Indus Valley Civilization

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

paarsurrey said:
"a near 100% match between what we find in the IVC and what we find in the Vedic literature"

It has been strongly contested by others:

There is no reference in Rigveda to the big cities or important places of the IVC.

There is no evidence in Rigveda about the Indus peoples’ architectural skills.

There is no evidence in Rigveda about the tubed drainages found in the Indus valley.

There is no evidence in Rigveda about water reservoirs or ponds found in Indus valley.

There is no evidence in Rigveda about water urn burials found in Indus valley.

Why the Rig Vedas Cannot Overlap with the Indus Valley Civilization
There are many other points mentioned in the above article. One may like to visit that site to reconcile the issue.
Regards

Sorry, allow me to clarify the term 'vedic literature' as this term can be confusing. If used in a narrow sense 'Veda' just means the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Samhitas. If used more broadly it refers to all the literature composed during the Vedic age: Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. If used in a more broader sense it refers to all Hindu literature. I was using it in the broadest sense.

Indeed, you are right the Rig Veda does not describe an urban civilisation, that is because the Rig Veda if it was indeed composed during and prior to 4000BCE as the evidence suggests, was in the pre-urban phase of the IVC. The period when urban civilisation develops is during the mature Harappa phase around 2500BCE. I personally think the Rig Veda corresponds to the Megarh period, which is the early agricultural phase. The IVC corresponds with the janaprada period, or the age of republic, which is wrongly thought to have taken place in 1000BCE and called the second urbanisation period. This leads to the silly belief that the IVC magically disappeared or declined. They reached a very high level of urbanisation, then all of a sudden went went back to agrarian society. This has lead to a dark age in Indian history from the period of IVC to the so-called second urbanisation period, where dark age means that we don't really have history for that period. Now, new research is showing the IVC did not disappear at all, and the later culture was continuous with the IVC. Hence, why you find that every feature of the IVC is consistent with the later culture, even the systems of weights and measures is the same.

The best way to resolve this paradox which has been created because of this false date of 1500BCE of "Arrivals of Aryans" which I have already shown was based on faulty scholarship, is to match up the janaprada period with the IVC. This is when you a near 100% match between what is described about the janapradas and what we uncover in the IVC. Then all inconsistencies you see in Indian history are resolved. Paradox is gone.

But this means revising almost all dates in ancient and medieval Indian history by 1200 years. The only dates we can be certain about are post-Arab invasion dates. The British scholars like Sir William Jones knew of this. Even before Max Muller came up with AIT and 1500BCE date, William Jones had already shortened all the dates of Indian dynasties and kings to bring it line with the Mosaic history(bible basically) He was scornful of these really long dates given in the Indian records, saying it cannot possibly true, because it contradicted the bible. This was even before any research was done. A priori he shortened them all 1200 years.

Here are the actual dates according to Indian history:

3228 BC - Descension of Krishna [note 2]
3139 BC - The Mahabharata War; start of Brihadrath dynasty of Magadha; start of Yudhisthir dynasty of Hastinapur
3102 BC - Ascension of Krishna; start of Kali Yuga
2139 BC - End of Brihadrath dynasty
2139-2001 BC - Pradyota dynasty
2001-1641 BC - Shishunaga dynasty
1894-1814 BC - Gautama Buddha [note 3]
1641-1541 BC - Nandas [note 4]
1541-1241 BC - Maurya dynasty [note 5]
1541-1507 BC - Chandragupta Maurya [note 6]
1507-1479 BC - Bindusara [note 7]
1479-1443 BC - Ashokvardhan
1241-784 BC - Shunga and Kanau dynasty
784-328 BC - Andhra dynasty [note 8]
509-477 BC - Jagadguru Shankaracharya [note 9]
328-83 BC - Gupta dynasty [note 10]
328-321 BC - Chandragupta Vijayaditya [note 11]
326 BC - Alexander's invasion
321-270 BC - Ashoka [note 12]
102 BC-AD 15 - Vikramāditya, established Vikram era in 57 BC

See: Puranic chronology - Wikipedia

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

You are told this nonsense that Indians did not record their history. The reason you are told this is because William Jones declared all Indian history as myth -- and purely because it contradicted the bible(you can read his writings, he says this) So he shortened every single date, reduced the reign of each king in the dynasty to a couple of years rather than decades per king -- later to justify his move, he looked at the Greek records for the king that Alexander was contemporary with, 'Sandocrottus' which he realised was the Greek pronunciation for 'Chandragupta' (This is correct) but what he ignored, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, there was not one but three Chandragupta's in Indian history(just like in Western history you have Henry 1, Henry 2, Henry, Richard 1, Richard 2, Louis 1, Louis 2 ) and he picked Chandragupta Mauraya to support his shortened chronology.

The truth is the Puranas do not mention any Yavana kings or Yavana attacks during Chandragupta Mauraya's rule -- so the history you are taught about Chandragupta Mauraya meeting with the Greeks and watch on television serials is total bogus. The Yavana(Greeks) attacks are recorded 1200 years later when Chandragupta Gupta was ruling and that is why he celebrated as Vikramaditya because he defeated all the Mlecchas tribes that were attacking India regularly in that period the Sakas, Yavanas etc and which had ruled parts of India. To commemorate this victory a new calendar was started known as the 'Vikram Samvat' Even the Arab historians knew about this calendar, and they record in their own history the Samvat era was ending when they entered India(but according to Western scholars they said it was beginning)

The Puranas record Chandragupta Gupta was a low caste born king(born of barbers) and his mother was a maid who conspired with a solider she had an affair with to kill the king(something like that) and their illegitimate child was Chandragupta Gupta. Chandragupta is recorded as defeating Yavanas and making treaties with Yavana kingdoms(Indo-Greek kingdoms) by marrying a yavana princess --- every single detail matches what the Greek said about Sandrocrottus --- and not a single one matches Chandragupta Mauraya.

Even today if you go to any of the Sankarcharya Maths in India, they have kept records of Adishakarcharya(the first) just as Christians keep records of their popes, and they all say he was born in 500BCE NOT 700CE. I mean come on, if Shankarcharya really was born in 700CE, how could they forget he was born recently in 700CE and not 500BCE?

You will see other inconsistencies such as the dating of the Buddha. Not just the Indian records say he was born in 1800BCE, but even the Chinese records place him long before 1000BCE. So the dates you are given of 400BC of the Buddha is also bogus.

There are yet even more inconsistencies, even in the Greek records. In Megesthenes account 'Indica' he describes the state religion as being Hindu, he describes a very rigid caste system, and he describes the different sects prevalent in India and makes very little mention of Buddhists. However, Buddhism was the state religion of the Mauryan empire and Chandragupta Mauraya himself was Jain, and the Hindu revival of the bhakti-focused sects had not yet happened and the caste system was not rigid. Even scholars agree that the caste system took its rigid form during the Gupta age, not the Mauryan age.

There are inconsistencies with the Bhakti movement as well, especially the rise of vaishnavism. They say the Bhakti sects started to proliferate during the early centuries CE and this is when the Puranas were composed --- but the Greeks already knew the story of Krishna and Balram in the Puranas, they also knew the Puranic geneologies recorded in the Puranas.

There are many absurdities in Indian history because of this 1500BCE 'Arrival of Aryans' some I have already discussed, but a few I will mention to you:

* Panini mentions as some of the scholars he references in composing his works Yavanas, but Panini is dated to 500BCE, long before the Greeks arrived in India. Panini even mention attacks by Yavanas on India. It is interesting the Greeks have no memory of these early invasion of India and their early grammarians who Panini references. It is interesting just like we have dark ages for Indian history from 2000BCE to 1000BCE, there is a dark age for the Greek history from 2000BE to 1000BCE. I propose that the Yavanas Panini is referencing is the early Yavana tribes that left OUT OF INDIA. The leaving of various Mleccha tribes i.e., the Indo-Europeans is recorded in the Mahabharata. Ironic isn't that?

*The sudden accelerated scientific evolution of Indian society. The Aryans arrive in 1500BCE, by 1200BCE the Rig Veda is complete and by 1000BCE the Atharva Veda, where medicine is practised through incantations, spells, magic and mantras -- by 800BCE, literally just two centuries later, Indians are writing scientific encyclopedias on surgery and medicine, enumerating 1000+ diseases, classifying medicine and drugs, doing clinical trials, plastic surgery with steel implements --- in just two centuries? What did aliens land and teach Indians the sciences. The same goes for the sudden leap from agrarian nomadic society to urban republics(janapradas) Further inconsistencies arise if you read the history of Ayurveda, it references early physicians as far back as 5 centuries back. Same with all the other sciences. We know scientific development does not happen so quickly, it requires thousands of years of development.

