• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ancient Hindus Discoveries

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Actually, that quote by Macaulay is a hoax that's been spreading around the internet for so long. It says he made the speech at February 2, 1835, but he was in India at the time. There's no record of him saying this quote to the British Parliament at all. However, on that date, he did deliver a speech called the Education Minute to the Governor General's Council in Calcutta. But he never complimented India or Hinduism at all in his speech. He never mentioned anything about positive about India or Hinduism in that speech. He thought India was an awful country, and that the way to save it was to introduce English and Western liberalism and science to the country. He didn't think India and Hinduism were great, and they should be destroyed. He thought India was terrible to begin with, and they needed to be civilized by the British.

7. The Macaulay Fraud » Historydetox
Minute on Education (1835) by Thomas Babington Macaulay (The actual speech he made in Calcutta/Kolkata)

For the record, I completely disagree with what Macaulay thought, and it is that type of colonialist thinking that led to so many Hindus being insecure about their own religion, not to mention the destruction of many groups and their cultures throughout the world such as the Native Americans and the Aborigines in Australia. I just wanted to clarify that Macaulay never said this quote at all, and it is merely a hoax that has been spread throughout the internet.

What actual speech ? It's a fake . His actual anti-hindu sentenses have been cut-pasted by a anti-hindu . What Macaulay said is the aim of all christian anti-hindu missionaries . Britishers used his this advice . Britishers want to divide india . So they first attacked on hindu dharma .

Max muller had a connection with east india british company . He was bristish agent , especially employed in 1847 to write translations of vedas in such a demeaning way that hindus should loose faith in them . He wanted to teach hindus that veda is not hind's scripture , it is european's scripture . For that he cleverly proposed AIT so that hindus will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what britishers want them . :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism♥Krishna;3628954 said:
".. although I do not feel that “Hindu” is a proper term to represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path "

" At this juncture, due to Persian interchangeability between ‘s’ and ‘h’, Sindu must have become Hindu and the Persians called their brothers across the river as Hindus and the abode of the Hindus as Hindusthan."

Don't you think he supports hinduism as non-vedic dharma ? The theory of persian hindu is fake and only anti-hindus support this . There is not any support or proof of this claim about hindu word .

Because theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan.

It needs to be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.

It should also be noted that as per Nirukta rules of grammar, in the Vedik language, replacement of S with H is permitted . But truth is something different . Hindu word is written in many sanskrit scriptures .

Brihaspati Agam says,
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावत्दीन्दू सरोवरम्
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिन्दुस्थानं प्रचक्षते
(Starting from Himalaya upto Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan) ( Hindu is formed by joining hi of himalaya and indu of bindu waters .
“Hindu” is a proper term to represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path after assimilation in Hinduism. Aryans accepted Hinduism, and started worshiping the indigenous Gods and Goddesses, in addition to the performance of yajnas and invoking their older Gods and Goddesses. This is what is meant by assimilation, mixing, becoming one. Marriages took place between the Aryan and the indigenous people. The indigenous people along with their castes were adjusted in the four-fold social structure of the Aryans.

I do not know the exact conditions in linguistics when 's' changes to 'h', but I do know that 'Soma' was 'Haoma' and 'Saraswati' was 'Harahvaiti' in Avesta, and 'Helios' is 'Surya' in Greek. I suppose you are an authority in linguistics.

Brihaspati Agam says,
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावत्दीन्दू सरोवरम्
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिन्दुस्थानं प्रचक्षते
(Starting from Himalaya upto Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan) ( Hindu is formed by joining hi of himalaya and indu of bindu waters .
Gibberish. Surely, an interpolated verse to authenticate the word 'Hindustan'. Any other mention?

You can read about 'Brihaspati Sutra' at https://archive.org/details/brihaspatisutrao00brharich. This is what the author says and it would have been very easy to insert a verse of one's choice and say that it is original.

"Professor Julius Jolly collected fragments of Brihaspati Smriti from different law books and their commentaries for translating them in the SE Vol XXXIII." .. "so also the views ascribed to the school of Brihaspati by Kautilya are not found in the collected fragments of Brihaspati. .. The present sutras even if they do, possess but a very remote connection with the Barhapatya Shastra. Even pruned of their sectarian matter, they do not appear to belong to any of the adherents of the original school of Brihaspati. These sutras may only here and there contain a view of the old Barhapatya school. As regards the date of this work, nothing can be said with certainty. The guess of Dr. F. W. Thomas may turn out to be a true one. This much however, is certain that the work is not enterior to the sixth or seventh century, AD.*

* Pandit Jaya Deva in the Vedic Magazine already referred to say that the work is posterior to Kalidasa, for the reason that in his Meghaduta, Kalidas refers to Kankhal alone, while Hardwar or Gangadwar shich is a Shaiva tirtha is mentioned in Barhaspatya Sutra III.122. Hence the work is posterior to the recognition of Hardwar as a sacred place."

