grandfather”}
« Old Greek tḗthē, tḗthā {“grandmother”}
and most importantly, to our purposes:
« Sanskrit tata, tāta
There is a slight variation when the consonantal cluster tt/dd moves from the “Indo-European” realm to the “Semitic” realm, and the meaning shifts from the fundamental “father” to “father’s brother” or “uncle”.
That’s all.
There is no other difference.
Such variations are innumerable.
« In Sanskrit, “nanā” means “mother” {an affectionate form of addressing one’s mother}.
« In Iranian, “nena” means “mother”.
But,
« in Hindi, “nānā” means “maternal grandfather”.
And,
« “nāni” means “maternal grandmother”.
But
« in Oriya, “nāni” means “elder sister”, and
« “nanā” – pronounced “nonā” is used for addressing the elder brother {same as the Bengali dādā}, not the maternal grandfather.
Similarly, in Greek,
« “nennos” is “maternal uncle” or “maternal grandfather”.
I’ve seen Britishers addressing their grandmother as “nonā”.
The word “nanny” belongs to the same cluster of words.
The Greek “nanna” means “aunt”.
The Telugu “nānna” means “father”.
But “nana” is nothing but a repetition of the root “an” or “na”, and we find that
v in Tamil, aṇṇā means “elder brother” {akin to the Oriya nānā/nonā} –
v in Kannada aṇṇa, aṇa mean “elder brother; respectful address to an older male, affectionate mode of addressing boys” {the same mode of addressing elderly men & young boys is found in the Sanskrit “tāta”},
and
v in Tulu, aṇṇe means “elder brother, maternal uncle, an elderly man”.
The same words can be found across the world, transcending genders too.
In Old High German, ano means “grandfather, ancestor”,
in Latin, anus means “old woman”,
in Korean, anai means “elder sister”,
in Telugu, anna means “elder brother”.
A related example – in Telugu “appa” means “father” as well as “elder sister” {and according to some sources, “mother” too}.
This is directly related to the Hebrew “abba”, btw.
Age is no barrier either.
Thus, Gerald Massey writes in The Natural Genesis:
“Language had but one name then for the beast of both sexes.
So nin in the Assyrian, denotes both the lord & the lady, because nin, or ninu, was the name of the child, the English ninny, & the child was named bfor the two sexes were discriminated by different terminals.
Nin, for the child, was not a sex-denoting word, and the child so named might be of either; and, so far as the type goes, of both.
The Egyptian type of divinity is the nunter, or nuter, our neuter.
The nun is the ninny, the impubescent boy, or young one, the khart of either sex, as is the child or the colt.
This type-name is found in English, Greek, Italian, Javanese, Fijian, North American Indian, and other languages, and it is inner African for the young one, as:—
nina in Mende. | nina in Gbandi. | a nene in Soso. |
nenj in Kiriman. | nunina in Toma. | a nene in Kisekise.” |
He is correct, in establishing the relations.
This consonantal-cluster – as always, as obvious – takes a slight variation in “Indo-European” languages.
Thus, in Latin, “nannus” means “dwarf” – clearly related to the concept of “child” or “boy” – as in small, short, etc.
In Greek too, “nânos” means “dwarf”.
This becomes:
« nain in French
« anano in Galician
« nanu in Sicillian
« anao in Portugese
« enano in Spanish.
Also note:
« Catalan “nina” – “doll, girl, female child”,
« Dalmatian “nina” – “mother”.
Listing African words for the younger brother, he gives the following examples:
nan in Koama. | nyan in Vula. | ninda in Biafada. |
nana in Bagbalan. | nmta in Dselana. | ninda in Landoma. |
neneye in Pangela. | nyene in Kiamba. | nande in Nyanban. |
nuane in Isiele. |
|
|
Also, the African words ninda, nande etc. are connected to the Sanskrit
« “nandin/nandī” – i.e. “a son” &
« “nandinī” – “a daughter” & “a husband’s sister”, and
« “nandanā” – “a daughter”.
Coming back to David-Daud-Dawood-Dud-Dad etc, the related “Semitic” words are found with slender variations in meaning in the “Indo-European” languages too.
Thus, in U.P. and Bengal, an elder brother, as well as a powerful man, a man with clout who is to be feared & respected, is known as “dādā”.
But in Hindi {in U.P. itself}, “dādā” also means “paternal grandfather”, while “dādi”means “paternal grandmother”.
All over India, but especially in the Non-Dravidian belt, “didi” means “elder sister”.
This “didi” is just another variant of “dādā”as well as
§ the English “daddy”, as well as
§ the Berber “dad” {“father, father’s brother, uncle”} or
§ the Bengali “dādu” {“grandfather”}.
The same consonantal-cluster, with minor variations in voweling, has the same cluster of meanings, across the world.
The consonantal-clusters pertaining to relations are particularly illuminating, and reducible to a 5-6.