None of what I said was unknown and not considered by Muller, Jones et al, they knew all of this, but they dismissed it all, by pretty much saying Indians were deceitful, superstitious, religious, untrustworthy people and they lied about all their history, made it all up --- basically what we call racism today, and this is racism of the most obnoxious kind. They stated very explicitly in their writings "We want to destroy Indian civilisation" And these racist, almost Nazi-like people, we consider scholars and we take everything they say as valid, do not question it, do not question the assumptions or motivations. Do we know take as valid what the Nazis said about the Jews?

Anyway what the colonial scholars did to Indian is an absolutely disgusting and dastardly act, which will be remembered by and condemned by history. I am glad I live in a post-colonial world where as belonging to a country which was a former colonial subject, I can question the early colonial scholars.

AIT/AMT/Arrival of Aryans 1500BCE will be gone. It is not only Indians who are challenging this myth, but non-Indian scholars too and also scientists. A lie cannot remain forever. Satyameva Jayate.

Curious George · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
You are told this nonsense that Indians did not record their history. The reason you are told this is because William Jones declared all Indian history as myth -- and purely because it contradicted the bible(you can read his writings, he says this) So he shortened every single date, reduced the reign of each king in the dynasty to a couple of years rather than decades per king -- later to justify his move, he looked at the Greek records for the king that Alexander was contemporary with, 'Sandocrottus' which he realised was the Greek pronunciation for 'Chandragupta' (This is correct) but what he ignored, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, there was not one but three Chandragupta's in Indian history(just like in Western history you have Henry 1, Henry 2, Henry, Richard 1, Richard 2, Louis 1, Louis 2 ) and he picked Chandragupta Mauraya to support his shortened chronology.

The truth is the Puranas do not mention any Yavana kings or Yavana attacks during Chandragupta Mauraya's rule -- so the history you are taught about Chandragupta Mauraya meeting with the Greeks and watch on television serials is total bogus. The Yavana(Greeks) attacks are recorded 1200 years later when Chandragupta Gupta was ruling and that is why he celebrated as Vikramaditya because he defeated all the Mlecchas tribes that were attacking India regularly in that period the Sakas, Yavanas etc and which had ruled parts of India. To commemorate this victory a new calendar was started known as the 'Vikram Samvat' Even the Arab historians knew about this calendar, and they record in their own history the Samvat era was ending when they entered India(but according to Western scholars they said it was beginning)

The Puranas record Chandragupta Gupta was a low caste born king(born of barbers) and his mother was a maid who conspired with a solider she had an affair with to kill the king(something like that) and their illegitimate child was Chandragupta Gupta. Chandragupta is recorded as defeating Yavanas and making treaties with Yavana kingdoms(Indo-Greek kingdoms) by marrying a yavana princess --- every single detail matches what the Greek said about Sandrocrottus --- and not a single one matches Chandragupta Mauraya.

Even today if you go to any of the Sankarcharya Maths in India, they have kept records of Adishakarcharya(the first) just as Christians keep records of their popes, and they all say he was born in 500BCE NOT 700CE. I mean come on, if Shankarcharya really was born in 700CE, how could they forget he was born recently in 700CE and not 500BCE?

You will see other inconsistencies such as the dating of the Buddha. Not just the Indian records say he was born in 1800BCE, but even the Chinese records place him long before 1000BCE. So the dates you are given of 400BC of the Buddha is also bogus.

There are yet even more inconsistencies, even in the Greek records. In Megesthenes account 'Indica' he describes the state religion as being Hindu, he describes a very rigid caste system, and he describes the different sects prevalent in India and makes very little mention of Buddhists. However, Buddhism was the state religion of the Mauryan empire and Chandragupta Mauraya himself was Jain, and the Hindu revival of the bhakti-focused sects had not yet happened and the caste system was not rigid. Even scholars agree that the caste system took its rigid form during the Gupta age, not the Mauryan age.

There are inconsistencies with the Bhakti movement as well, especially the rise of vaishnavism. They say the Bhakti sects started to proliferate during the early centuries CE and this is when the Puranas were composed --- but the Greeks already knew the story of Krishna and Balram in the Puranas, they also knew the Puranic geneologies recorded in the Puranas.

There are many absurdities in Indian history because of this 1500BCE 'Arrival of Aryans' some I have already discussed, but a few I will mention to you:

* Panini mentions as some of the scholars he references in composing his works Yavanas, but Panini is dated to 500BCE, long before the Greeks arrived in India. Panini even mention attacks by Yavanas on India. It is interesting the Greeks have no memory of these early invasion of India and their early grammarians who Panini references. It is interesting just like we have dark ages for Indian history from 2000BCE to 1000BCE, there is a dark age for the Greek history from 2000BE to 1000BCE. I propose that the Yavanas Panini is referencing is the early Yavana tribes that left OUT OF INDIA. The leaving of various Mleccha tribes i.e., the Indo-Europeans is recorded in the Mahabharata. Ironic isn't that?

*The sudden accelerated scientific evolution of Indian society. The Aryans arrive in 1500BCE, by 1200BCE the Rig Veda is complete and by 1000BCE the Atharva Veda, where medicine is practised through incantations, spells, magic and mantras -- by 800BCE, literally just two centuries later, Indians are writing scientific encyclopedias on surgery and medicine, enumerating 1000+ diseases, classifying medicine and drugs, doing clinical trials, plastic surgery with steel implements --- in just two centuries? What did aliens land and teach Indians the sciences. The same goes for the sudden leap from agrarian nomadic society to urban republics(janapradas) Further inconsistencies arise if you read the history of Ayurveda, it references early physicians as far back as 5 centuries back. Same with all the other sciences. We know scientific development does not happen so quickly, it requires thousands of years of development.

None of what I said was unknown and not considered by Muller, Jones et al, they knew all of this, but they dismissed it all, by pretty much saying Indians were deceitful, superstitious, religious, untrustworthy people and they lied about all their history, made it all up --- basically what we call racism today, and this is racism of the most obnoxious kind. They stated very explicitly in their writings "We want to destroy Indian civilisation" And these racist, almost Nazi-like people, we consider scholars and we take everything they say as valid, do not question it, do not question the assumptions or motivations. Do we know take as valid what the Nazis said about the Jews?

Anyway what the colonial scholars did to Indian is an absolutely disgusting and dastardly act, which will be remembered by and condemned by history. I am glad I live in a post-colonial world where as belonging to a country which was a former colonial subject, I can question the early colonial scholars.

AIT/AMT/Arrival of Aryans 1500BCE will be gone. It is not only Indians who are challenging this myth, but non-Indian scholars too and also scientists. A lie cannot remain forever. Satyameva Jayate.

I am certainly hopeful that truth cannot stay hidden. However, I don't know that I am convinced by religious texts. I keep hoping some archeological discovery will come from the IVC that shed more light on the subject.

Kirran · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
Now, I have not yet mentioned genetic evidence, because genetic evidence based on a science which is still in tis infancy, often leads to conflicting interpretations. However, one thing seems to be clear all of Caucasians, including Europeans have ancestry in India according to mDNA studies. This means that the original people that left from Africa, migrated into India, and from India migrated through Central Asia and into Europe. However, this is not a recent migration, but a migration that happened some 50,000 years ago.

Man to be honest with you this doesn't seem to be quite in line with current consensus on this. Haplotype distributions point to a migration across the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait as far as the Persian Gulf, after which migrations moved northwest into Europe and the Levant and east into deeper Asia. Some small degree of admixture with endogenous Neanderthal populations appears to have happened at around this time, as there is a common Neanderthal ancestry to all non-Sub-Saharan African populations (and a further admixture into some populations - East Asians get their pale skin from Neanderthal genes, whereas Europeans evolved theirs much later, being descended only from dark-skinned Neanderthal populations).

There were previously migrations through Egypt into Israel, but these seem to be more like temporary expansions of the African population than a real expansion of range, as they faded away again while Neanderthal populations there continued.