Read this with the information on the word 'hindu' in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu:

"The Hindu religious texts did not use the term 'Hindu' or an equivalent thereof, or any name at all for that matter to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula nor the religion of the inhabitants, in alignment within a larger lack of 'proper noun' nomenclature typically visible in texts of Hindu literature. Despite that, the history of the word 'Hindu' is long and its usage widespread, since the outside world had, since antiquity, used several names for the Indian people, specifically for the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula east of the river Indus viz. 'Indos' (Ἰνδός) used by the Greeks in the works of Herodotus and Megasthenes, circa 5th century B.C., and later 'Hindus' used first by the Persians and later on by Arabs to refer to the Indian people and their customs. 2nd century B.C. Chinese traveller Zhang Qian referred to India as Hen-tu. Chinese pilgrim Huen-Tsang in his 7th century Si-yu-ki, also used words like Shin-tu and Hin-tu to describe the people. Arabic explorer Ibn Battuta also, in his book "Rihla", made use of the word "al-hind" meaning the Indian subcontinent. He was of Moroccan origin and had travelled the length and breadth of the Islamic civilization which included the North Africa, Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Egypt and even parts of Indonesia. He described the Indian subcontinent as Al Hind as still referred in Arabic." (It is mentioned in Qur'an also)

"In Origin, Hinduš was simply the Old Persian name of the Indus River, cognate with Sanskrit Sindhu. By about 2nd - 1st century BCE, the term "Hein-tu" was used by Chinese, for referring to North Indian people. The Persian term was loaned into Arabic as al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus, and into Greek as Indos, whence ultimately English India. Hindustan or "land of the Indus" was the Persian name of "India", as in Greco-Roman tradition at first for northwestern India (the Indus basin) and later extended to the entire Indian subcontinent, following the spread of Islam to India via Persia, Hindustan was also adopted, from the 13th century, in India itself, and also came to be loaned into Sanskrit, e.g. found in Brihaspati Agama, where it is etymologized as a portmanteau of Hi for "Himalayas" plus indu for indu sarovar "southern ocean".

Persian Hindu (and hence in Urdu, and ultimately adopted into Hindustani in general) was used of the native, non-Muslim population ruled by the Muslim Mughal Empire. Natively, the term Hindu occurs sporadically in some 16th-18th century Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava texts, including Chaitanya Charitamrita and Chaitanya Bhagavata, usually to contrast Hindus with Yavanas or Mlecchas. It appears in South Indian and Kashmiri texts from at least 1323 CE, and increasingly so during British rule. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that the European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of Indian religions as Hindus."

Basically, you should not take up discussing history with me. I am very thorough and meticulous about it. You would never be able to win. After all, I am a good historian's grandson. :D
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
What the .... ?

Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan.

It needs to be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You have not given the chapter or verse number in Brihaspati Agama. Now, where do I search for the verse? Portions of it may be old but what has come to us is scanty and of dubious authenticity, just like many verses in Manusmriti. The same thing happens with Bhavishya Purana, that is why you find the mention of Victoria Memorial, Queen Victoria, and Mohammad in Pratisargaparavan. To me, the verse seems to be an addition by a chauvinist hindu. 'Indu of Bindu Sarovar' is a funny usage. Bindu Sarovar is in Gujarat, and an ocean is not designated as 'sarovar'. Sarovar is a limited expanse of water, as in a pond or a lake, just like Pampa Sarovar.
Hinduism♥Krishna;3629952 said:
Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. .. uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan.

It needs to be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.
Yes, this replacement is common even in Rajasthan (in Marwari), when 'samajh gaye' becomes 'hamjio'. Even 'Asura' changed to 'Ahura' with the Bactrians and Persians, 'Setumant' changed to 'Helmand', and 'Sarayu' changed to 'Haroyu'. Or was the change made by us, changing 'Ahur' to 'Asur'? I have tried to explain it in my previous post. I do not exactly know when it happens according to the rules of linguistics, followed or preceeded by what sounds but Tuxaristan is wrong. The Westerners have termed them as Tocharians. They are mentioned in SrimadBhagawatham as Tusharas and took part in the Battle of Ten Kings (Dasarajna War). Sindhis will remain Sindhis while in India, but that might change to 'hindi' in Persia.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism♥Krishna;3629212 said:
It is the myth. It was completely debunked by scientists when dried saraswati river was found. This proof is called as death of AIT.
Drying of Saraswati in around 1,900 BC and the dispersion of Aryans in East and South (Agastya) reinforces the Aryan Migration theory, that is why you find Saraswata Brahmins all over India, they migrated to greener lands. In Maharashtra you have Deshastha Brahmins (possibily the indigenous people taken in the brahmin fold) and the Saraswat brahmins (migrants from Aryavarta/Brahmavarta/Kurukshetra) after the drying of Saraswati. To counter your DNA claims kindly read this:

