Page last updated:
NOTE (November 4, 2020): This write-up was last updated in Apr 3, 2019 @ 3:33 pm and needs to be eventually updated and perhaps reworked in light of my developing understanding of Christianity and the Ukrainian language (which is different from Russian even though it is within the same Slavic language family). The general understanding is that “Christianization” ended “Paganism” – the nature based culture, religious beliefs and philosophical understandings that existed prior, but this view may not exactly be correct.
More research is needed to determine the actual realities of society and culture and the kind of changes that took place in the past with respect to language, beliefs, spiritual insights, ways of thinking, etc that were taking place with the introduction and adoption of Christianity. There is also a question of what the practice of Christianity actually was in the earlier period of its formation and expansion.
This page attempts to develop understanding of the cultural consciousness of Slavic people prior to Christianization.
English word Slavs in Russian is СЛАВЯНЕ
which comes from the word СЛАВА
meaning GLORY (or fame) which in turn is based on the word СЛОВО
meaning WORD. So Slavs literally means “people of the word” or those who dealt in language(s). A concept of “being famous” or “being glorified” ultimately comes out of a concept of “being spoken of.” English word “glory” may ultimately be derived from a concept of a “glowing lore.”
[Some word pronunciations were provided where a little “play” icon appears next to a word. You can also use Google translate or this website – https://forvo.com/languages/ru/ – to hear pronunciation of Russian words.]
English word “pagans,” which is a derogative (lessening, belittling) term invented by Christians, in translation to Russian is ЯЗЫЧНИКИ
which comes from the word ЯЗЫК
meaning language or tongue. So an obscure word “pagans” in English is a revealing word in Russian to mean “people dealing in language(s).”
It should be noted, that the notion of language in ancient times was much deeper than it is today which has become more “detached” based more on associations with abstract concepts rather than perceptions of actual realities – this is a result of book based education where humans, for years, are rendered to sit motionless and forced to memorize and regurgitate concepts out of books while being deprived of direct interaction with actual realities of existence.
Language in ancient times was a thoughtful way to construct, retain and communicate complete perceptions, to form a process of reasoning (logical connections), and provide the means of direct and meaningful interaction with the surrounding environment.
A Swedish artist demonstrates a form of “ancient linguistics” – using her voice to call a herd of cows.
Talking (or rather communicating) with animals and the natural world at large (including trees and other plants) is not just some “fairy tales” and was not just accomplished through verbal sounds but also through the language of feelings and telepathic communication. It was an integral part of the past nature based cultures.
Here is another video where a woman demonstrates telepathic communication with a panther:
Russian word for a “fairy tale” is СКАЗКА
which comes from the word СКАЗАТЬ
meaning “to tell” or a longer word СКАЗАНИЕ
which means “a telling.” It is unclear how the word “fairy” got attached to “a tale” in English which must have also been derived from the word “a telling.”
Of course, the extent of someone’s ability to connect with and understand the natural world would depend on that person’s level of interaction with and immersion into the natural world. In Russian there was a special word for a person who lived in the woods and was an expert on the natural world – ЗНАХАРЬ
– which is derived from the word ЗНАТЬ
meaning “to know.” This was basically a herbalist, a doctor, a guide through the woods, an adviser on the ways of nature… etc.
Understanding and interacting with the surrounding world (including animals) through the skilled use of language was a common characteristics among many, if not all, pre-Christian cultures.
In fact, Slavs worked together with Scandinavians to establish and expand control over parts of the modern day territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Kievan Rus’ which is believed to have been the first major epicenter of Slavic people was ruled by Rurik Dynasty founded by a Viking prince Rurik. Modern day Ukrainian Coat of Arms is nearly an identical trident that was also a seal (with some variations) for the various ruling descendants of Rurik Dynasty.
It would indeed be surprising not to find at least some common root words between Scandinavian and Slavic languages which are said to have developed from a single general group of Indo-European languages based on a theorized ancestor language: Proto-Indo-European. Interestingly enough, according to ancient.eu:
It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE.