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

Kirran said:
Man to be honest with you this doesn't seem to be quite in line with current consensus on this. Haplotype distributions point to a migration across the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait as far as the Persian Gulf, after which migrations moved northwest into Europe and the Levant and east into deeper Asia. Some small degree of admixture with endogenous Neanderthal populations appears to have happened at around this time, as there is a common Neanderthal ancestry to all non-Sub-Saharan African populations (and a further admixture into some populations - East Asians get their pale skin from Neanderthal genes, whereas Europeans evolved theirs much later, being descended only from dark-skinned Neanderthal populations).

There were previously migrations through Egypt into Israel, but these seem to be more like temporary expansions of the African population than a real expansion of range, as they faded away again while Neanderthal populations there continued.

I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, I am just referencing a study I read, but you seem to have more knowledge, so I will take what you said to be true. I do find, as I said earlier, these studies to be rather contradictory. I think maybe the science is not advanced enough yet to be reliable. There is a lot of interpretation involved it seems.

Kirran · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, I am just referencing a study I read, but you seem to have more knowledge, so I will take what you said to be true. I do find, as I said earlier, these studies to be rather contradictory. I think maybe the science is not advanced enough yet to be reliable. There is a lot of interpretation involved it seems.

Well, it is stuff I've studied at uni, among other things! We have a pretty solid idea of human migrations by now. Our genetics game is strong.

My mtDNA haplogroup (H13a2) is one that's associated with India though. My Y-DNA haplogroup (R1a1a) is Eastern European and Scandinavian, and is found in parts of Scotland to a fair degree (that'll be why I have it!).

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

Curious George said:
I am certainly hopeful that truth cannot stay hidden. However, I don't know that I am convinced by religious texts. I keep hoping some archeological discovery will come from the IVC that shed more light on the subject.

You see in Indian literature in general there is no such thing as a text sans religion, religion, science, art, history, mythology, ritual, engineering all go together. Like which other religion has its own schools of philosophy and sciences? Only the Dharmic religions. This is because the Western compartmentalised way of thinking of separating philosophy, religion, science, art and engineering etc, which I suppose you could call a categorical framework peculiar to the West, does not apply in the Indian context. Indian thinking, although its a cliche, is holistic, everything is seen as as an interconnected system, the same goes for disciplines and life.

I remember tackling an essay question on this on whether Indian philosophy can be considered philosophy or religion. The main argument against not considering it as philosophy, was to say that there is no clear separation between philosophy and religion in India. I refuted this by challenging the assumption itself that philosophy should be separate from religion hehe

Indian history or 'Purana' and we are not just looking at one Purana, but thousands of Puranas, not just Hindu, but also Buddhist and Jain, and not just the Puranas but even non-Puranic records which mention history -- and they all give a consistent chronology of India, which is not just internally consistent, but consistent with records of Greeks, Egyptians etc ---side note --- "Did you know the Greeks actually considered Egyptians to be descendent from India, they identified 'punt' the land Egyptians said was in East, rich in sandalwood and incense their original land, as India, but the later Egyptians hated Punt and attacked it -- early scholars took this identification seriously, and even before they came up with AIT, they came up EIT(Egyptian invasion theory) There are strong similarities between ancient Egyptian society and Hindu society -- and the strongest similarity was noted by a historian of mathematics, when he noted the Pyramids were based on Vedic rules of geometry --- it lead him to the conclusion that the Vedic rules of geometry(Sulba sutras) had to be as old as the Pyramids.

Another thing that people don't know is Plato's story of Atlantis in this Timeus where he talks about the ancient war between Athens and Atlantis about 10,000 years ago which happened according to him in the golden age, was told to him by the Egyptians. He says that Atlantis was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa, and then it went to war with Athens. Then Atlantis sank suddenly due to the moral degradation of its people --- do you know where else this story occurs? In the Ramayana -- India and Lankapura go to war 10,000 years ago(if you don't take the Puranic long count, but the Mahabharata short count) Lankapura was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa. It sank in the twinkling of an eye due to the moral degradation of its people, and what remains of it is the island archipelago of Sri Lanka and Maldives.

You see a lot of people today don't know about this because how much India has been marginalised in history

Anyway I totally digressed there! Coming back to the point I wanted to make. There are very clear double standards in history vis-a-vis Indian history and Western history. For example we consider Helidotus accounts actual history(in fact hes considered the first historian) or Megesthenes accounts as history and yet in their accounts you all see history mixed with mythology, magic and superstition -- as you do in the Puranas -- but Purana is mythology and theirs is history. Ok..... Same goes for Jesus vis-a-vis Krishna, Jesus is history and we even mark the calendar by him --- but Krishna, Mahabharata, Ramayana is mythology.

I totally agree with you in the end science will write the true history of India, which is why I am confident AIT/AMT/Aryan arrival is going to be gone. So far every scientist that has dealt with this myth has challenged it. Astronomers, geologists, archaeologists and marine archaeologists, mathematicians have all challenged it because it contradicts the evidence they find.. So you may ask then why does the myth still continue? Politics. No, I am not talking about Western politics, I am talking about Indian politics.

AIT/AMT is not just some academic theory that only academics knows, AIT/AMT is deeply controversial and political in India, and it has been internalised by various groups to give them identity(identity politics) This is especially true for Tamil nationalists(Dravidian nationalism) and Tamil nationalism is no small movement, it is in some sense characteristic of Tamil identity e.g Tamil language itself has been purged of Sanskrit loan words, at one time like other Dravidian languages, it consisted of about 80% Sanskrit words. Many Tamil people in general are resistant to having Sanskrit or Hindi as a national language, because they see it as language of invaders. There are also strong Tamil secessionist movements, which are being encouraged by Christian evangelicals(See Rajiv Malhotr's expose of this in 'Breaking India' by creating a new type of Christian and Tamil hybrid religion, Dravidian Christianity. This teaches that Jesus was in fact a Tamilian!

It is internalised by Dalit freedom movements as well, they see the Aryan Hindus as being invaders that came and imposed a racist caste system on India, and they were the victims of this racist caste system which discriminated on the basis of "colour" A lot of the early so-called rationalists, like Ambedkar strongly believed in this, so they left Hinduism or converted to other religions. To Dalits, converting to any religion other than Hinduism is seen as more favourable.

You can see AIT was not just some esoteric academic innocuous theory, it was used as a tool to divide and conquer. In the same way the Rawanda genocide was caused by academic theories of the distinction between totsi and hutu. AIT then came to bite the British on their behinds when Hitler used it for the same purpose of dividing Germans from the rest. It is ironic the creator of AIT Muller was a German himself!

Fortunately, today, a lot of Indians, especially educated Indians are starting to wise up to the myth of AIT. Many Indian youth consider AIT a myth today. The sooner we exorcise this ghost of the colonial past the better. Hence, why I think it is important not just to wait for scientists to disprove it(they already have) but to openly discuss it and debate it, like we are doing here, so more and more people learn about it, what it is, how its been used, how it was created and what were the motivations.

Just one last thing I wanted to mention because AIT is so controversial in India and has the potential to actually cause riots(like Rwanda some think) the Indian government rightly or wrongly does not fund or intervenes and stops any excavations of the IVC. When the really historic discovery was made of the submerged Dwaraka city, with some dates saying it was 9000 years old, and proposals are being made to create an underwater Dwaraka museum, the Indian government directly intervened and stopped all further research. This is why you stopped hearing about it, otherwise this would have turned out to be been the biggest discovery in history since Troy.

Curious George · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
You see in Indian literature in general there is no such thing as a text sans religion, religion, science, art, history, mythology, ritual, engineering all go together. Like which other religion has its own schools of philosophy and sciences? Only the Dharmic religions. This is because the Western compartmentalised way of thinking of separating philosophy, religion, science, art and engineering etc, which I suppose you could call a categorical framework peculiar to the West, does not apply in the Indian context. Indian thinking, although its a cliche, is holistic, everything is seen as as an interconnected system, the same goes for disciplines and life.

I remember tackling an essay question on this on whether Indian philosophy can be considered philosophy or religion. The main argument against not considering it as philosophy, was to say that there is no clear separation between philosophy and religion in India. I refuted this by challenging the assumption itself that philosophy should be separate from religion hehe

Indian history or 'Purana' and we are not just looking at one Purana, but thousands of Puranas, not just Hindu, but also Buddhist and Jain, and not just the Puranas but even non-Puranic records which mention history -- and they all give a consistent chronology of India, which is not just internally consistent, but consistent with records of Greeks, Egyptians etc ---side note --- "Did you know the Greeks actually considered Egyptians to be descendent from India, they identified 'punt' the land Egyptians said was in East, rich in sandalwood and incense their original land, as India, but the later Egyptians hated Punt and attacked it -- early scholars took this identification seriously, and even before they came up with AIT, they came up EIT(Egyptian invasion theory) There are strong similarities between ancient Egyptian society and Hindu society -- and the strongest similarity was noted by a historian of mathematics, when he noted the Pyramids were based on Vedic rules of geometry --- it lead him to the conclusion that the Vedic rules of geometry(Sulba sutras) had to be as old as the Pyramids.