"Reich hypothesized that the modern Indian population was the result of admixture between two genetically divergent ancestral populations dating from the post-Holocene era. These two "reconstructed" ancient populations he termed "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI) and "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI). According to Reich: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI."[42]

Further building on Reich et al.'s characterization of the South Asian population as historically based on admixture of ANI (Ancestral North Indian) and ASI (Ancestral South Indian) populations, a 2011 session paper by Moorjani et al. states that a "major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent."[43]"
Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is unscholarly to say that the matter is settled. As I said do not challenge me on history. Remember that even in the time of Alexander, "the large region included almost all of the countries east of Media and ancient Persia, including south of the great mountain ranges up to the deserts of Gedrosia and Carmania, i.e., the provinces of Carmania, Gedrosia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Aria, the Paropamisadae; also Bactria was reckoned to Ariana and was called "the ornament of Ariana as a whole" by Apollodorus of Artemita", the land of Aryans. (Wikipedia- Ariana)
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Dear Aupmanyav ,

There are hundreds of proofs against AIT but not a single strong proof supporting AIT . This AIT is based only on guesses . It has no any scriptural or scientifical proof .

Still max mullers lovers like you and indian agents like Romila Thaper, D.N.Jha, and Irfan Habib propagates this myths of Stupid AIT and AMT . Because slaves ( non-hindus ) are afraid of the truth and are intentionally ignoring the evidences against AIT.

Recently the Indian History Congress, dominated by the historians of India with slave mentality, has proposed that there should not be any archeological excavations in any of the ancient religious sites in India. Unfortunatelly our anti-hindu goverment is supporting max muller , a slave of britishers . And those who support his Joke of AIT are also slaves of british east india company . What rig veda says about dasyus , they are that .


Dwaraka and AIT :

The discoveries at Gulf of Cambay by the National Institute of Ocean Technology established, using carbon-14 date of 7,500 years for the wood samples excavated from under the sea, the existence of a civilization dating to that period.

Krishna’s Dwarka existed some 4,000 years ago. There was a rise in the sea level about 30 metres in 7,500 years, approximately at the rate of 10 metres in 3,500-3,800 years. Eroded debris and pottery provided evidence of a port town destroyed by sea about 3,500 years ago.

The marine archaeologists in India have found enough proof to assert that Mahabharata is not a myth, but history. The discovery of submerged buildings of the legendary city of Dwarka indicates that HINDUS were masters in town planning and maritime activity, 4,000 years ago. The rise in the sea level in Dwarka is a scientific truth. Studies have proved that the sea considerably and suddenly rose to submerge the city.

Harivamsha describes the submerging of Dwarka saying Krishna instructed Arjuna, who was then visiting Dwarka; to evacuate the residents of the city as the sea was going to engulf the city. “On the seventh day (of Krishna saying this), as the last of the citizens were leaving the city, the sea entered the streets of Dwarka.” [in ‘Search on Krishna´s Dwarka comes to a standstill’, By Vaidehi Nathan; Organiser, 2004, June20]

Ruins of Dwarka also show a very advanced civilization of at least 4000 years old, which could not be formed by semi-nomadic Aryans coming down from central Asia in 1500BC. The city originally itself could be about 6000 years old.

About saraswati river :