{“papa”, “appa”, “abba”, “ap”, “av”, “avi”, “ava”, “baba”, “babi”, “bubba”, “bubbe”, etc. – are all variations of the same consonantal cluster, pp – but rooted in
§ ap or pa,
§ ab or ba,
§ av or va.
In my assessment, “papa”, “puppy”, “pupa”, “baby” & “booby” are all related.
booby is related to baba & papa, as titty is related to dada & daddy.
There are no gender limitations.
“Māmā” which means “mother” in English, means “Mother’s Brother”, in most Indian languages.
The words can pertain to parent, child, relation, but usually very close relations.
Another consonantal-cluster we’ve seen, is “nn” – yet another is “kk” – yet another “dd”.
The “dada”-“tata” variety of words are also repetitions of the original “ad/da” or “at/ta”
In Greek, theios is “uncle” and theiā is “aunt”, and this is cognate with:
Kannada “tāy, tāyi, tāye” – “mother”
Tamil “tāy” – “mother”
Tulu & Telugu “tāyi” – “mother”
Malayalam “tāyi, tāy” – “mother”
Arabic “dāya” – “midwife, wet-nurse”
Middle Persian “dāyak” – “wet-nurse”
Tamil “tāycci” – “wet-nurse; pregnant woman”
Northern Kurdish “dayik” – “mother”
Malayalam “tācci” – “foster-mother; one’s mother’s mother”.
Related are:
German “tante” – “aunt; woman”
Middle French “tante” – “aunt” {in French, a variant is “tata”}
Tamil “tantai” – “father”
Malayalam “tanta” – “father”
Kannada “tanda” – “father”.}
In Hebrew, “dod” means
« “a person’s beloved” and
« “a person’s uncle: a parent’s sibling, or an aunt’s husband”.
“David” means “Beloved”.
It also is used as an honorable title.
And so, lo & behold, we read in Monsieur Monier-Williams’ Dictionary that the Sanskrit word “tāta” which, like “tata”, also means “father” – is “a term of affection addressed to a junior or senior...addressed to several persons”.
In the Berber-Ghadames language, “dedda” means “my father”.
In Proto-West Chadic languages, the root “did” is used for a “chief’s title”.
In Central Chadic languages, “dada” means “grandfather” {as in Hindi}, “uncle”, “father” and “in-law”.
In other words, the Hebrew “David”, as in “dod”, “dad” or “daud” is related to the Sanskrit
§ “tata” {“तत” – it is also used an affectionate form of addressing the son}
§ “tāta” {which means “venerable, reverend, respectable” – perhaps this is where we get the word “dādā” from – and, as the Shabda-Sagar Sansk.-Eng. Dict. says “A term of affection addressed to any person, but especially to a junior or inferior, as he tāta oh! child”}
These linguistic relations can be examined further.
The Hebrew word “Sabbath” or “Shabbat” seems to be related to the Sanskrit “sapta” {or strictly speaking, “saptan”} i.e. Seven, being the 7th day.
While it may be a case of overkill to say that “Shabbat” is directly derived from “sapta” or simply a variation of “sapta”, they are UNQUESTIONABLY related.
It is just as related to the Latim septem.
In Ancient Greek, this is hepta.
But hepta is neither Greek, nor “Indo-European”, specifically.
It is also found in Egypt: in Egyptian, “hept” or “hepti” means “seven”.
The word “sapta”, itself comes from
§ the Sk. “sap” which has the meaning of “to serve, honour, worship, do homage”
– which is also related to
§ the Sk. “sev”, which means “to serve, wait or attend upon, honour, obey, worship”.
{Hence the words “sevaka” {the one who serves, the devotee, the worshipper} & “sevā” {service, paying homage, honouring someone}.}
Sabbath is the Seventh Day that is dedicated entirely to worship, prayer, contemplation, and the honor of God.
“Seven” is Sk. “sevana” – “waiting upon, attendance, service; honouring, reverence, worship, adoration”.
The 7th day dedicated to worship of God might have been prevalent in the Ancient World.
There might also be a lost link to the Vedic “sava” or “savana” – the pressing out of the Soma juice.
Can Aaron and Moses be linked to Aruṇa {the Dawn &} the Sun, and Māsa the Moon?
Is “Egypt” simply “Gupta”, and “Aithopya” simply “Tapya”?
Is the Semitic name for Egypt “Misr” the same as the Sanskrit “Mishra”??
Is the Egyptian “Pharaoh”, said to come from the Egyptian “pr” – “house, household, temple, palace” – the same as
v the Sanskrit “pur” – “a rampart, wall, stronghold, fortress, castle, city, town”
v the Sanskrit “pura” – “a house, abode, residence, receptacle”?
Why do people feel so embarrassed & hesitant to state the obvious?
“Ethiopia” or “Aithopiya” has been traced to the root “aith” {thence to the Sanskrit iddha}, but it’s also possible that the “a” or “ai” is actually an irrelevant vowel-addition.
The fact that Ethiopians are known for the blackness of their skin, for being “scorched”, is actually traceable to the Sanskrit “tap”, to burn, to be burnt, to heat, to flame.