Another thing that people don't know is Plato's story of Atlantis in this Timeus where he talks about the ancient war between Athens and Atlantis about 10,000 years ago which happened according to him in the golden age, was told to him by the Egyptians. He says that Atlantis was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa, and then it went to war with Athens. Then Atlantis sank suddenly due to the moral degradation of its people --- do you know where else this story occurs? In the Ramayana -- India and Lankapura go to war 10,000 years ago(if you don't take the Puranic long count, but the Mahabharata short count) Lankapura was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa. It sank in the twinkling of an eye due to the moral degradation of its people, and what remains of it is the island archipelago of Sri Lanka and Maldives.

You see a lot of people today don't know about this because how much India has been marginalised in history

Anyway I totally digressed there! Coming back to the point I wanted to make. There are very clear double standards in history vis-a-vis Indian history and Western history. For example we consider Helidotus accounts actual history(in fact hes considered the first historian) or Megesthenes accounts as history and yet in their accounts you all see history mixed with mythology, magic and superstition -- as you do in the Puranas -- but Purana is mythology and theirs is history. Ok..... Same goes for Jesus vis-a-vis Krishna, Jesus is history and we even mark the calendar by him --- but Krishna, Mahabharata, Ramayana is mythology.

I totally agree with you in the end science will write the true history of India, which is why I am confident AIT/AMT/Aryan arrival is going to be gone. So far every scientist that has dealt with this myth has challenged it. Astronomers, geologists, archaeologists and marine archaeologists, mathematicians have all challenged it because it contradicts the evidence they find.. So you may ask then why does the myth still continue? Politics. No, I am not talking about Western politics, I am talking about Indian politics.

AIT/AMT is not just some academic theory that only academics knows, AIT/AMT is deeply controversial and political in India, and it has been internalised by various groups to give them identity(identity politics) This is especially true for Tamil nationalists(Dravidian nationalism) and Tamil nationalism is no small movement, it is in some sense characteristic of Tamil identity e.g Tamil language itself has been purged of Sanskrit loan words, at one time like other Dravidian languages, it consisted of about 80% Sanskrit words. Many Tamil people in general are resistant to having Sanskrit or Hindi as a national language, because they see it as language of invaders. There are also strong Tamil secessionist movements, which are being encouraged by Christian evangelicals(See Rajiv Malhotr's expose of this in 'Breaking India' by creating a new type of Christian and Tamil hybrid religion, Dravidian Christianity. This teaches that Jesus was in fact a Tamilian!

It is internalised by Dalit freedom movements as well, they see the Aryan Hindus as being invaders that came and imposed a racist caste system on India, and they were the victims of this racist caste system which discriminated on the basis of "colour" A lot of the early so-called rationalists, like Ambedkar strongly believed in this, so they left Hinduism or converted to other religions. To Dalits, converting to any religion other than Hinduism is seen as more favourable.

You can see AIT was not just some esoteric academic innocuous theory, it was used as a tool to divide and conquer. In the same way the Rawanda genocide was caused by academic theories of the distinction between totsi and hutu. AIT then came to bite the British on their behinds when Hitler used it for the same purpose of dividing Germans from the rest. It is ironic the creator of AIT Muller was a German himself!

Fortunately, today, a lot of Indians, especially educated Indians are starting to wise up to the myth of AIT. Many Indian youth consider AIT a myth today. The sooner we exorcise this ghost of the colonial past the better. Hence, why I think it is important not just to wait for scientists to disprove it(they already have) but to openly discuss it and debate it, like we are doing here, so more and more people learn about it, what it is, how its been used, how it was created and what were the motivations.

Just one last thing I wanted to mention because AIT is so controversial in India and has the potential to actually cause riots(like Rwanda some think) the Indian government rightly or wrongly does not fund or intervenes and stops any excavations of the IVC. When the really historic discovery was made of the submerged Dwaraka city, with some dates saying it was 9000 years old, and proposals are being made to create an underwater Dwaraka museum, the Indian government directly intervened and stopped all further research. This is why you stopped hearing about it, otherwise this would have turned out to be been the biggest discovery in history since Troy.

Thank you for this informative reply.

One aside, I think there is a huge distinction between arguing philosophy texts and religious texts are inseparable and that historical and religious texts are inseparable.

That said, your text here reads as though you are taking bits of knowledge from different arenas much the way a conspiracy theorist would. Please don't take this as me suggesting your position is a conspiracy theory. Rather it seems that you have extensive knowledge on the subject and are trying to convey your mental construct. Doing so in small chunks would be easier for me to digest. As I said before, IVC is hard to imagine. It deals with geography very different from that which we see and have learned today, it deals with a civilization of a size that is hard to imagine, and it is obscured by time.

Without question this civilisation changed the world in ways which are both underappreciated and untaught. I would also say unknown even to those who have studied the culture in depth.

It is unfortunate that politics of any variety continue to disrupt knowledge. If you would, I am very interested in links to works of mathematicians, anthropologists, archeologists, engineers, and geneticists regarding IVC.

Because you mention Atlantis, it is evident that Greek philosophy was greatly influenced by and some would say borne of "eastern philosophy", (others might say stolen) though the two have a division. So it is without surprise that we see crossover. But, even with something like Atlantis, it is widely accepted that such a place is not historical. Although, many do believe such a place actually existed. This is the problem with taking history from text. Different interpretations of fact, fiction, and in between abound. Or would you have me believe that vishnu awoke on a cobra swimming across an ocean? I am fine with using references to substantiate actual finds, but I prefer my history without things we cannot substantiate. Would that the literary works of ancient Greece, egypt,mesopotamia, and The IVC still existed. Much would be known. Least of which would be where to look to substantiate what is written.

Best regards

paarsurrey · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
Sorry, allow me to clarify the term 'vedic literature' as this term can be confusing. If used in a narrow sense 'Veda' just means the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Samhitas. If used more broadly it refers to all the literature composed during the Vedic age: Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. If used in a more broader sense it refers to all Hindu literature. I was using it in the broadest sense.

Indeed, you are right the Rig Veda does not describe an urban civilisation, that is because the Rig Veda if it was indeed composed during and prior to 4000BCE as the evidence suggests, was in the pre-urban phase of the IVC. The period when urban civilisation develops is during the mature Harappa phase around 2500BCE. I personally think the Rig Veda corresponds to the Megarh period, which is the early agricultural phase. The IVC corresponds with the janaprada period, or the age of republic, which is wrongly thought to have taken place in 1000BCE and called the second urbanisation period. This leads to the silly belief that the IVC magically disappeared or declined. They reached a very high level of urbanisation, then all of a sudden went went back to agrarian society. This has lead to a dark age in Indian history from the period of IVC to the so-called second urbanisation period, where dark age means that we don't really have history for that period. Now, new research is showing the IVC did not disappear at all, and the later culture was continuous with the IVC. Hence, why you find that every feature of the IVC is consistent with the later culture, even the systems of weights and measures is the same.

The best way to resolve this paradox which has been created because of this false date of 1500BCE of "Arrivals of Aryans" which I have already shown was based on faulty scholarship, is to match up the janaprada period with the IVC. This is when you a near 100% match between what is described about the janapradas and what we uncover in the IVC. Then all inconsistencies you see in Indian history are resolved. Paradox is gone.

But this means revising almost all dates in ancient and medieval Indian history by 1200 years. The only dates we can be certain about are post-Arab invasion dates. The British scholars like Sir William Jones knew of this. Even before Max Muller came up with AIT and 1500BCE date, William Jones had already shortened all the dates of Indian dynasties and kings to bring it line with the Mosaic history(bible basically) He was scornful of these really long dates given in the Indian records, saying it cannot possibly true, because it contradicted the bible. This was even before any research was done. A priori he shortened them all 1200 years.

