Becoming Hindu

crvlvr · May 17th, 2008, 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by grikoo

T

Remember that by 'civilization', we are talking about cities. By the standard definition (though obviously stupid in one sense of the word), 'civilization' implies cities, and pottery shards do not necessarily indicated that.

BBC Report: Lost city 'could rewrite history'

Quote:

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.
...
The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.
...
The city is believed to be even older than the ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
...
"There's a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means that the whole model of the origins of civilisation with which archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch," he said.

grikoo · May 17th, 2008, 04:13

I certainly won't argue that that's NOT the case, as I have no idea really. But it seems to me that to hold any opinion on the subject at this time would be unfounded.

Until they date something other than wood and clay, like a real artifact of some sort, I can't even begin to comment. I don't see anything so far that would indicate any age. As the article you quoted points out, finding bits of wood and clay that date the same age as the surrounding sediment is an extremely dubious, if not meaningless find. I emailed the article to a friend who has her degree in ancient near-eastern antiquities (yes, that's actually a degree) and she agreed- reminding me of the "Mysteries of the Ancient World" TV shows that after proposing all sorts of weird and often ridiculous scenarios, always end with the narrator saying in all seriousness, "Is it true?..... Someday we may know." - always a let down if you ask me.

It would certainly be an incredibly significant find and would definitely require a rewrite of ancient history, as it would place this civilization prior to mesopotamia.

crvlvr · May 17th, 2008, 06:01

grikoo, the point I am trying to make is that many "facts" of history rest on nothing but theories. Unfortunately, a significant portion of Indian history was translated or written by scholars during british rule. Theories were conjured up to suit political gain and help support the divide and rule policy.

(The following is more in reponse to RSC2's post #96)IMHO, the Aryan Invasion Theory was invented during this time and the caste system made more rigid and encouraged by the adminsitration. There is very little historical evidence that the current caste system prevelant in India (the key point being that a person's caste is defined by birth and not by occupation) existed before British rule.

From Wikipedia:

Caste system before British Rule:

Quote:

Although many Hindu scriptures contain passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system, they also contain indications that the caste system is not an essential part of Hinduism.

The Vedas place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only rarely and in a cursory manner. In the Vedic period, there was no prohibition against the Shudras (which later on became the low-castes) listening to the Vedas or participating in any religious rite.

In Early Evidence for Caste in South India, George L. Hart stated that "the earliest Tamil texts show the existence of what seems definitely to be caste, but which antedates the Brahmins and the Hindu orthodoxy". He believes that the origins of the caste system can be seen in the "belief system that developed with the agricultural civilization", and was later profoundly influenced by "the Brahmins and the Brahmanical religion". These early Tamil texts also outline the concept of equality. Saint Valluvar has stated "pirapokkum ella uyirkkum", which means "all are equal at birth".

Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. "Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censur

Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.

Impact of British Rule:

Quote:

Many European scholars from the colonial era regarded the Manusmriti as the "law book" of the Hindus, and thus concluded that the caste system is a part of Hinduism, an assertion that is rejected by many Hindu scholars, who state that it is an anachronistic social practice, not a religious one.

Some scholars believe that the relative ranking of other castes was fluid or differed from one place to another prior to the arrival of the British

The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability. Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj , when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule.

Making the caste system rigid (caste defined by birth instead of occupation) has huge negative consquences on society and it does not offer a "way out" for people born into less privileged castes. India's current caste problems would be diminished a great deal if people could change castes.

machadinha · May 17th, 2008, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by batistuta

Here is a link about AIT. It was posted by one of our knowledgable members and It just might be the last word on this topic.

No offense to either you or AvidTrekker who posted that link on another thread, but that Elst seems to be some far-right Belgian writer with no academic affiliation whatsoever, who appears to stand rather alone in his views, save for a few similar theorists.

I would hardly hold up Wikipedia as the be-all and end-all in encyclopedic matters (they aren't, as anyone can write those articles, and I know many on marginal subjects close to me that are simply wrong or underinformed); however, they uphold quite some collective editorial standards, and it's interesting to note that except for the Müller piece (in need of citations, Wikipedia says) the following contain none of the usual captions indicating something might be missing or is contentious or subjective or otherwise needs looking into, which many of their articles do. It's actually not so easy to publish outright nonsense there at least on the more mainstream topics without anyone noticing and swift action being taken. See for yourselves, it's also entertaining to go through the "discussion" pages that come with each:

Koenraad Elst

Max Müller

Indo-Aryan migration

Out of India theory

& Further links and footnotes with each, of course.