The Hebrew word “Tophet”, similarly, seems akin to the Sanskrit “tapta” or “tapita”:
“1. Heated, Inflamed, burnt.
2. Scorched by pain or sorrow, distressed, afflicted.
3. Inflamed with anger, incensed
4. Undergone or performed as penance.
5. Fused, melted.”
This was the place where children used to be burnt in sacrifice – symbolically or literally.
“And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind.
Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall bury in Topheth, for lack of room.”
{Jeremiah 7.31-33}
The above definitions are of the word tapta from the Shabda-Sāgar Sanskrit-English Dictionary
Egypt has been called “Khem” – either from a god called “Khem” {as we’ll see, probably related to Kāma} – or from the Egyptian “kam”, meaning “black”.
This latter notion doesn’t make much sense to me.
It is possible, not probable.
The Egyptian “khem” might just be derived from the Sanskrit “kṣema” {pronounced “kshem”}–
· “giving rest or ease or security
· basis, foundation
· safety, tranquillity, peace, rest,
· security, any secure or easy or comfortable state, weal, happiness
· Ease or Prosperity”
or possibly from the Sanskrit “kṣama” {pronounced “ksham”} – the Earth, the ground, the soil.
The darkness or blackness of the Egyptian “kham” might come from the same Sk. kshama, which also means Night.
kshama & kshema are undoubtedly related words.
Strangely enough, Monier-Williams seems to forget that kṣema means home, habitation, dwelling etc. – which seems to be the best contender for the original root of the Egyptian “khem” {not considering the god Khem}.
It is precisely this word, kṣema, which leads to the English word home.
There is a whole tiny universe of words which emerge from this Sanskrit kṣema, and mean “house, home, shrine, enclosure, village, etc”.
Gerald Massey, helpful & wrong as always, wants to trace these words to the Egyptian Skhem, but skhem is simply another way of writing kshem – they’re literally the same word – and there’s no reason to deny the Indian origin of Skhem.
“The Skhem (Eg.) is the shut place and secret shrine of the child Horus.
This form is extant in
« the African Gura, Saguma; and
« Icelandic Skemma, for the house, the abode.
One type of the genitrix, and therefore of the Khem or Skhema, is the leopard cat (Pasht), and in Arabic a cheetah kept for hunting is the Shukm, whilst in the African Bambarra the Ziakuma is a kind of cat.
The
« Khem is the feminine shrine, a name of Hathor, the habitation
« Kima, Arabic, house, home;
« Kam, or Kim, in Dumi, the home;
« Chem, Tibetan, house;
« Khema, Swahili, a tent;
« Koma, Persian, straw hut.
« The Kam, in Nupe, Susu, Rasa, Doai, Ngodsin, and other African languages, is a farm;
« Gama, Singhalese, a village;
« the Chvmah ... in Hebrew, is the wall, or the walled inclosure...”
{Section 9, Volume 1, A Book of The Beginnings, by Gerald Massey}
Massey, obsessed as he is, with the primacy of the Mother Goddess – with the exuberance of a Templar crusader – tries to connect the male Khem with these words, and make it look like the male {father-phallus} came after the female {mother-womb}.
But in Sanskrit, the two are perfectly distinct words, which occur simultaneously.
There’s no reason to think that kāma – with its distinctively masculine connotations – came after kṣema, or strictly speaking, that the words are related.
All the words he lists can be said to come from kṣema / kṣama / kṣmā or others.
Kāma is an entirely distinct word.
They might have a wholly independent genesis too.
I can stretch out the thread of that discussion over pages, but maybe for a later time.
All these articles of information serve as pointers & food for thought.
Any interested reader can take it further from there.
As it turns out, the Egyptian “khem” or “kham” appears to be the origin of the notorious Biblical Ham – one of the three sons of Noah.
This has been interpreted as “hot”.
It doesn’t seem to be related to the Egyptian word for black earth/soil, though there maybe a connection through the blackness of being scorched or burnt.
“Ham” or “kham” probably meant “burning”, rather than “burnt” – and could be related to the Indian Kāma – who’s identified with Agni, and who’s also the Sun.
{Even Shiva {or Para-Shiva} is called Kāma.}
There may be many deeper esoteric connections to the symbolic tale of the imprecated Ham & his son Cush – and their descendants the Cushites.
Though Ham is allegedly the progenitor of all the black-skinned races – there’s no absolute necessity to accept the idea of his being literally dark-skinned.
“Burnt” might also mean “destroyed by fire” – as in by a conflagration.
{In Indian mythology, the love-god Kāma is actually burnt by Shiva.}
The Blacks were never particularly subjugated by the Caucasians or Semites in the Ancient World – so to trace the cursing of Ham’s son Canaan to some sort of eternal submission of Blacks to Non-Blacks is unconvincing, to say the least.
It is doubtful if the name “Ham” comes from black/black soil, or has anything to do with being burnt.
The fact is that Kāma is Cupid, or the God of Love, Lust, & Sex.