— end of citation —
See Into The Origins of European Languages for an attempt at a more detailed exploration into the origins of European languages.
It is very safe to assume that Scandinavian and Slavic people back in time had basically interchangeable cultures and ways of looking at the world and probably shared some aspects of language. Slavic language itself was not as diversified as it is today (into Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian, and so on), and language vocabulary back in the day was quite limited in comparison to modern times. There was also no nations or clear national identities, no “citizenship” or visa requirements, no statewide forms of communication or standard education to establish and “solidify” a common culture and a group-identity within a given nation. It was people living in relatively autonomous tribal settlements that may or may not have been organized under some general ruler (depending on the settlements).
How did different groups of people identify themselves and others in terms of each other when there were no clear boundaries or set national identities? They probably looked at and compared physical appearances, “gods” embraced within a culture, ways of thinking and perceiving different realities in the world, traditions, overall feelings (intuition) they experienced toward the people they met, etc. There was probably not even a rigid differentiation along the lines of us-Scandinavians and them-Slavs especially when the term “Slavs” simply meant “people of glory” – a concept which could have very well applied to Vikings as well. Or did the modern designation of “Slavs” even exist back in those times? They probably thought of (identified) each other in terms of settlements and ways of living – the kind of environments a given group occupied and their predominant occupation (warriors, farmers, traders, etc.) – and thought of ways they could interact with each other either through war, trade, some form of cultural exchange or joint ventures.
It was a long way through the emergence of larger provinces, dynasties, monarchies, city-states and empires, and then onto nations with continuous language and culture diversification to result in “thicker” barriers in the perceived realities of each other among different groups of people to eventually have an ability for one group to agree with a notion of themselves as being a “master race” somehow inherently superior to others – as was the case with the misguided race ideology in Nazi Germany. One can only wonder what information the ruling Nazis relied upon in making such a wild claim when it should have been a common knowledge that different people moved around and criss-crossed each others paths with relatively interchangeable cultures before they were separated into more defined group-language-culture constructs.
In order to explain the common features shared by Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages, the Indo-Aryan migration theory states that the original speakers of what became Sanskrit arrived in the Indian subcontinent from the north-west some time during the early second millennium BCE. Evidence for such a theory includes the close relationship between the Indo-Iranian tongues and the Baltic and Slavic languages, vocabulary exchange with the non-Indo-European Uralic languages, and the nature of the attested Indo-European words for flora and fauna. [original citation: Masica, Colin (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–38. ISBN 0-521-23420-4]
So Sanskrit in which Vedas where authored belongs to the Indo-European language group which came out from a single theorized ancestor language: Proto-Indo-European. As was already stated above, according to ancient.eu:
It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE. — end of citation —
Of course, the formal theories surrounding language development and migration patterns could be questioned, but this is beyond the scope of this article which relies on already formulated conclusions by experts in the field.]
Vedas proceeded Christianity by more than a thousand years, and that was when something was written down in India. How long could have Vedic cultures been in existence and development before that? Were there texts other than Vedas that may have perished with time or deliberately destroyed or hidden from the public? Unlike with much of Europe and Russia, Christianity did not make it to India and Asia so these territories were spared from the campaigns of cultural destruction and suppression of knowledge perpetrated by (Roman) Christianity.
It should be noted that the concept of “vedic culture” on this page refers to a culture based on true awareness and understanding of the various aspects of existence and not to a culture based on the volumes of writings in Sanskrit collectively known as the Vedas.
The true knowingness comes from an ability to see the truth of something, and not necessarily from an ability to memorize and recite profound concepts and follow ritualistic instructions. The Vedas were brought up here as an object of historical record proving the existence of spiritual truths long time before Christianity, but whether Vedas themselves were meant to closely mirror and preserve “vedic insights” or to specifically create a religion that in actual fact departed from an authentic vedic culture is subject to question and detailed analysis of Vedic writings which was not performed for this project.