What I personally find funny in view of the oft-heard assertion that Müller's is an outdated outsider's imperialist view (and must therefore presumably be wrong by necessity) is this comment with the article on the opposing "Out Of India" theory:

Quote:

The Out of India theory (OIT, also called the Indian Urheimat Theory) is the proposition that the Indo-European language family originated in the Indian subcontinent and spread to the remainder of the Indo-European region through a series of migrations. A notable proponent was Friedrich Schlegel.

Originally proposed in the late 18th century in an attempt to explain connections between Sanskrit and European languages, it is today deprecated by academics who favor the Kurgan model.

RSC2 · May 17th, 2008, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by grikoo

I agree with the cause that you ascribe for the caste system.

However, to call the pre-aryan, indus valley civilizations 'hindu' is perhaps a stretch. The archaelogical evidence seems to support the idea that the first 'hindu' artifacts arose with the gradual migration of the aryans towards the late harappan period (not really an invasion exactly). In addition, considering the findings of other swastikas and such in eastern europe, and the fact that the vedas arise rather shortly after the aryans arrive, it's entirely possible that 'hinduism' is an aryan religion, or at least a mixture of aryan/harappan religions. It should also be remembered that 'hinduism' is extremely diverse and has changed an enormous amount over time. It's hardly recognizable now, when compared to it's origins.

We often think of religions as static, but they change greatly over time. This was particularly true in the ancient world, and the incidence of syncretic religions is extremely high during that period. Hinduism is most certainly the best and oldest example of a continually evolving syncretism, and tends to assimilate everything it comes in contact with.

And don't get me started on feudal systems. We all still live in one. The landowners simply figured out that charging rent was much easier than cashing in on 20,000 pumpkins. What's the real difference between a third of your wages going to the landowners, or a third of your crops?

It is not a 'stretch' to call the Indus valley civilization Hindu, because archeologically some of the gods and ways of worship can be traced back to the Mohanjodharo and Harrapa era.

All religions evolve over time. Even events in the bible and some christian traditions can be traced back and linked to practices carried out by indiginous people of that region.

Finally no-one is condoning the caste system. Most academics agree that the caste system is not necessarily the fabric of Hinduism itself in terms of spirituality. It was a social phenomenon, not a religious necessity.

Positive discrimination giving people of 'lower' castes opportunity to get free education, reserved places in the army, university and government,are in place today in India. Although predujice exists, as it does across the globe, there are people who are fighting against it.

grikoo · May 17th, 2008, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSC2

It is not a 'stretch' to call the Indus valley civilization Hindu, because archeologically some of the gods and ways of worship can be traced back to the Mohanjodharo and Harrapa era.

Yes, but most of these artifacts seem to come from the late harappan era, after the migration of the aryans had already begun. The earlier artifacts seem to show mother/goddess/earth worship along with phallic/sun worship. It wasn't until after the influx of aryans that the standard pantheism that defines hinduism becomes apparent. At least that's my understanding.

Regarding the comments on caste- If you review my earlier posts, you'll see that I agree that the caste system has progressively evolved towards classism over time. I just maintain a different reason for that evolution. I don't disagree though that exposure to the brit's rigid class system may have had pronounced effects.

qwan · May 18th, 2008, 00:06

If you spirtually want to convert to hinduism you already are.
But FYI it is not hinduism it is Sanathana Dharma
Hinduism or Hindu is what the Persians used to call Indians. It is sad that we have adopted the same name.
If you want to do it legally then you will need a caste certificate. So it depends on which caste will accept an outsider. I think mairraige will solve this

qwan · May 18th, 2008, 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by grikoo

...........However, to call the pre-aryan, indus valley civilizations 'hindu' is perhaps a stretch. The archaelogical evidence seems to support the idea that the first 'hindu' artifacts arose with the gradual migration of the aryans towards the late harappan period (not really an invasion exactly). In addition, considering the findings of other swastikas and such in eastern europe, and the fact that the vedas arise rather shortly after the aryans arrive, it's entirely possible that 'hinduism' is an aryan religion, or at least a mixture of aryan/harappan religions. It should also be remembered that 'hinduism' is extremely diverse and has changed an enormous amount over time. It's hardly recognizable now, when compared to it's origins.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSC2

The caste system was not originally part of Hinduism. It came about by the invasion of Aryans who intermarried with some Hindus as a way of protecting or establishing their 'superiority'. The caste system is a social and feudal system and most Hindus believe that it is not and should not be a part of the religion itself.