This is a complicated topic, because there are many dimensions to Kāma-Eros-Cupid.
In parts of the pagan world, Cupid was a homosexual god.
Cupid-Eros may be called the quintessential homosexual god, whose other important manifestation was Dionysus or Bacchus.
The merry Indian Kāma may not have been such, but the ancient god of love was.
The whole “Abrahamic” cult arose against this Cupid-Eros-Dionysus-Bacchus with his orgiastic, riotous “gay”, cross-dressing, castrated, & feminine votaries.
Per se, all Greek male gods were bisexual, but there are particularly strong homosexual undertones to not only Eros, Pan, Priapus, Dionysus, and Cronos – but also gods from other cultures.
All this information has been systematically suppressed, for the past 1,500 years.
The ancient, mystery-cult homosexuality of Cupid-Eros-Kāma seems to be reflected in the sodomization of Noah by his own son Ham/Kham.
The same event, interpreted as the castration of Noah might encrypt the castration-rites of the cult of the Prostitute Mother-Goddess and the Homosexual Son-God.
Augustine is particularly vehement in his denunciation of this cult.
My point is that Ham is Kāma, i.e. Cupid or Eros.
The problem we encounter here is that there seems to be no overt connection of the Sanskrit word “kāma” with burning or being hot.
But we shouldn’t forget that Kāma is equated with Agni.
In the Ancient World, the Sun was the first & foremost of all phallic, generative, reproductive forces or powers of nature.
The God of Fire & the Sun is the Procreative, Generative God.
The Sun itself is the Divine Phallus which may be said to impregnate the Womb-Earth with its rays.
The Sun itself is the Prolific Progenitor of all beings.
No Life is possible without the Sun.
The creation of the mortal world begins with the Sun – but in abstract, philosophical terms – creation begins with the Desire to create, and this Desire or Will arises in the Divine Mind.
This Desire-Will-Mind is nothing but Kāma, and is embodied in the metaphysical Sun which initiates the unfolding of the mortal world.
Thus, the Sun may be called Kāma, the God of Creation as well as Procreation.
We see that even in the Atharva Veda, the imagery surrounding Kāma often involves a lot of fire & burning pain.
“3 The shaft of Kāma, pointed well, that withers and consumes the spleen,
With hasty feathers, all aglow, therewith I pierce thee to the heart.
4 Pierced through with fiercely-burning heat, steal to me with thy parching lips,
Gentle and humble, all mine own, devoted, with sweet words of love.”
So reads a “charm” to win a maiden’s love, from the Atharva Veda {Hymn 25, Book 3, Ralph T.H. Griffith translation}.
The 26th Hymn from the 6th Book of the same Veda has been translated as follows:-
“Holy Vaiśvānara we seek, the Lord of light {jyotis} and endless life {ṛta},
The burning One {gharma} who fadeth not {ajasra}.
He hath directed all things;
He sends forth the Seasons in his might, furthering sacrifice’s power.
Agni Kāma in other homes shines forth
The sole imperial Lord of all that is & is to be.”
Inaccurate translation, to say the least.
Jyoti means Jñāna — knowledge of Unity; Ṛta means Truth.
It is not easy to see the material fire or the actual Sun in the sky as the “burning one who fadeth not” – because both fade – one in a matter of minutes or hours, and the other, everyday.
Philosophically speaking, Agni Vaiśvānara is NEITHER the fire that burns on the Earth NOR the Sun in the sky – but from one point of view, Agni Vaiśvānara does refer to the Sun.
In other words,
Agni Vaiśvānara = the Sun = Kāma
{It should never be forgotten that Agni Vaiśvānara has been interpreted in many ways in Vedic literature: as the digestive fire in Man, as lightning, and even as the Earth {i.e. Pṛthivī}, etc.
Evidently, none of these interpretations fit Griffith’s translation.}
The hymn can also be interpreted as addressed to Paramātmā or Parameśvara, in which case we see that Kāma does not mean just the rather silly “God of Love”.
Here, Kāma is an epithet of the Creative, Directing, Guiding Force in the universe – “sole imperial Lord of all that is & is to be” – equated with Agni-Vaiśvānara, i.e., symbolized by Agni.
The Atharva Veda {Hymn 2, Book 9} also says:
“Kāma hath slain those who were mine opponents, and
given me ample room to grow and prosper.
Let the four regions bow them down before me,
and let the six expanses bring me fatness {ghṛta}.
...
As Gods repelled the Asuras, and Indra down to the
lowest darkness drove the demons {dasyu – this hardly means “demon”},
So, Kāma, from this world to distant places, drive
thou the men who are mine adversaries.”
This is no mere “god of love” or sexual desire or copulation – let alone a mischievous, chubby, naked, golden-haired cherub flitting about like a flibbertigibbet butterfly with bow, sticking arrows into clueless lads & hapless maidens.
Again, the translation isn’t a very precise one, but it’ll do, for now.
What we see is that Kāma may be associated with fire, and even war {even if the real meaning is purely spiritual, or psychological, or internal}.