The word RA was related to LIGHT (which also symbolized the Sun) in ancient Slavic (Indo-European?) culture as it was in ancient Egypt. Is it just a coincidence? Also, the name for an Egyptian goddess Maat sounds like “mother” in Slavic (МАТЬ
in Russian; МАТИ
in Ukrainian). Just another coincidence? Could there have been some connection between Vedic cultures of the North and the Egyptian civilization? This would definitely be an interesting area to explore.
Slavic Languages – The Key to Unlocking Ancient Spiritual Wisdom
Let’s see what we can learn about the nature of existence and our spiritual connection to it by simply looking at some modern Russian words. [Reading in Russian is relatively easy because each letter corresponds to one sound (http://masterrussian.com/blpron.shtml) which usually doesn’t change from word to word, with some exceptions. The only difficulty, once someone knows sounds for letters, is in knowing where to place stress / emphasis in a word. You can use this website to hear pronunciations of Russian words: https://forvo.com/languages/ru/]
RA was used as a verbal symbolization of light, or energy to be more precise, because R is the ONLY letter in Russian alphabet and probably most other languages that produces CONTINUOUS VIBRATION when pronounced, while A symbolizes an open and broad release of that vibration into the environment. Light is the way human mind “sees” energy; hence, the two words – “light” and “energy” – can be used interchangeably.
Note: dash has been inserted into Russian words to separate word components.
|Rainbow||Ра-дуга||ДУГА stands for “bent line” so a rainbow in Russian literally means “a bent line of light.”|
|Sunrise||Ра-свет||СВЕТ is another word for light so “the light of Ra” – the Sun.|
|Culture||Культ-у-ра||literally “a cult of energy.” In its basic sense the world “cult” means “a way of life.”|
|Vedas||Веды||comes from the word ВЕДАТЬ which means “to know with wisdom.” ДАТЬ also means “to give” so the word ве-дать could also mean “to give knowingness or wisdom.” It is also related to word ВИДЕТЬ which means “to see.”|
|Faith||Ве-ра||What is faith if not an “energized conviction” or an “energized knowingness” – a “knowing” – ВЕ (ve) – with “energy” – РА (ra).|
|Express||Вы-ра-жать||literally “to push out energy.” ЖАТЬ means “to push.” ВЫ is a prefix meaning “out.” For example, word ВЫ-НОСИТЬ means “to carry out” (of some place) where НОСИТЬ means “to carry.”|
|Be happy||Ра-дуйся||literally “blow light from within.”|
|To make someone happy||Ра-довать||literally “to give energy.” ДАВАТЬ means “to give.”|
|Paradise||Рай||Paradise in decoded Russian means “a place of light” (not “streets of gold” as commonly believed the place to be).|
|Samurai||Сам-у-рай||“propelling self into the place of light.” САМ means “by self” (such as doing something by oneself). “У” means “in” or “into” in Ukrainian (in Russian, it is “В”). Evidently, the original “Samurai” practice may have had something to do with a path of spiritual “enlightenment” or literally an act of suicide as in Samurai’s practice of “harakiri.”|
|Wise mind||Ра-з-ум||an “energized” or “enlightened” mind. УМ is a word for “mind” and is a word that can be used for any form of mind, but РАЗУМ is more specifically used for a state of aware and understanding (wise) mind. It’s energy / light, which can also be understood as the essence of consciousness and awareness, expressed through mind resulting in wisdom. Even in English words like “illuminate” or “enlighten” are used to mean “to bring something into the light of consciousness.” A common English phrase “bright mind” is also derived from the same concept.|
|Develop||Ра-з-вить||literally “energy with weaving.” ВИТЬ means “to weave” so to develop something means “to weave energy.”|
|To rule||П-ра-вить||“to weave energy” – “to rule” comes out of the same concept as “to develop.” Everything was seen to be a manifestation of Light (energy of life) so when someone ruled over something, in a way they directed or “weaved” the direction (expression) of “energy” into a certain form of creation such as a certain form of social order. The first letter П may have been shortened from ПАПА meaning “father.” So initially the modern word ПРАВИТЬ may have evolved from a combination concept phrase applied to father’s commands ПАПА-РА-ВИТЬ.|
