Facts are in-Aryan Invasion Of Indus is a Lie!

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti

According to principals set out in Vedas.

Fine for us, but what about non-Hindus?

People build on old theories and classifications, without thinking about what it meant.

Sure, they do, if they're intelligent enough to investigate into the matter.

And how do we determine the tried and true tools?

Check for consistency and repeated observation. It's the same scientific/logical method of deduction used in prehistoric science, detective work, etc.

So we can safely infer that a Christian missionary from Uk during 1700ds, would have been more racially/Radically motivated, then today.

A missionary, sure. An anthropologist, maybe or not.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti

the Word Dravidian itself was designed to separate the southern Languages from the Northern.

Yes, because they are unrelated language families.

Hungarian, Finnish and Italian share the same continent, but they are unrelated languages. Italian is Indo-European, while Hungarian and Finnish are Finno-Ugric. There is no provable link between Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Therefore they have different names.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti

Do you mean that the North and South division was already present prior to the Indologist hypothesis.

The division in languages probably arose somewhere between 200,000 - 150,000 BCE when human language diverged from the proposed (but admittedly impossible to prove because of the time depth) human proto-language. It has nothing to do with Indologists of this century, the last century, or two centuries ago.

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji's ,

quote river woolf
Well, it's kinda hard for me to take pride in my brithland these days.

that feeling I can understand , but as it is by dint of karma , there mut be some lesson to be learnt by it , even if it is to see through the values of present society and therefore realise the value of our chosen path .

on the subject of sanskrit ? as language is constantly evolving , and concidering that the vedic tradition was originaly an oral tradition it would have been handed down in many different local dialects , only more recently to be layed down in standardised sanskrit , the language or the scripts used are un important when compaired to the content !
it is the origin of the vedic knowledge that is important question

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

About language... Although I am in partial agreement with your view, ratikala, I also feel that language is important insofar as it is a layer of vibration which represents the other layers of vibration. Or, in a word, shabdabrahman.

I saw once a woman sing language into existence. Or rather, I was her and the objects she named gave themselves their names as multidimensional deities clothing themselves in the mundane forms of the material creation. The language bore its own syntax.

It may indeed be that there is an original, divine, or otherwise pure language.

Language may be evolving, or another view is that it may be degenerating. TBTL, what is your view on this as the resident linguist?

Namaste

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Shuddasattva

Language may be evolving, or another view is that it may be degenerating. TBTL, what is your view on this as the resident linguist?

Namaste

Language evolves. But not as we think of evolution going from lower to higher, or devolution, i.e. degeneration. It simply changes. Some things become more complex (adding post-positions, prepositions, agglutinations) where there were formerly nominal declensions; using periphrastic phrases instead of verb conjugations. E.g. "I will go" is not an English future tense. English has only past and non-past tenses. All other "tenses" and "moods" are created with modals and periphrastic phrases. Most IE languages still have conjugated tenses. Greek is a exception in that it is going the way of English; I think the Germanic languages too.

Yet on the other hand, those same complexities simplify the language because now you don't have all the nominal case inflections: nominative, dative, accusative, genitive, vocative, etc. (Lithuanian has 14 cases! ) i.e. Krishnah, KrishAya, Krishnam, Krishnasya, Krishna!

Yep, language just changes, neither for good nor ill. If two people can communicate, then the language works just fine.

[ratikala]

namaste shuddasattva ,

Originally Posted by Shuddasattva

Namaste

About language... Although I am in partial agreement with your view, ratikala, I also feel that language is important insofar as it is a layer of vibration which represents the other layers of vibration. Or, in a word, shabdabrahman.

jai jai oh yes I agree very much with your saying "it is a layer of vibration which represents other layers of vibration" .....that truly is shabda , but surely not all language is shabda , the divine sound

I saw once a woman sing language into existence. Or rather, I was her and the objects she named gave themselves their names as multidimensional deities clothing themselves in the mundane forms of the material creation. The language bore its own syntax.

this please you will have to explain a little more .

It may indeed be that there is an original, divine, or otherwise pure language.

it is my personal feeling that the original , the divine , pervades every language but it is not the language in its entirety !

as the origin (the supreme) , the divine , is without begining and without end !that sound vibration shabda is un changing ,

so the thought of a pure language ? prehaps at the begining of satya yuga when beings them selves were pure

Language may be evolving, or another view is that it may be degenerating.

I like TBL's answer ..."it simply changes"...."if two people can comunicate then it works just fine"..... that in a way is how it changes ... the need to make our selves understood , yet if we are talking about shabda the divine sound , the esoteric essence of the supreme ,this is not language , shabda is sound vibration , that sound vibration is eternal , non changing , indivisable from the supreme , ....as krsna says in the bhagavad gita "of the vedic mantras I am the OM " ....surely language is the tool we use to express our understanding , to convey the understood meaning , and to question . in this way language develops and recedes and develops again with our propencity to question and to learn , to fullfill our needs both spiritual and mundane .

for this reason I had said that it is not the language that is of importance but the meanings hidden within ......those meanings are the wisdom by which we might realise shabda (the supreme).

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by ratikala

... yet if we are talking about shabda the divine sound , the esoteric essence of the supreme ,this is not language , shabda is sound vibration , that sound vibration is eternal , non changing , indivisable from the supreme

Music, Nada Brahma, the sound of creation.

The philosophy of the Indian Classical Music took its origin from the concept of Nada Brahma..

..which means that the whole universe was created from the energy of sound - it's only the sound that exists in the beginning.

[Vinayaka]

If you start with a particular premise and assume it is true, (even though it may not be) and work from there, then there are no other conclusion. In this scase its the ethnocentric view that man originated somewhere in the middle east, and spread outward. Since anti AIT theory goes against this very basic premise, then it just can't be right.

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

Originally Posted by TouchedbytheLord

Music,

Ah ha ... now prehaps we are talking , if that sound vibration ahs maintained its purity , better we look for it in the faithfull composition of ragas .

Quote:

The philosophy of the Indian Classical Music took its origin from the concept of Nada Brahma..

..which means that the whole universe was created from the energy of sound - it's only the sound that exists in the beginning.

in the begining in the middle and at the end of this earth ... and on into the begining of the next