Given the connection between “Kāma” & “Ham”, this may lead to “Ham” being identified with the Sun and/or Fire.
In other words, Ham is the Sun, the one who burns.
The very next passages of the Atharva Veda hymn – beautiful & exalted as they are – are the most illuminating, where Kāma is again endowed with the attributes of the Creative Godhead, though NOT the Ultimate, Supreme Being, since we see that he “sprang up first”:
“19
First before all sprang Kāma into being.
{This makes Kāma the equivalent of Hiraṇyagarbha-Prajāpati, and all the so-called battle with “demons” symbolic}
Gods, Fathers, mortal men have never matched him.
Stronger than those art thou and great for ever.
Kāma to thee, to thee I offer worship.
20
Wide as the space which heaven and earth encompass,
far as the flow of waters, far as Agni,
Stronger than these art thou, and great for ever.
Kāma, to thee to thee I offer worship.
21
Vast as the quarters of the sky & regions that lie between them spread in all directions,
vast as celestial tracts and views of heaven,
Stronger than these art thou, and great for ever.
Kāma, to thee, to thee I offer worship.”
What we need to comprehend is that Kāma, as a word & an epithet, is not restricted to the mere god of love, and not exactly restricted to India.
It must have been a very important word not only in the Vedic times, but in the Pre-Vedic times, and not only in India, but across the world.
Even Viṣṇu is called
· Kāma {Name No. 297}
· Kāma-deva {Name No. 651},
and
· Kāmī {Name No. 653}
in the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma.
On the other hand, the word Kāma also very specifically points to the God of Love, Desire, and Sex – that is, to the God of the Libido, of the Generative & Productive Powers of Nature – and to the sexual god of the ancient mysteries.
The extent, to which this personage would be identified with the Sun, or Fire, is debatable.
The delightful, naughty, haughty, romantic Indian love-god is called “Anaṅga” – i.e. Bodiless, or Invisible – in India – and he’s present everywhere, in every human heart.
So a simplistic identification with the Sun or Fire is not convincing.
He is many things.
{The secret guarded so jealously by the patriarchs of the last 1,500 years is that Cupid-Eros was a homosexual god.
Saturn eating up his children also has a cryptic sexual significance – that of pederasty, or what is called “pedophilia” today.
There are distinct connotations of child sacrifice – and the fact that the “sacrifice” of children might just mean their becoming prostitutes of their cults.
They were “offered” to the gods, to become prostitutes in the carnal mysteries.
This is not to say the mystery-cult-god may not have a consort or lover of the opposite sex.
But that is exoteric.
These statements are not meant to be homophobic: I am absolutely fine with gays being gay.
But these are facts, albeit not commonly known ones.}
In that sense, he is always associating with fire, with burning, with scorching, with inflaming & heating – in the sexual, libidinous sense.
Kāma-Cupid-Eros might well have been the universal god of “fertility”, of procreative energy, of sexual reproduction, & of the phallus {the Sanskrit word kāma also means “semen virile”} – but he was also the god of profane “love”, riotous orgies, & prostitution.
He has been re-interpreted as the Priapic god Min, in contemporary Egyptology.
Khem or Kāma is Min.
And my point is reinforced by the sexual, ithyphallic nature of Min.
He might have been originally a very important god – or “Min” might be a reduced, later form of the more ancient Khem, who gave his name to Egypt {somewhat like the double nature of the names given to Indian gods – each name can be interpreted as a name of the Supreme Being, and yet also refers to a lesser divinity}.
He was everything that “Abrahamic” creeds ever rose up against.
He was the Son of the Great Goddess Aphrodite-Venus-Cybele-Rhea-Is
This is how his name survives in the Egyptian word for Egypt, i.e. Khem/Kham/Khemi and the Biblical Ham, and ALL THE CONNOTATIONS BEHIND THE ANCIENT SEXUAL-MYSTERY-CULT FIGURE HAVE BEEN PRESERVED IN THE NAME & FIGURE OF HAM.
He might have been associated with the color Black – as in being black-skinned himself, as are Osiris, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna etc. – but this is not the primary signification.
The skin color in ancient myths & legends is almost never to be taken literally or primary.
It is a possible indicator of the skin-color of the race which worshipped or honored the figure, but that’s about it.
Osiris is Black-Blue-Green, like Viṣṇu – but his son Horus isn’t.
That Osiris is dark-skinned doesn’t mean that Egyptians were dark-skinned.
That Horus is fair doesn’t mean that they were fair.
This method of trying to connect complex philosophical myths & symbols with mundane facts like racial characteristics is wrong.
So Kāma-Khem-Ham might have been black, but the primary connotation of his name is that of the orgiastic ancient sexual mystery cult – which involved incest, pedophilia, & bestiality – and of Fire & Burning.
He survived as “Min”, which seems to be just be another name of Khem.
“Min” is read as “Mnw” which seems to be nothing but the Sanskrit “Manu”.
Indeed, Wallis Budge does render Min as Menu.