|Hurrah||Ура||The common cheer of joy and victory is also related to light and probably means “with light” or something along the lines. УРА may actually be shortened spelling from УР-РА.|
|Aura||Ау-ра||Obviously the word “aura” also has something to do with light. The original word may have been Я-У-РА meaning “I in light” or “the light of I” symbolizing the light/energy form of self rather than the physical form – i.e. the “energy body” of self.|
In modern Russian the word is exactly the same with exact same pronunciation as in English. According to Oxford Dictionary derivation: “From Sanskrit cakra ‘wheel or circle’, from an Indo-European base meaning ‘turn.’ This really makes no sense. Why would people in ancient times symbolize different centers of energy and intelligence within a body with the same word as for a “wheel,” or “turning” for that matter? But what does make sense is that word CAK in both English (sack) and Russian (cak) is a concept for some form of “container,” or a “bag” to be more precise, so CAK-RA is a container (or a holding place) of energy – RA. SAKRA would probably be a more correct word for “chakra.” The word SACRAL is probably related to the same root words.
Could have been derived from words combination of РА-БЫТЬ meaning “energy to be” or “to be energy” – a designation that was probably applied to an enlightened person, a person who carried Light into the world.
Could it be that the original concept of a “slave” in Vedic culture meant something very different such as the one who is “being Light” or perhaps someone who “dwells in the Light” or someone how “carries” or “follows” the Light (follows and obeys are close concepts) as opposed to someone who is subdued by and obeys other men? In this sense, within Vedic tradition, “a slave of God” would mean something very different from being a submissive subject to some vision of a remote and man-like authority figure (but in reality to men and institutions that claim to represent such a figure). There was no known practice of actual slavery in Slavic cultures.
In this view, it is very easy to see that the modern day Bible could actually be a perverted and inverted teaching of ancient Vedic cultures (especially when translated into languages with words of very different meaning and derivation). Could it be that there was an ancient (original) Bible [like the Vedas] that was very different from the one presented and “translated” to humanity in more modern times?
Also, the word AРАБ (Arab) is a near identical word that could have been given to people – Arabs – that lived in sunnier areas. They could literally have been viewed as “light / sun dwellers” by northern cultures that didn’t experience as much continuous sunshine.
Work was viewed to be an act of directing light (living energy) from within oneself to manifest some form of creative activity into the world.
ОТ – means “from;” А – could have initially been Я (ya) meaning “I” so “work” from decoded Russian could have literally meant “the beingness of light from myself” – in other words, directing light from self.
|Equality||Ра-венство||Suffix -СТВО in Russian is equivalent to “ity” in English “equal-ity” and means a state of something. РАВЕН means “equal” so РАВЕН-СТВО means a state of being equal. “Everyone is equal under the Sun” may have been the original understanding as the light shines on everyone in the same way.|
“A state of rulership.” ГЛА is short for ГОЛОВА meaning “head.” Also, Russian word for an “eye” is ГЛАЗ. There was probably one word for a head – ГЛА – which then diversified into “head” and “eye” as separate terms. This is probably the very reason that a symbol of an eye is used to symbolize man rule through a man-made concept of an authoritarian God of the Bible, and is a symbol that can be found in many Christian cathedrals. An eye is a human organ; formless consciousness gains awareness through pervasion.