Hinduism split into 'denominations' in the 18th century into Arya samaj and Brahmo samaj in an attempt to get rid of the caste system.

Comon the both of you. Please come out of your wells.
The aryan invasion theory is a myth has been disproved by not only Indian but foreign historians too.
Seriously you people should stop the discussion right here.
There was never an aryan invasion.
There was no evidence too. The harappan and mohenjodaro seems to have gone extinct due to natural causes

Comon do you really believe that aryans were nomads who were "roaming" around with the vedas.

Please there is enough of evidence around that the Arayan invastion never took place.
Infact aryans are not a race. Seriously if you believe the aryan theory then you believe Hitler (:-P I sound like an RIAA ad, or maybe george bush :-D).
Arya is a sankrit word which was wrongly translated by western scholars.
Some say it was deliberate and they just wanted to shake the roots of the vedas and prove it to be a myth.
Some links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...north_02.shtml
Excerpt

Quote:

The decline of the Harappan civilisation remains a source of speculation. The theory of an Aryan invasion has long since been discredited and it is now widely believed to be due to climate change and perhaps also to tectonic activities. Major changes took place in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent causing its rivers to change course. Resulting water shortages led to the abandonment of many of the settlements as people started migrating eastwards.

http://www.satyavidya.org/frauds-and...nvasion-theory
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-us...-column107.htm
http://archaeology.about.com/od/indu...s/a/aryans.htm

Quote:

Racism and Science
Born from a colonial mentality, corrupted by a Nazi propaganda machine, the Aryan invasion theory is finally undergoing radical reassessment by south Asian archaeologists and their colleagues, using the Vedic documents themselves, additional linguistic studies, and physical evidence revealed through archaeological excavations. The Indus valley cultural history is an ancient and complex one. Only time will teach us what role if any an Indo-European invasion took in the history; but it seems clear that a collapse of the Indus civilization did not occur.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_e... _invasion.htm

http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/20...ian-charities/

Oh and I forgot to mention, it is very suprising that we have names of all invaders from Genghis khan and earlier, but you there is no name not even one name for any aryan ruler.

machadinha · May 18th, 2008, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwan

Some links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...north_02.shtml
Excerpt

Quote:

The decline of the Harappan civilisation remains a source of speculation. The theory of an Aryan invasion has long since been discredited and it is now widely believed to be due to climate change and perhaps also to tectonic activities.

Depending on how you read this, I think they're just saying it is now disputed if the Harappan civilization collapsed under a so-called Aryan invasion, or rather due to internal or natural causes. This is correct; moreover, the entire theory seems to have shifted from that of a forcible invasion, to that of a more peaceful or gradual immigration. This is the accepted view today I believe (and therefore the term "Aryan invasion" is no longer in vogue, but that of an Indo-Aryan migration is); it doesn't follow that no immigration ever took place. It only means the history of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro may be different than originally thought. All theories develop and get altered or revised over time, of course.

It was asserted on another thread regarding this question that Müller later retracted his views; from earlier reading I got the impression that instead he merely revised them in defense against what he regarded as German anti-Semites' and proto-national socialists' misappropriation of them.

The origins of many of your other links seem to point to Hindutva circles, where the idea of an Aryan immigration is heavily opposed, whereas an Indigenous Aryan Theory is strongly supported. So I'm not surprised with what those sources have to say; I'm just waiting to see some evidence or hard facts from more neutral sources.

I found this one amusing

Quote:

http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/20...ian-charities/

wich is a direct copy from a BBC site, and claims at bottom that "P.S. BBC later on pulled this article out after it was pressurized by a lobby of anti-Hindus."

A simple search on the BBC site in question shows it has merely been moved though, and can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...istory_4.shtml . It forms part of a brief four-page overview of Hinduism and clearly just sums up current views and controversies on the matter, delivering no verdict on the matter whatsoever.

Interested readers (or those in search of a bit of academic amusement anyway) may want to check this Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrikan...ternal_lin ks , which gives (under the heading "Talageri - Witzel flamewar") the links to the original texts in a polemic between two key players in this controversy. I'll leave the full links here in case they get altered later at W'pedia:

Quote:

External links

Online version [of Talageri's The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis]

Talageri - Witzel flamewar

The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis, ch.9: Michael Witzel - An Examination of Western Vedic Scholarship Shrikant G. Talageri
review [entitled "Westward Ho! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes, Exposed by S.Talageri"] by Michael Witzel (pdf version) Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies Vol. 7 (2001), issue 2 (March 31). [link adjusted by yours truly]
Talageri's reply (2001) [appears to be unavailable]
Witzel's reply
Talageri's reply [appears to be currently at least unavailable, or only to subscribed viewers]

(If you want my opinion, I think in his review this Witzel makes short work of said Talageri's arguments very nicely.)