This Manu-Mnw is the Progenitor of Mankind, which is proven by the “fertility”, ithyphallic symbolism of Min.
The same Manu-Menu-Mnw-Min becomes
« Menes, the “first” Pharaoh of Egypt – and
« Minos, the great king of Crete – and
« Mannus, the progenitor of three Germanic tribes {somewhat like Noah – the Indian Manu is also saved from a universal deluge like Noah}.
They are all nothing but versions of Kāma-Khem.
The African, Germanic, and Indian, are all the same.
Kāma is Mana or Manas {the Mind} too – and the word Manu has the same root, the Sanskrit word “man”.
The Mind-Principle has an immortal & a mortal aspect – the mortal element, primarily characterized by Desire, embroiling the soul in rage, lust & suffering in material realms – and the immoral element releasing it into the higher spiritual realms of bliss & peace.
Both are embodied in the Sun, Sūrya or Āditya {when Manas implicitly includes Buddhi}.
In those specific contexts, Sūrya is Manas.
{Otherwise, Manas is associated with the Moon, Chandramā.}
Apart from this, the Manas tattva is very significant in Indian metaphysics, and precedes all visible celestial beings.
This Sūrya-Manas tattva embodying Desire & Will, is what leads to the unfolding of our world, as already indicated in a previous passage.
This is Kāma.
The world can’t come into existence without the desire to create it – this desire is represented by the term Kāma.
{The root “man” also leads to the words “manus”, “manuṣa” or “manuṣya” – i.e. human being – though this view can actually be disputed, or at any rate, complicated.}
The Sanskrit “Manas” itself is likely to have become “Mannus”, “Minos”, “Menes” – and “Min”.
In my opinion, “Cupid” is also nothing but the Sanskrit “kupita” {or a variant of it} — which doesn’t mean “angry, agitated, incensed” as much as it means “inflamed” – “heated up” – “fiery” – “flaming” – “set on fire” – or “fired up”.
All this also includes the meaning “hot” {“Ham” is said to mean “hot”} – and that which becomes hot or bursts into flames – or shoots up like a tongue of fire – itself irradiates heat & burns up others.
In Egyptian, khem, khemm mean to be hot, to burn.
With the terminal “t”, khem-t means “fire, heat”.
There’s also this linguistic connection between “p” and “m”.
Khem should be the equivalent of Khep.
“Cupid” i.e. “Kupita” should be traced to the Sanskrit “kopa” & “kup”.
{These are also the most convincing roots of the word “Cyprus” or “Kupros” – the island associated with Cupid’s Mother, the licentious Venus.
This is how “copper” gets its name, for its reddishness – the reddishness of fire, of sexual passion, of desire, of love.}
Cupid-Kupita is that which bursts into flames, that heaves & swells & agitates {in heat, or by boiling, i.e. by the excitement of sexual desire or lust}, which shines forth, which reddens & heats up.
The Roman Cupid known to us, and the Indian Kāma of the Pauraṇika corpus, are considerably sanitized, civilized, cheerfully poetic versions of much more rambunctious & fescennine originals.
Eros is a more difficult word to break down, and probably boils down to the Sanskrit aruṣa.
This also is traceable to roots which denote anger, like kup or kopa that lead to Kupita-Cupid.
If Cupid = Sk. kupita = angry, then Sk. roṣa is also = angry, thus
Gk. Eros = Sk. roṣa.
The real meaning, however, is NOT anger, but roseate love, red passion, smoking lust, boiling sexual fervour, bubbling desire, and the blazing fire which symbolizes it/them.
These words, btw, have a necessary meaning of shining, being effulgent, radiant.
It’s not all dark sexual, biological stuff.
The connotation of the color red, which is how aruṣa is often translated, might’ve led to the word “rose” – the flower of love & beauty.
This also relates to Fire & the Sun.
Point is,
Eros = Cupid = Kāma-Manas-Manu = Khem-Min = Minos/Menes/Mannus
So it’s much more logical to think that Egypt derived its name from the deity Kāma-Khem, rather than from the color Black of the Nile’s fertile soil.
Without being impossible – I’d say that such banal ideas can only be bruited about by the most vapid intellectuals.
This Khem is nothing but the “fertility” god or “god of generation” or god of the “reproductive powers of nature” — Min = Menu.
This Min-Menu is actually the same as Amen/Amun, or Amon-Ra.
It all fits, and makes sense, that the name of Egypt was Khem or Kem-t.
Thus we see a few words which may be the origin of the actual Egyptian word for Egypt:-
1. Sk. kṣema = this abrades to khema
2. Sk. kṣama = this abrades to khama
3. Sk. kāma
4. Last but not the least, there’s a possibility that the Sanskrit word śyāma may have become “khem” or “kham”.
S-Sh tend to interchange with K-Kh or with H.
That is how the Indian Sarasvatī becomes the Persian Haraivati.
The Indian Soma becomes the Persian Haoma.
The Indian Asura becomes the Persian Ahura.