Here are the actual dates according to Indian history:

3228 BC - Descension of Krishna [note 2]

3139 BC - The Mahabharata War; start of Brihadrath dynasty of Magadha; start of Yudhisthir dynasty of Hastinapur

3102 BC - Ascension of Krishna; start of Kali Yuga

2139 BC - End of Brihadrath dynasty

2139-2001 BC - Pradyota dynasty

2001-1641 BC - Shishunaga dynasty

1894-1814 BC - Gautama Buddha [note 3]

1641-1541 BC - Nandas [note 4]

1541-1241 BC - Maurya dynasty [note 5]

1541-1507 BC - Chandragupta Maurya [note 6]

1507-1479 BC - Bindusara [note 7]

1479-1443 BC - Ashokvardhan

1241-784 BC - Shunga and Kanau dynasty

784-328 BC - Andhra dynasty [note 8]

509-477 BC - Jagadguru Shankaracharya [note 9]

328-83 BC - Gupta dynasty [note 10]

328-321 BC - Chandragupta Vijayaditya [note 11]

326 BC - Alexander's invasion

321-270 BC - Ashoka [note 12]

102 BC-AD 15 - Vikramāditya, established Vikram era in 57 BC

See: Puranic chronology - Wikipedia

"Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads"

Only Vedas are revealed, all others don't form the revealed scripture and belong to Post Veda Period and are un-revealed. Please

Regards

paarsurrey · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
Sorry, allow me to clarify the term 'vedic literature' as this term can be confusing. If used in a narrow sense 'Veda' just means the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Samhitas. If used more broadly it refers to all the literature composed during the Vedic age: Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. If used in a more broader sense it refers to all Hindu literature. I was using it in the broadest sense.

Indeed, you are right the Rig Veda does not describe an urban civilisation, that is because the Rig Veda if it was indeed composed during and prior to 4000BCE as the evidence suggests, was in the pre-urban phase of the IVC. The period when urban civilisation develops is during the mature Harappa phase around 2500BCE. I personally think the Rig Veda corresponds to the Megarh period, which is the early agricultural phase. The IVC corresponds with the janaprada period, or the age of republic, which is wrongly thought to have taken place in 1000BCE and called the second urbanisation period. This leads to the silly belief that the IVC magically disappeared or declined. They reached a very high level of urbanisation, then all of a sudden went went back to agrarian society. This has lead to a dark age in Indian history from the period of IVC to the so-called second urbanisation period, where dark age means that we don't really have history for that period. Now, new research is showing the IVC did not disappear at all, and the later culture was continuous with the IVC. Hence, why you find that every feature of the IVC is consistent with the later culture, even the systems of weights and measures is the same.

The best way to resolve this paradox which has been created because of this false date of 1500BCE of "Arrivals of Aryans" which I have already shown was based on faulty scholarship, is to match up the janaprada period with the IVC. This is when you a near 100% match between what is described about the janapradas and what we uncover in the IVC. Then all inconsistencies you see in Indian history are resolved. Paradox is gone.

But this means revising almost all dates in ancient and medieval Indian history by 1200 years. The only dates we can be certain about are post-Arab invasion dates. The British scholars like Sir William Jones knew of this. Even before Max Muller came up with AIT and 1500BCE date, William Jones had already shortened all the dates of Indian dynasties and kings to bring it line with the Mosaic history(bible basically) He was scornful of these really long dates given in the Indian records, saying it cannot possibly true, because it contradicted the bible. This was even before any research was done. A priori he shortened them all 1200 years.

Here are the actual dates according to Indian history:

3228 BC - Descension of Krishna [note 2]

3139 BC - The Mahabharata War; start of Brihadrath dynasty of Magadha; start of Yudhisthir dynasty of Hastinapur

3102 BC - Ascension of Krishna; start of Kali Yuga

2139 BC - End of Brihadrath dynasty

2139-2001 BC - Pradyota dynasty

2001-1641 BC - Shishunaga dynasty

1894-1814 BC - Gautama Buddha [note 3]

1641-1541 BC - Nandas [note 4]

1541-1241 BC - Maurya dynasty [note 5]

1541-1507 BC - Chandragupta Maurya [note 6]

1507-1479 BC - Bindusara [note 7]

1479-1443 BC - Ashokvardhan

1241-784 BC - Shunga and Kanau dynasty

784-328 BC - Andhra dynasty [note 8]

509-477 BC - Jagadguru Shankaracharya [note 9]

328-83 BC - Gupta dynasty [note 10]

328-321 BC - Chandragupta Vijayaditya [note 11]

326 BC - Alexander's invasion

321-270 BC - Ashoka [note 12]

102 BC-AD 15 - Vikramāditya, established Vikram era in 57 BC

See: Puranic chronology - Wikipedia

"The period when urban civilisation develops is during the mature Harappa phase"

Please specify, did it happen in the Pre-Veda period or in Post-Veda Period.

Regards

paarsurrey · Jan 12, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
You see in Indian literature in general there is no such thing as a text sans religion, religion, science, art, history, mythology, ritual, engineering all go together. Like which other religion has its own schools of philosophy and sciences? Only the Dharmic religions. This is because the Western compartmentalised way of thinking of separating philosophy, religion, science, art and engineering etc, which I suppose you could call a categorical framework peculiar to the West, does not apply in the Indian context. Indian thinking, although its a cliche, is holistic, everything is seen as as an interconnected system, the same goes for disciplines and life.

I remember tackling an essay question on this on whether Indian philosophy can be considered philosophy or religion. The main argument against not considering it as philosophy, was to say that there is no clear separation between philosophy and religion in India. I refuted this by challenging the assumption itself that philosophy should be separate from religion hehe

Indian history or 'Purana' and we are not just looking at one Purana, but thousands of Puranas, not just Hindu, but also Buddhist and Jain, and not just the Puranas but even non-Puranic records which mention history -- and they all give a consistent chronology of India, which is not just internally consistent, but consistent with records of Greeks, Egyptians etc ---side note --- "Did you know the Greeks actually considered Egyptians to be descendent from India, they identified 'punt' the land Egyptians said was in East, rich in sandalwood and incense their original land, as India, but the later Egyptians hated Punt and attacked it -- early scholars took this identification seriously, and even before they came up with AIT, they came up EIT(Egyptian invasion theory) There are strong similarities between ancient Egyptian society and Hindu society -- and the strongest similarity was noted by a historian of mathematics, when he noted the Pyramids were based on Vedic rules of geometry --- it lead him to the conclusion that the Vedic rules of geometry(Sulba sutras) had to be as old as the Pyramids.

Another thing that people don't know is Plato's story of Atlantis in this Timeus where he talks about the ancient war between Athens and Atlantis about 10,000 years ago which happened according to him in the golden age, was told to him by the Egyptians. He says that Atlantis was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa, and then it went to war with Athens. Then Atlantis sank suddenly due to the moral degradation of its people --- do you know where else this story occurs? In the Ramayana -- India and Lankapura go to war 10,000 years ago(if you don't take the Puranic long count, but the Mahabharata short count) Lankapura was a massive advanced technological continent which had a vast empire as far as Africa. It sank in the twinkling of an eye due to the moral degradation of its people, and what remains of it is the island archipelago of Sri Lanka and Maldives.

You see a lot of people today don't know about this because how much India has been marginalised in history

Anyway I totally digressed there! Coming back to the point I wanted to make. There are very clear double standards in history vis-a-vis Indian history and Western history. For example we consider Helidotus accounts actual history(in fact hes considered the first historian) or Megesthenes accounts as history and yet in their accounts you all see history mixed with mythology, magic and superstition -- as you do in the Puranas -- but Purana is mythology and theirs is history. Ok..... Same goes for Jesus vis-a-vis Krishna, Jesus is history and we even mark the calendar by him --- but Krishna, Mahabharata, Ramayana is mythology.

I totally agree with you in the end science will write the true history of India, which is why I am confident AIT/AMT/Aryan arrival is going to be gone. So far every scientist that has dealt with this myth has challenged it. Astronomers, geologists, archaeologists and marine archaeologists, mathematicians have all challenged it because it contradicts the evidence they find.. So you may ask then why does the myth still continue? Politics. No, I am not talking about Western politics, I am talking about Indian politics.