For more on what appears to have been a slightly later and not unrelated controversy involving the same Witzel, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_...22re vival.22. I've looked for online versions of the polemic mentioned below, but can't find them. (The Journal of Indo-European Studies in question is online here btw: http://www.jies.org/, but it requires a paid subscription. Be my guest.) Meanwhile, please allow me to quote the Wikipedia fragment in question in full:

Quote:

1999 "revival"
An Indian Urheimat has been promoted more recently by Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000), which led to an exchange of criticisms with Michael Witzel.[13]

In what its editor J. P. Mallory (2002) described as a "sense of fair play," the Journal of Indo-European Studies waived peer review in order to publish Kazanas' (2002, 2003) defence of the "Indigenous Indo-Aryan" viewpoint — which cited Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000). Mallory's reasoning for this exceptional omission of peer-review was as follows:

“ The reasons for the acrimony between the two camps is not purely academic but may involve agendas that are variously associated with Hindu nationalism, western cultural imperialism, communalism, post-colonialism, and just about any other form of -ism that reflects current political frictions. [...] For the editor of a Western peer-reviewed journal, the publication of an article in support of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp poses obvious problems. Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing. They view the Indigenous Aryan camp as more a religion than an academic position and no amount of scholarly refutation is likely to have the least impact on its adherents. On the other hand, we might also invoke some sense of fair play [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions but that I would consider publication if one of the referees believed that the article had made a case to answer; I requested the referees to view the article in that light. This is indeed what happened and the authors agreed with my suggestion that we might treat the article in a review format where I would invite a series of relevant scholars to comment upon the article and then provide the author with space to make his final reply to his critics.[14] ”

The debate consisted of an article by Kazanas (2002), nine highly critical reviews by referees,[15] and Kazanas' (2003) response to those criticisms.

Witzel (2003) warned:

“ It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.

federica · May 18th, 2008, 02:07

I am not really familiar with all the invasion theories, but here's another one:

"Invasion that never was" by Michel Danino:
http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/indus.html

qwan · May 18th, 2008, 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

Depending on how you read this, I think they're just saying it is now disputed if the Harappan civilization succumbed to a so-called Aryan invasion, or rather due to internal or natural causes. This is correct; moeover, the entire theory seems to have shifted from that of a forcible invasion, to that of a more peaceful or gradual immigration. This is the accepted view today I believe (and therefore the term "Aryan invasion" is no longer in vogue, but that of an Indo-Aryan migration is); it doesn't follow that no immigration ever took place. It only means the history of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro may be different than originally thought. All theories develop and get altered or revised over time, of course.

The origins of many of your other links seem to point to Hindutva circles, where the idea of an Aryan immigration is heavily opposed, whereas an Indigenous Aryan Theory is strongly supported. So I'm not surprised with what those sources have to say; I'm just waiting to see some evidence or hard facts from more neutral sources.

I found this one amusing

wich is a direct copy from a BBC site, and claims at bottom that "P.S. BBC later on pulled this article out after it was pressurized by a lobby of anti-Hindus."

A simple search on the BBC site in question shows it has merely been moved though, and can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...istory_4.shtml . It forms part of a brief four-page overview of Hinduism and clearly just sums up current views and controversies on the matter, delivering no verdict on the matter whatsoever.

Interested readers (or those in search of a bit of academic amusement anyway) may want to check this Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrikan...ternal_lin ks , which gives (under the heading "Talageri - Witzel flamewar") the links to the original texts in a polemic between two key players in this controversy. I'll leave the full links here in case they get altered later at W'pedia:

For more on what appears to have been a follow-up to that particular controversy, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_...22re vival.22. I've looked for online versions of the polemic mentioned below, but can't find them. Please allow me to quote this Wikipedia fragment in full:

First of all Mr. machadinha I am a born Christian.