Also, an archaic Russian word for “to speak” is ГЛАГОЛИТЬ from which comes a Russian word (still in use) for a “verb” – ГЛАГОЛ. Men rule other men through WORDS so the “word of God” is actually words of men to rule over other men. God, as an energy of life and creation, “communicates” through filling a human being with “light” causing visions, epiphanies, and realizations – a rise in awareness and intelligence where someone gains an enhanced ability to SEE – ВИДЕТЬ (videt’) and to KNOW – ВЕДАТЬ (vedat’). In Christianity, this experience may be associated with being filled with the “holy spirit” or the “spirit of Christ.”
|Russia||Россия||The modern word РО-ССИЯ may have ultimately been derived from words РА-СЕЯТЬ meaning “to sow light” and was probably initially applicable to a form of culture (cult-of-light) rather than a specific geographical location. There is also a combination of РА-СИЯТЬ meaning “the glow of light” (or the Sun). It may have also been derived from the word Rus’– РУСЬ – which may have been pronounced as Russiya – РУССИЯ – at some point by some people. In this case, the original derivation of word Rus’ must also be questioned in its connection to some perceivable reality which would have served as the basis for formulating this word.|
Language evolved as a PROCESS OF SYMBOLIZING AND COMMUNICATING PERCEPTIONS with sounds and other ways (such as pictures or hand gestures – sign language). People symbolized different realities they perceived and then in turn combined those symbolic units to form more complex symbols which could describe a phenomenon through an analogy. For example, the word for PRIDE in Russian is ГОРДОСТЬ and probably was an initial combination of words ГОРА-ДАСТЬ literally MOUNTAIN-GIVE or “to give a mountain.” Mountain was viewed as a big and unmoving object so when people encountered a “big and unmoving” character or attitude in someone, they had a perceptual association with a “mountain.” As it is hard to work through climbing a mountain so it can be hard to work through someone’s “pride” to accomplish something that you want with that person, such as getting some message across. And so people conceptualized that the person was “giving a mountain.”
There is a field called ETHNO-LINGUISTICS: “a field of linguistics which studies the relationship between language and culture, and the way different ethnic groups perceive the world.” – a perfect definition from Wikipedia.
Depiction of Slavs before Christianity:
The True Meaning of Education
The word for EDUCATION in Russian is ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ
and would literally translate as VISIONSHIP which in view of Vedic culture could be defined as:
THE CRAFT OF DEVELOPING, RETAINING, AND SHARING VISIONS ABOUT REALITY
-ВАНИЕ is a Russian suffix similar to English -ship.
means vision, image, appearance (in a way something appears), an abstract, a manner (such as of thinking or acting), character or identity (usually used when talking about an assumed identity or role such as in film or theater), and a few other meanings. It is basically a very useful word that can be used to form numerous words and concepts. In addition to “education,” ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ can also mean a “formation” of something (such as a formation of culture) though there is also an exact equivalent word for “form”– ФОРМА – which is commonly used for that purpose.
Ideally, a human being needs to be able to freely form (develop, construct, formulate) visions (or perceptions) about various aspects of existence in line with one’s own observations, reasoning and experiences. This is virtually the very purpose for having and developing the mind to begin with (see page UNDERSTANDING THE MIND). Man’s very sanity (healthy operation of the mind) depends on the ability to form visions of reality (perception) in line with observations (communication, contact, interaction) and sound reasoning (page SANITY AND INSANITY).
The True Meaning of God and Polytheism
Russian word for a powerful worrier is БОГАТЫРЬ
. The first three letters of that word – БОГ
– is also a Russian word for GOD. [Russian word for “wealthy” is БОГАТ
as wealth is ultimately associated with power.] It’s interesting to note the similarity of this word with the English word BIG.
A “god” in ancient Vedic times simply meant a (form of) POWER. Many “gods” referred to the many powers (or forces, or phenomena, or manifestations) that people perceived in existence: the power of love and fertility, the power of war, the power of wisdom and intelligence, the power of air and storms… etc.
The various powers (or phenomena) in nature were envisioned as man-like entities as a form of meaningful “perception constructs” and the relationships between them – hence the emergence of complex polytheistic mythologies.