AIT/AMT is not just some academic theory that only academics knows, AIT/AMT is deeply controversial and political in India, and it has been internalised by various groups to give them identity(identity politics) This is especially true for Tamil nationalists(Dravidian nationalism) and Tamil nationalism is no small movement, it is in some sense characteristic of Tamil identity e.g Tamil language itself has been purged of Sanskrit loan words, at one time like other Dravidian languages, it consisted of about 80% Sanskrit words. Many Tamil people in general are resistant to having Sanskrit or Hindi as a national language, because they see it as language of invaders. There are also strong Tamil secessionist movements, which are being encouraged by Christian evangelicals(See Rajiv Malhotr's expose of this in 'Breaking India' by creating a new type of Christian and Tamil hybrid religion, Dravidian Christianity. This teaches that Jesus was in fact a Tamilian!

It is internalised by Dalit freedom movements as well, they see the Aryan Hindus as being invaders that came and imposed a racist caste system on India, and they were the victims of this racist caste system which discriminated on the basis of "colour" A lot of the early so-called rationalists, like Ambedkar strongly believed in this, so they left Hinduism or converted to other religions. To Dalits, converting to any religion other than Hinduism is seen as more favourable.

You can see AIT was not just some esoteric academic innocuous theory, it was used as a tool to divide and conquer. In the same way the Rawanda genocide was caused by academic theories of the distinction between totsi and hutu. AIT then came to bite the British on their behinds when Hitler used it for the same purpose of dividing Germans from the rest. It is ironic the creator of AIT Muller was a German himself!

Fortunately, today, a lot of Indians, especially educated Indians are starting to wise up to the myth of AIT. Many Indian youth consider AIT a myth today. The sooner we exorcise this ghost of the colonial past the better. Hence, why I think it is important not just to wait for scientists to disprove it(they already have) but to openly discuss it and debate it, like we are doing here, so more and more people learn about it, what it is, how its been used, how it was created and what were the motivations.

Just one last thing I wanted to mention because AIT is so controversial in India and has the potential to actually cause riots(like Rwanda some think) the Indian government rightly or wrongly does not fund or intervenes and stops any excavations of the IVC. When the really historic discovery was made of the submerged Dwaraka city, with some dates saying it was 9000 years old, and proposals are being made to create an underwater Dwaraka museum, the Indian government directly intervened and stopped all further research. This is why you stopped hearing about it, otherwise this would have turned out to be been the biggest discovery in history since Troy.

"AIT/AMT is not just some academic theory that only academics knows, AIT/AMT is deeply controversial and political in India, and it has been internalised by various groups to give them identity(identity politics) This is especially true for Tamil nationalists(Dravidian nationalism) and Tamil nationalism is no small movement, it is in some sense characteristic of Tamil identity"

Identity is a God-gifted endowment, every people are entitled to it. Why should they be deprived of it and accept hegemony of others?
Regards

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

Curious George said:
Thank you for this informative reply.

One aside, I think there is a huge distinction between arguing philosophy texts and religious texts are inseparable and that historical and religious texts are inseparable.

That said, your text here reads as though you are taking bits of knowledge from different arenas much the way a conspiracy theorist would. Please don't take this as me suggesting your position is a conspiracy theory. Rather it seems that you have extensive knowledge on the subject and are trying to convey your mental construct. Doing so in small chunks would be easier for me to digest.

Allow me to clarify. I am sorry I can't be brief on this point, but I will try to be on the others. The point I was making that in India there is a different categorical framework to that of the West, disciplines are not compartmentalised, but they are in a sense interdisciplinary(sort of like contemporary fields of knowledge are) I gave you an example of philosophy, but it also applies to history. In India we call history itihas-purana, and that includes the Puranas, Mahabharata and Ramayana. In fact even the Muslims that later colonised parts of India, did not deny the history of Indians, they accepted Lord Rama, Krishna etc were historical people and accepted the events that were being described as real. They even referred to "Adam's bridge" as "Rama's bridge"
That is because Muslims kings that came, though in a sense they were brutal to Indians, had no intentions to rewrite Indian history or subvert Hinduism through intellectuals means. They also made India their home and this is why the Islam that developed in India is very different to Islam that developed elsewhere. Today, in India we accept Muslims as Indian as anybody else -- not withstanding what some extremist Hindus say.

On the other hand, the British did not come to stay in India, India was just a colony for them to exploit economically and for resources, including human resources. You probably know how many Indians died in WWII fighting Britain's wars --- this was out of no sense of respect for Indian courage, but because they were dispensable. The great famine of Bengal that killed millions of Bengalis was because of Churchill callous mismanagement of Indian food grain, which was used to feed the soldiers rather than the people. He said of the Indian people 'They are savage beastly people, with a beastly religion" when he heard of the millions starving to death in Bengal he replied "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet" --- this man now is the face of the new £5 note. It would be like Germany issuing a new note with Hitler on it. I know this is hard to hear, and I am not saying this to make any British people feel uncomfortable, because my resentment is not for the British people today, but the British colonialists of the past. You will rarely meet any Indians today who have a chip on their shoulder about the British - in fact Britain and India are allies today. I certainly do not.

However, I am telling you this, because it is not a conspiracy --- the colonial British scholars did hold these racist, supremacist and horrible views about Indians. They did say, in their own writings that Indian people are deceitful, untrustworthy, unclean, savage, beastly etc They openly expressed statements like Indian people being too stupid to come up with any civilisation, so whatever was an Indian discovery was attributed to somebody else --- Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians. The greatest insult to the Indians was their whole Vedic civilisation was not theirs either -- it was bequeathed to them by superior white skinned Aryans who started of their civilisation and the British, the descendent of the Aryans had come to civilise them again('white mans burden') If you went to a white nationalist forum like 'Stormfront' the type of 'discourse' you see on there, is typical of colonial discourse on India.

We are not really taught in History at school of how evil the colonial British were too India, we are taught a rather romantic Rudyard Kipling rose-tinted like version of India of nice British people going to India for vacation, elephant rides, playing polo with the Maharajas, spice trade etc, but if you look at post-colonial studies and actually read the literature of what the British colonialists were doing in India and what the colonial scholars were writing you would consider it no worse than Nazism. It is horrifying to read. It is probably not taught in school because of just how depraved it is. I would recommend reading the famous historian Will Durant's book on India, he is very objective and honest about the horrors of colonial rule. My own teacher actually said to me once "I apologise for what we did to your people" I replied, "You don't need to apologise for what they did"

Indians are progressive people though, we don't really remember these holocausts or have memorials like say the Black or Jewish people(personally I think they have good reason to) because what is in the past is in the past, the present and the future is more important. The only reason I am mentioning it here is because I think it is relevant to discuss the climate in which AIT was created. It is the same climate in which 'race science' was created. Race science was actually used for the first census of India.

Now, please don't get me wrong to say all scholars during the colonial period were racist to Indians is definitely false. It is because not all of them were, that we know about the distortions of Indian history and horrors. It was a minority of Western scholars that challenged Muller and William Jones. Even Muller in his later life became a fan of India and Hinduism, which is why he confessed that he made up of the 1500BCE Arrival of Aryans theory. However, because they were a minority, they were dominated by the majority who were racist -- this includes big names like Karl Marx, Max Weber, John Stuart Mills --- who had really horrible things to say about Indians and their capabilities. Seriously degrading things. However, it would be simplistic to point this down to just racism, it is really the anxiety of the clash of two great civilisations. Colonialism was premised on 'white mans burden' the belief that the white European race is a superior race(even before Aryanism appeared) and they need to civilise non-European cultures. This was in a sense a moral justification. However, when they encountered Indians, they did not found a uncivilised people, but a high civilisation, a prosperous people, with its own highly developed scientific, aesthetic, and philosophical traditions(read pre-colonial accounts of India by Europeans on just how impressed they were) --- and above all it's own recorded history. It is the latter that caused the most anxiety. As I showed earlier as soon as the Europeans learned of the Hindu calendar, they saw it as a direct threat to Christian civilisation. It is no conspiracy theory that one time in Europe 4004BCE was seen as the beginning of history and challenging it could mean the inquisition. Indian history dethroned the Christians from their pedestal of being the "chosen ones" It dethroned the near-east as the cradle of civilisation. It even dethroned the Greeks as the cradle of philosophy, science and arts -- it basically nullified 'white mans burden'

As I told you earlier William Jones in his own writings, even before Muller comes up with the Aryan arrival at 1500BCE, had already shortened all the Indian dates -- just because they contradicted the Mosaic account(the bible) There was a deliberate attempt made by him and early Indologists to revise Indian history to make it fit, this is no conspiracy at all -- it is fact. I already told you how Muller arrived at his 1500BCE date. I will summarise. He used two methods 1)The bible 2) by arbitrarily setting a 200-250 year date for each class of Indian literature. This is no conspiracy either. His own students challenged Muller. Muller even admitted he guessed the date later on, I guess to atone for his 'sin'

I do not at all believe there is an active conspiracy either then or even today of some secret Western order that is keeping India's history suppressed. There is a far simpler explanation for Indian history has been suppressed -- racism and anxiety, and in India's case politics. Jones et al genuinely believed that Indian history is false just because it contradicted the bible.