The Indian Ahi becomes the Persian Azhi.
The Indian śūnya becomes the Greek kenós or keneós {blank, void}.
The Indian śvan becomes the Greek kyon {dog}.
The Indian śāmulya {a woollen shirt, probably śamala} is cognate with the Latin camisia {a shirt or nightgown}, and today, the English camisole.
The Indian khaja {stirring, agitating, churning} becomes Old Norse skaka {swing, shake}.
If a similar transition between “s-sh” & “k-kh” has taken place, shyāma, which means black, may become khyama, or khama.
Shyāma is a very common name for Kṛṣṇa, and its feminine version, Shyāmā, is a name of Durgā, the Great Mother Goddess.
I don’t want to press on with the idea that the word “Egypt” i.e. “Ai-Gupt” comes from the Sanskrit “gupta” – but they are evidently & UNQUESTIONABLY related.
Of that, I am sure, and pages can be written.
“Shem” is a word which, like “El”, could have come from anywhere.
Point is, there are way too many words which are similar sounding, and it would be a waste of time, to point fingers here & there at all sorts of possible connections.
It might be derived from the Middle-Eastern Shamash, for the Sun – like the Biblical name Samson.
But this too can have Sanskrit roots.
“Japheth” is a complicated term, and nobody seems to have written much, or confidently, about it.
It is evidently identical to the Greek Iapetus, the father of the notorious Prometheus.
I wonder if Iapet is a reduced form of the Sk. Prajāpati.
Prometheus himself seems to be the Sanskrit Pramati or Pramatha, rather than Pramantha.
Greeks, who seem to know very little about their own culture, might have just turned Prajāpati – which is correctly Prajā + pati – into Jāpati – thence Iapet – which becomes “Japheth” in the Bible.
This is a somewhat tentative surmise, rather than a theory.
Or “Japheth” might be
Ia + Pheth i.e.
Ia + Ptah, i.e.
the Egyptian God Ptah.
{This “Ia” may be one of the most important words in the Ancient World – which is cognate with “Iah”, “Iao”, “Iu”, “Yah”, “Jah”, and “Yahu”, etc.
Sometimes I have a suspicion that “Jupiter” does not come from “Dyaus Pitar”, but is Iu + Pitar, probably “Father Iu”.
The Roman “Jove” was originally written as “Iove”.
Now “Jahweh” is also written as “Ieue”.
This makes the Roman Jove & the Biblical Jehova identical {since “u” is written as “v” in Latin}.
As I’ve said in previous posts, Hebrews have inserted an “h” in many names – and all that were added in the middle of the name, are to be removed, to get at the original word.
Thus,
§ Abraham is Abram.
§ Jehoshua is Joshua {= Yeshu = Jesu = Jesus = Iesus}.
§ Yahudi is basically something like Yadi or Yadu.
§ Jehova is Jeva or Jove or Iove.
§ Yahweh is Yava or Iava or Ieue.
This is a very obscure, complicated subject, since we’re dealing with very vague words & abstractions, which were probably misunderstood even 2,000 years ago.
Yahva & Yahu are proper terms in Sanskrit, going back to the Vedic times.
They are identical in Hebrew literature – and they are identical in Sanskrit literature too.
According to Sāyaṇa, both Yahva & Yahu refer to the tattva known as Mahat in India Philosophy.
In that case, they’re probably independent of “Ia”, “Iu”, “Iao” etc.
Also, the words seem to have been lifted verbatim from India, because Mahat is the principle agent of Creation, in the Epics & Purāṇas.
Mahat is described in pretty much the same terms as Hiraṇyagarbha, and is called Brahmā & Īśvara.
Mahat is not the Supreme Being, and this might have some relation to the criticism of the Biblical Jehovah as being the Demiurge, and not the Supreme Being, by the Gnostics.}
Last but not the least, let’s take the name “Noah”.
Again, it’s a rather vague name, which can be rendered many ways, and may have any number of roots.
But isn’t “noah” OBVIOUSLY connected to the Sanskrit “nu” & “nau”, for “ship, boat, vessel, ark”?
If read as “Nuach” – isn’t it glaringly the same as the Sanskrit “nauka” or “naukā” – also meaning ship, boat, etc.??
Till today, in Hindi, the boat is called “nao”.
This is nothing but “noa”.
The word used nowadays in Hindi for ships, “jahāz”, is Middle-Eastern, not Indian.
The correct word is “nao”.
The Sanskrit has been preserved in many “Indo-European” languages, in which the ship/boat or some form thereof is meant:
« Greek naus, naos
« Old Catalan nau
« Portuguese nau
« Old Irish nau
The whole point of Noah’s story is that of the Flood & the Ark – and he represents, not so much the Flood {for that is also the case}, as the Ark itself.
He represents the survival of life – the continuity of life – in a sense, he’s the progenitor & father of the human race, i.e. of a re-birth & re-beginning of the human race.
He is the “womb” & the vessel in which the seeds of the energies of life were preserved, and again set forth in a fresh creation.