The formal term for assigning human traits to non-human entities is Anthropomorphism which is quite clearly defined on Wikipedia:
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities and is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.
Personification is the related attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions and natural forces like seasons and the weather.
Both have ancient roots as storytelling and artistic devices, and most cultures have traditional fables with anthropomorphized animals as characters. People have also routinely attributed human emotions and behavioural traits to wild as well as domestic animals.
As an example, even in modern times Santa Claus in Russian culture is referred to as Grandpa Cold (Дед Мороз) who walks around with his granddaughter Снегурочка – a female name derived from the word “snow.”
So of course the Sun is the “Father in Heaven” who creates life by “impregnating” “the Mother” – Earth – which gives birth to life [evidently the concept of “Mother” was dropped from the Patriarchal vision of reality under Christianity]. This would be especially noticeable and clearly perceivable in places with four seasons and abundance of life where people observed life “receding” during Winter and springing (no pun intended) back to life during Spring when the days where becoming longer and warmer with the Sun being up in the sky longer and higher. They saw the sun-light brought life or caused life to appear so it is a very simple logical step from there to conclude and to view themselves as “children of the Sun” (children of “God”), as having being created by the (light of the) Sun as all the other life forms. This is where the original concept of “enlightenment” comes in as well – being “filled” with light which was literally experienced as a surge of life energy that gained in volume and intensity with advance of the Sun into Spring and Summer months. And of course people marked and celebrated these different periods with various festivities.
The observation and reasoning about seasonal cycles would also easily lead to a more abstract idea that all of existence with everything in it might undergo similar cycles but on a much longer time span, as well as contemplation on the existence of more encompassing forces or powers than those immediately visible or experienced – a concept of breathing cycles of “Brahman” that was expressed in Vedic teachings recorded in Sanskrit. “If the Sun creates life on Earth, what could have in turn created the Sun (and lights in the sky)?” – would be a very easy wonder to form for a developing human consciousness immersed in the natural world – hence, the existence of hierarchies among the “gods” within a polytheistic model of reality. For example, from observations of the Sun causing life on Earth, a developing mind could then easily theorize or envision that there may be a bigger Sun – the “Cosmic Sun” – that may be powering the existence of the entire world (universe).
In fact, these “Vedic truths” were probably so self-evident within authentic Vedic cultures of the time, that no one even bothered writing it down for themselves; they may have been written down as ready “thought constructs” for other cultures to absorb such as, to some extent, may be the case with Sanskrit Vedas. Now after over a thousands years of Christianity and book based, abstract “education” that is largely divorced from direct contact (experience) with actual realities of existence, human consciousness in Western societies is so disconnected from such simple realities of nature, that these concepts can indeed seem “profound.” Or perhaps these truths were written down and the writings were lost to time or deliberately destroyed. After all, Christianity did not make its way into India as much as it dominated much of Europe with its culturally destructive campaigns.
People in polytheistic cultures used visions (perception constructs) of gods in order to perceive, connect to, invoke, create or generate a power (force, manifestation) associated with a given “god.” How else would you envision a power that is behind some perceived manifestations such as the emergence of life from Earth during Spring or an emerging feeling of love? To say that there is ONLY ONE GOD is to actually occlude perception and meaningful interactions / relationship with the different powers and phenomena that comprise the reality of existence. It would be analogous to trying to enforce an idea that the human body as a whole is the “only one organ” and no other organs should be recognized, understood, or interacted with.
Getting indoctrinated into an existence of some “god” that is yet unknown to a member within a polytheistic culture could actually open up that person’s perception of the related phenomenon – a “god” simply representing a concept of some force or some phenomena in existence. Having gained a new concept of something, an individual would theN be more likely to perceive a form of reality that is linked to such a concept.