So your first point sound like a "spin argument". The fact that the aryan Invasion theory has been refuted because no aryan race exists. The Scholars "came upon" the aryan theory from the sankrit word "arya" as their only reference. Everything else was pulled from thin air.
Like the invasion or rather traces of a battle. No battle means the entire theory was built on "BS". But you seem to have a biased mindset and want to disconnect the invasion and hold to th e aryan part. If you go through the theories you will clearly see that there is no disconnect there is no seperate evidence for existence of aryans and then they did not "add" the the theory based on "other" evidence found about an invasion. When questioned about their already baseless theory, that if aryans were a different race then how did they influence the existing culture, and they just "assumed" or "theorized" that it "must have been" and invasion. And then whatever they found broken or bones in the Harrappan sites they connected it to a war. Infact there is no point arguing as the theory is clearly cooked up.

One more important point is that there are no traces of the source of Aryan if they migrated that is. The theory just expects us to believe some scholars that are actually just sitting and pulling out theories from thin air just to prove a pre-conceived point or agenda.

On you second point. One cannot argue with that in any other case or circumstance too.
You are saying that. Someone(colonial or western civilization) "wrongly"(please assume it for second) come up with a theory that is going to destroy the roots of Vedic civilization and make every Indian appear like a barbarian who was taught about civlization by some aryan foreigners.
And if they (Indians) who are the best qualified for understanding their own language and read their own text and find absolutely no evidence of this ridiculous theory, YOU DONT BELIEVE THEM!!!
WHY because "they are going to try and defend their, origins".
So a person who is accused according to you can never be believed at all. Because they will be trying to defend themselves!!!! Wow what a great way of looking at things.

Yes your third point I do agree. That was very amusing.
But you have to understand what is happening. First of all that is a blog. He has quoted the article and then given his own viewpoint. He has jumped to a conclusion though wrong. But you have to understand it.
The entire aryan theory is an attack on the very roots of the vedic civilization.(and it is baseless). All of a sudden you see an article on the BBC that confirms it but later you see its not there. The first thing that goes to your mind is.....well it obvious.

Because I too did not find the articles when I clicked on it. But you see I am a rational thinker and I searched the BBC. From that search is where i pasted the BBC link :-).

There will be people like this who are zealous and over react, but that doesnt mean that everyone who has done research and could not find any facts are in the same category.

The wikipedia is a big joke, that is why never used it as a reference even though it is against the AIT.(unless it has changed)
You see I am rational here because I would never trust the wiki and would never consider it as a source to refute or support any argument, so I would never use it even if it to my advantage.
Cause I am not here to win "my" argument. I want to know the truth.

And people like you and the all those western scholars never seem to touch the issues in these articles which cannot be argued.
You only like to touch points which can "spun".

The bottom line is there was never any evidence about aryans and this whole theory is baseless. It was pulled out of thin air.
There was no documentations ever. After they invaded or they migrated(if that is your argument) there should have been some record to mention that.
If there isn't then you just cannot say anything you(means the scholars) want to.

Especially when the vedas date back to earlier than that. You still keep holding on to it and argue it by "detaching" the refuted points from the main theory.

Munivar · May 18th, 2008, 13:35

The Migration theory is just invasion-lite. Because the "outright invasion" theory has become so obviously ridiculous, the academia ("Indologists" like Witzel etc) whose careers depend on this stuff have shifted to ..well the "Aryans" did not "invade", but they "migrated peacefully".

This theory will also go where it belongs (the dustbin!).

The whole Aryan race theory was invented. Every bit of it. And when Indians say it is wrong, they are accused as "hindutva".

Here's another one of those "hindutva" sites..lots of details..quotes and such..all referenced.

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/aryan_invasion_theory.htm

Some choice quotes

Quote:

Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General's Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India.

In his address to the British Parliament 2nd February 1835 he said:

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

Quote:

Lord Canning (1812 - 1862) Governor General of India from 1856 - 1862 and the first Viceroy in India. In the middle of the 1857 uprising, he wrote to a British official:

“As we must rule 150 millions of people by a handful (more or less small) of Englishmen, let us do it in the manner best calculated to leave them divided (as in religion and national feeling they already are) and to inspire them with the greatest possible awe of our power and with the least possible suspicion of our motives.”

Quote:

Winston Churchill
"We have as much right to be in India as anyone there, except perhaps for the depressed classes, who are the native stock."

There's much more...makes for a very interesting read..at least for me..

grikoo · May 19th, 2008, 20:58

I think we all need to recognize that BOTH europeans AND Indians each have their own underlying reasons for each of the theories. The fact that those underlying reasons exist does not necessarily invalidate the theories.

The fact and location of divergent races in India PROVES that there was indeed a migration at some point. I also disagree with the 'invasion theory', but think the migration theory is probably true.