It is so simple, so evident, that his name has been taken VERBATIM from Sanskrit, since he built the “Ark” {i.e. the nu-nau Ship-Boat} – saved the last relics of mankind in it – that it’s astonishing that intellectuals have been splitting hair over the etymologies of these words for so long.
There is obviously the relation between Manu & Noah, but I’m not sure of their etymological connection.
There is nothing original about the story of Noah.
He is one of the many Flood-heroes of the world.
But etymologically, I can’t see how people can miss the connection between Noah, and a ton of Sanskrit words, beginning with Nu-Nau-Nauka.
There is much more to be written in connection with this name, because of the multiplicity of connotations, but this should suffice for now.
More, later!
Note added, 22nd November, 2022:
The word Rāma is also used frequently for Paraśurāma & Balarāma.
In an earlier post, I wrote that Balarāma is the 9th incarnation of Viṣṇu.
Strictly speaking, that’s not accurate.
Broadly speaking, it is.
I was thinking of Nārāyaṇa as the 8th – Nārāyaṇa, who somehow Indians tend to forget.
Nārāyaṇa as in of Nara & Nārāyaṇa fame – who are nothing but Indra & Viṣṇu – Arjuna & Kṛṣṇa.
The whole Mahābhārata is dedicated to Nara & Nārāyaṇa.
But there aren’t 10 incarnations of Viṣṇu – the concept of the “Daśavatāra” seems to be comparatively recent & a popular simplification – and Balarāma may or may not be the 9th, depending on who all are enumerated as incarnations.
Strictly speaking, Balarāma is an incarnation of Ananta-Shesha.
But Ananta-Shesha himself is a form or aspect of Viṣṇu, and many passages from our texts demonstrate that Balarāma can be called an incarnation of Viṣṇu.
Thus, in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Kṛṣṇa tells Balarāma, in the inept translation of H.H. Wilson {5.9.23-27}:
“Why this subtle pretext of merely mortal nature?
thou who art the soul of all {sarvātman} the most subtile of subtile things.
{The word is “guha” – what’s being said is you are the most mysterious or secret, of all mysterious or secret things}
Remember yourself,
« the radical cause of the whole world {jagat-kāraṇa; “radical”?};
« born before all cause {agraja-kāraṇa}, and
« all that is alone when the world is destroyed.
Dost thou not know that
« you and I are alike the origin {kāraṇa – cause} of the world,
who have come down to lighten its load?
...
The heavens {nabhas} are thy head;
the waters {ambu} are thy body;
earth {kṣiti} is thy feet;
thy mouth is eternal fire {vahni};
the moon {soma} is thy mind;
the wind {samīra} thy breath;
thy arms and hands are the four regions of space.
{This almost makes Balarāma identical to Puruṣa}
...
Thou hast, O mighty lord, a thousand heads, a thousand hands and feet and bodies; a thousand Brahmās {sahasra-Padmodbhava} spring from thee,
who art before all, and
whom the sages praise in myriads of forms.”
...
How can one be jagat-kāraṇa and sarvātman, without being an incarnation of the Supreme Being?
Both Kṛṣṇa & Balarāma are aṁśas or “portions” or fragments of Viṣṇu.
Thus, the Mahābhārata says {1.67.151, Kisari Mohan Ganguli translation}:
“And he, called Vāsudeva, endued with great valour (“pratāpavān”), was among men a portion (aṁśa) of him called Nārāyaṇa —the god of gods (devadeva) – eternal (sanātana).”
It does say {1.67.152}:
“And Valadeva of exceeding strength (“mahābalaḥ”) was a portion of the Nāga, Śesha.
And, O monarch, know that Pradyumna of great energy (mahaujas) was Sanatkumāra.”
But the Bhāgavata Purāṇa also says {10.33.26}:
“Śrī Parīkṣit said: ‘...Bhagavān, the Lord of the universe {jagad-īśvaraḥ}, has descended on this earth along with His portion {aṁśa} to destroy irreligion and re-establish Dharma.’”
Here, the aṁśa refers to Balarāma.
And most importantly, referring to the vision of the two brothers by Akrūra {10.38.32}:
“The two original, Supreme Persons, the Cause and the Masters of the universe, had for the welfare of {the} world descended in Their distinct fragments{sva-amśa – in their own portions} of Bala and Keśava.”
The original says that they were Puruṣa & Pradhāna.
In other words, Kṛṣṇa is Puruṣa, and Balarāma is Pradhāna.
This seems to be the correct explanation of the mystery of their significance.
The Supreme Brahm is above & beyond Puruṣa & Pradhāna.
There are other such references which can be offered, which made me write that Balarāma is an incarnation of Viṣṇu.
The poet Jayadeva also mentions him in the list of incarnations, in the beginning of the Gīta Govinda – and in his list, Balarāma is the 8th incarnation – Kalki being the final & 9th.
The objective, however, is to demonstrate the importance & prevalence of the name or word Rāma, and its possible connection with Av-Ram or Abram, i.e. Abraham.