РОД – a Complete Form of Creation
Whereas RA means an open ended, “flowing” energy, РОД in its most basic sense could mean a complete form of creation. Sound O forming a circle with mouth which is represented in the visual look of the letter O which in itself symbolizes something that is “complete,” which is also the basis of English word “whole” from “hole” which is usually understood to have a circular look. Д is a sound the closes the “unit of sound” – hence, the word РОД symbolizes a complete form or unit of creation.
РОД as a word by itself in Russian means KIN, and is used as a root word to form numerous other important words: “homeland” – РОДИНА – which can often be combined with word “mother” – МАТЬ – to form РОДИНА-МАТЬ meaning MOTHERLAND. Examples of other words: birth – РОДЫ; give birth – РОДИТЬ; parent – РОДИТЕЛЬ; native, dear – РОДНОЙ; relatives and close friends – РОДНЯ; aggregation of people within one race, village, country, etc – НАРОД; nature – ПРИРОДА.
Russian word for “birth giving” is РОЖАТЬ which probably was initially a combination of terms РОД-ЖАТЬ literally meaning “kin push” or “to push kin.” It is the same thing in Ukrainian where Д was preserved РОДЖАТИ, but with “modernization” of Ukrainian language the word was also perverted in modern times to “народжувати” where a Ukrainian word ЖАТИ – to push – was substituted with ЖУВАТИ meaning “to chew.” This is but one example of how an initially sophisticated language with specific logic of word formation can be perverted in its original construct and meaning.
РОД as a concept was also represented with / as a supreme god – a creator of all things (including other gods).
Females in Vedic Culture
The word for a WITCH in Russian is ВЕДЬМА
: a feminine word for a female who “knows” – a Vedic female. A masculine term for this word (no longer in use) is ВЕДУН
with another feminine alternative ВЕДУНЬЯ
. Also, an alternative meaning of this word is “that who leads (with wisdom)” To take it even further, МА at the end of the word could be a shortened from МАТЬ
which means “mother.” So the original Vedic word for a “witch” may have been ВЕД-МАТЬ to mean “a mother of knowledge (or wisdom)” – a woman who knew and taught wisdom and who used that knowledge/wisdom to help others within a tribe.
The vision of “witches” as being ugly and evil (or beautiful for the purpose of seducing and deceiving) is a product of vilification propaganda by Christianity against female carriers of Vedic culture. The destruction of “witches” by the early Christian movements was a part of the general program to destroy Vedic (wisdom, knowledge) based cultures and replace those cultures with a mind-numbing, authoritarian construct of society under Christian Patriarchy aiming to convert everyone into a “slave of God.” Though obviously, any form of knowledge can be used for some kind of destructive purposes especially when someone feels threatened and “motivated” to resorts to aggressive actions in self-defense.
In Ukrainain, the word for a young female is ДІВЧИНА and is related to word ДИВИТИСЬ meaning to “watch” (to look) which in turn is related to word ДИВО meaning a “wonder” or a “wondrous sight” which also showed up in Latin as DIVA. In Russian there is also a word ДЕВА for a wondrous (wonder-ful) female, and it is also the same word for constellation Virgo. However, unlike in Ukrainian, the word for “to watch” in Russian sounds completely different – СМОТРЕТЬ – which suggests that it came from elsewhere (other than from within the original Slavo-Vedic culture).
Another interesting note, and perhaps an indication of how Christian Patriarchy was perverting the meaning of words is the change in meaning for the Russian word УРОДИНА – in post-Christianization times meaning an offensive word “ugly” for a female (УРОД for male).
As was mentioned in the previous section, the word РОД means KIN so the word УРОДИНА must have initially meant something very positive as literally meaning “with kin,” “of kin,” or “in kin” and an equivalent word in Ukrainian – ВРОДЛИВА – still means BEAUTIFUL! Also, a Russian verb version of this word УРОДИЛАСЬ still means that “she came out fine” as in “high quality.” This is yet another example of how the meaning of words can be “mysteriously” perverted with time – in this case to mean the exact opposite from an originally intended meaning.