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

As I said before, IVC is hard to imagine. It deals with geography very different from that which we see and have learned today, it deals with a civilization of a size that is hard to imagine, and it is obscured by time.

Without question this civilisation changed the world in ways which are both underappreciated and untaught. I would also say unknown even to those who have studied the culture in depth.

It is unfortunate that politics of any variety continue to disrupt knowledge. If you would, I am very interested in links to works of mathematicians, anthropologists, archeologists, engineers, and geneticists regarding IVC.

I agree a lot of the history of the IVC is obscure and we need to uncover a lot more. However, I think you are giving too much importance to the epistemology of the scientific method or empirical research, which definitely has its place in supplementing history, but history is not really based on the the scientific method, but has its own methods where testimony has a higher place. There are some things we can't know through the scientific method, but only through testimony e.g. If you say you had your first kiss when you were 15 years old(probably sooner

) I need to take your word for it, I am not going to say "No, I need to see empirical evidence you had your first kiss when 15"
There is a lot we read about in history which is based almost purely on testimony and not empirical research. In history we look for 'corroboration' from reliable sources -- So for example, if a few people backed up you claim you did have your first kiss when you were 15, such as the girl herself, your claim becomes more reliable.

Now, please consider what I said, I told you the history of India from all Hindu, Buddhist, Jain sources are all internally consistent, and not just internally, but externally too with say Chinese and Greek records. So we have a highly reliable history. The British basically went gung-ho marching into India and declared their entire history is false, mythology, made up because Indian people were too stupid or too world denying to record their own history. Remember what I told you in every Shankarcharya math in India, which keeps extensive record of all the Shankarcharyas like the Christians their popes, Adishankarcharya was 500BCE. British said pretty much to the effect "No, you stupid Indians, he was 700AD" Are you seriously telling me that even in 700AD Indians were so inept at keeping any record of history that they would say somebody born in 700AD was born 500BCE? This is nothing more than institutionalised racism. The British equivalent to "Jews and their lies"

Because you mention Atlantis, it is evident that Greek philosophy was greatly influenced by and some would say borne of "eastern philosophy", (others might say stolen) though the two have a division. So it is without surprise that we see crossover. But, even with something like Atlantis, it is widely accepted that such a place is not historical. Although, many do believe such a place actually existed. This is the problem with taking history from text. Different interpretations of fact, fiction, and in between abound. Or would you have me believe that vishnu awoke on a cobra swimming across an ocean? I am fine with using references to substantiate actual finds, but I prefer my history without things we cannot substantiate. Would that the literary works of ancient Greece, egypt,mesopotamia, and The IVC still existed. Much would be known. Least of which would be where to look to substantiate what is written.

Best regards

To this point I will be brief. I never said Atlantis was historical. I think you should read what I wrote again. I said that the "same story" is present in both the Ramayana and Plato's Timeus. Nor did I claim 'Punt' really was India, I said that the "Greeks believed "the Egyptians were descended from Indians. I think you need to read my thread "Historical origins vs Mythological origins" for there you will read "I do not take mythological history to be credible" You can also read my thread 'How do you approach the Puranas' to read my criticism of the mythology and cosmology of the Puranas and seriously bring them into question.

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 12, 2017

Hi Paarsurrey, can I ask when your reply to quotes and they are short, you make them all in one post. Otherwise, it sort of clutters the thread. Thanks. I will reply very briefly, because basically I have stayed awake all night composing these long replies. I really do need to learn to be brief!

paarsurrey said:
Only Vedas are revealed, all others don't form the revealed scripture and belong to Post Veda Period and are un-revealed. Please

Regards

You have repeated this a few times in various threads. I think this is your personal view and your entitled to it. However, it is not shared by the vast majority of Hindus or by tradition. Hinduism has thousands of scriptures which are considered scriptures by different Hindus. Your view reminds me of the "Quranists" sect in Islam, that only consider the Quran as scripture and not the Hadiths, although they are a tiny minority and most Muslims accept the Hadiths as also scripture.

paarsurrey said:
Please specify, did it happen in the Pre-Veda period or in Post-Veda Period.

I think you missed the point. I am arguing there is no pre-Vedic or post-Vedic period, because I do not accept the AIT/AMT theory of some arrival of Aryans in 1500BCE or any date. If you read what I wrote I called it a "false dichotomy" I am saying mature Harrapa period corresponds to the janaprada period, when India consisted of republics like Magadh, Kasi, Puru etc and the composition of the Rig veda corresponds to the the Megarh period, which does not consist of republics.

paarsurrey said:
Identity is a God-gifted endowment, every people are entitled to it. Why should they be deprived of it and accept hegemony of others?
Regards

I think here too you missed the point. Certainly everybody has a right to identity like national identity(if they want to change it) gender identity, religious identity, sexual identity etc However, certain identities which are ideological and pernicious like "Nazi" or "superior race" I don't think anybody has a right to hold, because these lead to violence and also because they are not true. I don't agree that anybody has the right to be racist, sexist, homophobic and wear that as an identity and in fact the state agrees with me -- they are officially illegal. You can get arrested for it. Similarly, the AIT theory has been internalised to create these pernicious and dangerous identities, which we know can lead to violence and has lead to violence(I also gave an example Rwanda genocide) I think Tamils have every reason to be proud of the Tamilian culture and have every reason to to speak their own language -- the problem is Tamil nationalists who because of beliefs in AIT have internalised a doctrine of hatred for the Sanskritic culture. Likewise, Dalits have every right to challenge the caste system and challenge wrong things in Hinduism, but the problem is Dalit Freedom movements who because of belief in AIT have internalised a doctrine of hatred for Hindus.

Does this clarify my point?

Spirit_Warrior · Jan 13, 2017

Kirran said:
Well, it is stuff I've studied at uni, among other things! We have a pretty solid idea of human migrations by now. Our genetics game is strong.

My mtDNA haplogroup (H13a2) is one that's associated with India though. My Y-DNA haplogroup (R1a1a) is Eastern European and Scandinavian, and is found in parts of Scotland to a fair degree (that'll be why I have it!).

Cool man, again I am going to take your word for it, as I have not studied it at all.

Can you help interpret what this means for me. What does it mean H13A2 is from India, R1a1a is Eastern European and Scandinavian?

paarsurrey · Jan 13, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
You have repeated this a few times in various threads. I think this is your personal view and your entitled to it. However, it is not shared by the vast majority of Hindus or by tradition. Hinduism has thousands of scriptures which are considered scriptures by different Hindus. Your view reminds me of the "Quranists" sect in Islam, that only consider the Quran as scripture and not the Hadiths, although they are a tiny minority and most Muslims accept the Hadiths as also scripture.

"Quranists" sect in Islam, that only consider the Quran as scripture and not the Hadiths"

I am not a Quranist, yet every Muslim only considers Quran as Word of G-d, and Hathith the sayings of Muhammad.

Quran existed continuous in its present form since it was revealed on Muhammad.
Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad.
Please
Regards

Curious George · Jan 13, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
Allow me to clarify. I am sorry I can't be brief on this point, but I will try to be on the others. The point I was making that in India there is a different categorical framework to that of the West, disciplines are not compartmentalised, but they are in a sense interdisciplinary(sort of like contemporary fields of knowledge are) I gave you an example of philosophy, but it also applies to history. In India we call history itihas-purana, and that includes the Puranas, Mahabharata and Ramayana. In fact even the Muslims that later colonised parts of India, did not deny the history of Indians, they accepted Lord Rama, Krishna etc were historical people and accepted the events that were being described as real. They even referred to "Adam's bridge" as "Rama's bridge"
That is because Muslims kings that came, though in a sense they were brutal to Indians, had no intentions to rewrite Indian history or subvert Hinduism through intellectuals means. They also made India their home and this is why the Islam that developed in India is very different to Islam that developed elsewhere. Today, in India we accept Muslims as Indian as anybody else -- not withstanding what some extremist Hindus say.