Other than those two points, I'm going to step away from this discussion for a while as it's getting a bit hostile.

Enjoy.......

Nick-H · May 19th, 2008, 21:04

a bit hostile?

Barely warming up. Watch...

Doesn't the entire theory, true or not, point to the desirability of a complete overhaul of India's retail system, which could only be effectively done by a massive involvement with Wal Mart?

... ... ...

crvlvr · May 19th, 2008, 23:44

I could not agree more with Dwan and Munivars' last posts. Whhat is fact is

1. "Foreigners" have migrated to/invaded India in many waves over the centuries. Gene mapping has proved that.

2. The word Aryan in sanskrit means "noble ones" . It is a description of personality and not race. Calling these foreigners "Aryans" is plain wrong

3. There is no evidence that these foreigners brought the knowledge of the vedas with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grikoo

I think we all need to recognize that BOTH europeans AND Indians each have their own underlying reasons for each of the theories. The fact that those underlying reasons exist does not necessarily invalidate the theories.

Yes, and theories are what they are, But, most people consider the Aryan Invasion as fact, and everything else as theories. The point is Aryan Invasion is just a theory with no more supporting evidence than other theories. Although, if one looks at theories logically/rationally other theories seem more plausible and the Aryan invasion theory almost ludicrous.

May 17th, 2008, 04:13	#107
grikoo Disclaimer- He who knows not what he speaks of Join Date: May 2008 Location: Here Posts: 463	I certainly won't argue that that's NOT the case, as I have no idea really. But it seems to me that to hold any opinion on the subject at this time would be unfounded. Until they date something other than wood and clay, like a real artifact of some sort, I can't even begin to comment. I don't see anything so far that would indicate any age. As the article you quoted points out, finding bits of wood and clay that date the same age as the surrounding sediment is an extremely dubious, if not meaningless find. I emailed the article to a friend who has her degree in ancient near-eastern antiquities (yes, that's actually a degree) and she agreed- reminding me of the "Mysteries of the Ancient World" TV shows that after proposing all sorts of weird and often ridiculous scenarios, always end with the narrator saying in all seriousness, "Is it true?..... Someday we may know." - always a let down if you ask me. It would certainly be an incredibly significant find and would definitely require a rewrite of ancient history, as it would place this civilization prior to mesopotamia. Last edited by grikoo : May 17th, 2008 at 06:09.

May 19th, 2008, 21:04	#119
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 26,842	a bit hostile? Barely warming up. Watch... Doesn't the entire theory, true or not, point to the desirability of a complete overhaul of India's retail system, which could only be effectively done by a massive involvement with Wal Mart? ... ... ... __________________ . Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hindu wedding	Butthead	Other Areas	12	Mar 15th, 2007 14:44
Hindu wedding	Barbara Martyn	Chai and Chat	20	Jan 16th, 2007 16:05
Hindu Lite	Sama	India Travel News and Commentary	16	Mar 2nd, 2006 06:29
How well do you know your Hindu Gods ?	TerryM	Yoga, Spirituality, and Religion in India	50	Aug 27th, 2005 14:34
Hindu God(s)?	IainC	Yoga, Spirituality, and Religion in India	14	Jan 24th, 2004 15:40

May 18th, 2008, 00:06	#112
qwan Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Mangalore Posts: 49	If you spirtually want to convert to hinduism you already are. But FYI it is not hinduism it is Sanathana Dharma Hinduism or Hindu is what the Persians used to call Indians. It is sad that we have adopted the same name. If you want to do it legally then you will need a caste certificate. So it depends on which caste will accept an outsider. I think mairraige will solve this

May 18th, 2008, 02:07	#115
federica Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Bavaria Posts: 989	I am not really familiar with all the invasion theories, but here's another one: "Invasion that never was" by Michel Danino: http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/indus.html

May 19th, 2008, 20:58	#118
grikoo Disclaimer- He who knows not what he speaks of Join Date: May 2008 Location: Here Posts: 463	I think we all need to recognize that *BOTH* europeans *AND Indians* each have their own underlying reasons for each of the theories. The fact that those underlying reasons exist does not necessarily invalidate the theories. The fact and location of divergent races in India PROVES that there was indeed a migration at some point. I also disagree with the 'invasion theory', but think the migration theory is probably true. Other than those two points, I'm going to step away from this discussion for a while as it's getting a bit hostile. Enjoy.......

User Name		Remember Me?
Password