On the other hand, the British did not come to stay in India, India was just a colony for them to exploit economically and for resources, including human resources. You probably know how many Indians died in WWII fighting Britain's wars --- this was out of no sense of respect for Indian courage, but because they were dispensable. The great famine of Bengal that killed millions of Bengalis was because of Churchill callous mismanagement of Indian food grain, which was used to feed the soldiers rather than the people. He said of the Indian people 'They are savage beastly people, with a beastly religion" when he heard of the millions starving to death in Bengal he replied "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet" --- this man now is the face of the new £5 note. It would be like Germany issuing a new note with Hitler on it. I know this is hard to hear, and I am not saying this to make any British people feel uncomfortable, because my resentment is not for the British people today, but the British colonialists of the past. You will rarely meet any Indians today who have a chip on their shoulder about the British - in fact Britain and India are allies today. I certainly do not.

However, I am telling you this, because it is not a conspiracy --- the colonial British scholars did hold these racist, supremacist and horrible views about Indians. They did say, in their own writings that Indian people are deceitful, untrustworthy, unclean, savage, beastly etc They openly expressed statements like Indian people being too stupid to come up with any civilisation, so whatever was an Indian discovery was attributed to somebody else --- Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians. The greatest insult to the Indians was their whole Vedic civilisation was not theirs either -- it was bequeathed to them by superior white skinned Aryans who started of their civilisation and the British, the descendent of the Aryans had come to civilise them again('white mans burden') If you went to a white nationalist forum like 'Stormfront' the type of 'discourse' you see on there, is typical of colonial discourse on India.

We are not really taught in History at school of how evil the colonial British were too India, we are taught a rather romantic Rudyard Kipling rose-tinted like version of India of nice British people going to India for vacation, elephant rides, playing polo with the Maharajas, spice trade etc, but if you look at post-colonial studies and actually read the literature of what the British colonialists were doing in India and what the colonial scholars were writing you would consider it no worse than Nazism. It is horrifying to read. It is probably not taught in school because of just how depraved it is. I would recommend reading the famous historian Will Durant's book on India, he is very objective and honest about the horrors of colonial rule. My own teacher actually said to me once "I apologise for what we did to your people" I replied, "You don't need to apologise for what they did"

Indians are progressive people though, we don't really remember these holocausts or have memorials like say the Black or Jewish people(personally I think they have good reason to) because what is in the past is in the past, the present and the future is more important. The only reason I am mentioning it here is because I think it is relevant to discuss the climate in which AIT was created. It is the same climate in which 'race science' was created. Race science was actually used for the first census of India.

Now, please don't get me wrong to say all scholars during the colonial period were racist to Indians is definitely false. It is because not all of them were, that we know about the distortions of Indian history and horrors. It was a minority of Western scholars that challenged Muller and William Jones. Even Muller in his later life became a fan of India and Hinduism, which is why he confessed that he made up of the 1500BCE Arrival of Aryans theory. However, because they were a minority, they were dominated by the majority who were racist -- this includes big names like Karl Marx, Max Weber, John Stuart Mills --- who had really horrible things to say about Indians and their capabilities. Seriously degrading things. However, it would be simplistic to point this down to just racism, it is really the anxiety of the clash of two great civilisations. Colonialism was premised on 'white mans burden' the belief that the white European race is a superior race(even before Aryanism appeared) and they need to civilise non-European cultures. This was in a sense a moral justification. However, when they encountered Indians, they did not found a uncivilised people, but a high civilisation, a prosperous people, with its own highly developed scientific, aesthetic, and philosophical traditions(read pre-colonial accounts of India by Europeans on just how impressed they were) --- and above all it's own recorded history. It is the latter that caused the most anxiety. As I showed earlier as soon as the Europeans learned of the Hindu calendar, they saw it as a direct threat to Christian civilisation. It is no conspiracy theory that one time in Europe 4004BCE was seen as the beginning of history and challenging it could mean the inquisition. Indian history dethroned the Christians from their pedestal of being the "chosen ones" It dethroned the near-east as the cradle of civilisation. It even dethroned the Greeks as the cradle of philosophy, science and arts -- it basically nullified 'white mans burden'

As I told you earlier William Jones in his own writings, even before Muller comes up with the Aryan arrival at 1500BCE, had already shortened all the Indian dates -- just because they contradicted the Mosaic account(the bible) There was a deliberate attempt made by him and early Indologists to revise Indian history to make it fit, this is no conspiracy at all -- it is fact. I already told you how Muller arrived at his 1500BCE date. I will summarise. He used two methods 1)The bible 2) by arbitrarily setting a 200-250 year date for each class of Indian literature. This is no conspiracy either. His own students challenged Muller. Muller even admitted he guessed the date later on, I guess to atone for his 'sin'

I do not at all believe there is an active conspiracy either then or even today of some secret Western order that is keeping India's history suppressed. There is a far simpler explanation for Indian history has been suppressed -- racism and anxiety, and in India's case politics. Jones et al genuinely believed that Indian history is false just because it contradicted the bible.

Well I had a feeling I wasn't going to be able to convey the thought without offending (or it at least being taken the wrong way). My point was not to say that this is a conspiracy with which you are working. Rather, I was merely stating the way you are painting a picture feels as though you are. We are bouncing from time period to time period. Over here you talk about Atlantis, and over there you talk about Gandhi. In one stream of thought you explain the Shankarcharya math, in the next you will discuss Ancient Egyptians.

My friend, I understand this is complex. I understand that you have compiled much knowledge on this subject. But I need to walk before I can run with you.

I was not fed a picturesque colonial ruled India story. Past horrors are not hard for me to hear. And I have no trouble understanding how civilizations emerging only a century from the dark ages with extremIsrael religious beliefs would rewrite history to fit their worldview. That said, we have motive at that time and as that motive shrank, a newer motive (the same that fueled the slave trade and eventually eugenics) replaced the old, and now with those motives gone, you point toward politics. I see these points but they are not pertinent to what we believe we know. They are part of a recent history and while they may serve to help obscure our understanding they can not take away from the facts we have. We find sanskrit 1380 in Syria. And then again in hitite lands in 1350bce. The oldest language we find relating to sanskrit is in Turkey and from 1800bce. We find more sanskrit speckled throughout Asia that dates between 400bce and 400ad. Meanwhile, we have the largest civilization and possibly the oldest developen in the Indus Valley. This civilization certainlyou relates to Hinduism and sanskrit but how. You would have people believe that this civilization was Hindu as has been preserved today. But we do not see evidence of that. I agree that this culture is very possibly the evolutionary point of hinduism, and all of what we consider indo european language. But the Vedas and the Puranas do not seem like the key to unlocking this portion of our history.

paarsurrey · Jan 13, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
I think you missed the point. I am arguing there is no pre-Vedic or post-Vedic period, because I do not accept the AIT/AMT theory of some arrival of Aryans in 1500BCE or any date. If you read what I wrote I called it a "false dichotomy" I am saying mature Harrapa period corresponds to the janaprada period, when India consisted of republics like Magadh, Kasi, Puru etc and the composition of the Rig veda corresponds to the the Megarh period, which does not consist of republics.

"there is no pre-Vedic or post-Vedic period"

One certainly does not find it convenient to talk in these terms, but since when date classification are made, the dates have no certainties due to revisions made in them while discussing the Pre-History period.
For the Histoy period it is OK, as their are some written record to confirm them.

Regards

Kirran · Jan 13, 2017

Spirit_Warrior said:
Cool man, again I am going to take your word for it, as I have not studied it at all.

Can you help interpret what this means for me. What does it mean H13A2 is from India, R1a1a is Eastern European and Scandinavian?

So we have particular different sets of genetic markers in our mitochondrial DNA, which is that which is transmitted only from mother to child - we don't get it from our fathers. So we can trace that back along our maternal line. And H13a2 originated in India.

R1a1a is a set of markers in Y-DNA - this is passed only from father to son, so it allows a male to trace their paternal line. R1a1a is found in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, and originated in that area.

Vinayaka · Jan 13, 2017

Kirran said:
Man to be honest with you this doesn't seem to be quite in line with current consensus on this. .

Where are you getting this 'current consensus' idea from? I see no consensus. If there is one, those who have made it aren't including the people with opposing views, which obviously isn't consensus at all. 'Current consensus' feels like false argument to me.

Indus Valley Civilization

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

ॐ

Active Member

ॐ

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

ॐ

devotee