It is well known that in the Rig Veda, the honor of the greatest and the holiest of rivers was not bestowed upon the Ganga, but upon Saraswati, now a dry river, but once a mighty flowing river all the way from the Himalayas to the ocean across the Rajasthan desert. The Ganga is mentioned only once while the Saraswati is mentioned at least 60 times.
Extensive research by the late Dr. Wakankar has shown that the Saraswati changed her course several times, going completely dry around 1900 BC. The latest satellite data combined with field archaeological studies have shown that the Rig Vedic Saraswati had stopped being a perennial river long before 3000 BC.
As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed, "...we now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French expedition that when the proto-historic people settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for a long time."
The proto-historic people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3000 BC. But satellite 'photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great Saraswati that flowed "from the mountain to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3000 BC. This means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3000 BC. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have been in existence no later than 3500 BC.
A lot of hyms in the Vedas indicate that the composers of the Vedic literature were quite familiar with the Saraswati river, and were inspired by its beauty and its vastness that they composed several hymns in her praise and glorification. This also indicates that the Vedas are much older than Mahabharat period, which mentions Saraswati as a dying river.
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
  • A major flaw of the Aryan invasion theory was that it had no explanation for why the Vedic literature (that was assumed to go back into the second millennium BC) had no reference to any region outside of India.
  • The astronomical references in the Rig Veda allude to events in the third millennium BC and even earlier, indicating origin of Vedic hymns earlier than 3000 BC. If it is assumed that the so-called Aryans invaded the townships in the Harappa valley and destroyed its habitants and their civilization, how come after doing that they did not occupy these towns? The excavations of these sites indicate that the townships were abandoned.
  • And if the Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were allegedly pushed down to the south by Aryans, how come there is no Aryan - Dravidian divide in the respective literatures and historical traditions. Was the South India un-inhabitated prior to the pushing of the original population of Indus Valley? If not, who were the original inhabitants of South India, who accepted the newcomers from North without any hostility or fight?
  • Nowhere either in the religious scriptures or by tradition the word Arya denotes a race or a language. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are of the same type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little smaller. And these differences cannot be the basis of two altogether different races.
  • There is enough positive evidence in support of the religious rites of the Harappans being similar to those of the Vedic Aryans. Their religious motifs, deities and sacrificial altars bespeak of Aryan faith, indicating continuity and identity of Vedic culture with the Indus valley civilization.
  • If the Aryan Hindus were outsiders, why don't they name places outside India as their most holy places? Why should they sing paeans in the praise of India's numerous rivers crisscrossing the entire peninsula, and mountains - repositories of life giving water and natural resources, nay even bestow them a status of goddesses and gods. If Aryans were outsiders why should they consider this land as the 'holy land' and not their original land as the 'holy land' or motherland? For the Muslims, their holy place is Mecca. For the Catholics it is Rome or Jerusalem. For the Hindus, their pilgrim centers range from Kailash in the North, to Rameshwaram in the South; and from Hingalaj (Sindh) in the West to Parusuram Kund (Arunchala Pradesh) in the East. The seven holy cities of Hinduism include Kanchipurum in the south, Dwarka in the west and Ujjain in central India. The twelve jyotirlings include Ramashwaram in Tamil Nadu, Srisailam in Andhra Pradesh, Nashik in Maharashtra, Somnath in Gujarat and Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. All these are located in greater India only. No Hindu from any part of India has felt a stranger in any other part of India when on a pilgrimage. The seven holy rivers in Hinduism, indeed, seem to chart out the map of the holy land. The Sindhu and the Saraswati (now extinct) originating from the Himalayas and move westward and southwards into the western sea; the Ganga and the Yamuna also start in the Himalayas and move eastward into the north-eastern sea; the Narmada starts in central India and the Godavari starts in western India, while the Kaveri winds its way through the south to move into the southern sea.
  • A September 2009 path-breaking study by Harvard School of Public Health and India's Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed 'fact' that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth, thus re-writing history. The study analyzed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally 'upper' and 'lower' castes and tribal groups. It was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different. The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from Indians, find in their study that South Indians do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.
[FONT=&quot] That is ancient India and that is Hinduism.
[/FONT]
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Death of Stupid AIT by genitical study :

Now that every scientists know Aryan Invasion Theory is a myth. The Geneticists have given a solid proof against this theory now.
Geneticists studied the human DNA and noted that a Y-Chromosome genetic marker which they named, according to Y Chromosome Consortium, haplogroup R1a1 (HG3 according to Rosser 2000 nomenclature) is most common among the Slavic populations in Europe and Indo-Aryans in India, at 47% and 30% respectively.
We can argue that this genetic affinity is due to the recent arrival of the Vedic Aryans from India into Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans. However, such a recent migration from the Southeast Asia, would have also picked up and brought a Finno-Ugric genetic marker Haplogroup N3 (HG16 of Rosser’s nomenclature) to the Balkans, since it is widely distributed in Russia and Ukraine-between Black Sea and the Baltic Sea (Rosser et al. 2000) .

It is significant that this Hg N3 genetic marker has not been found either south of the Carpathian Mountains, central Europe nor in the Balkans. This would indicate that the populations carrying the Hg R1a1 came to the Balkans before the Finno-Ugric population spread into Northeastern Europe, European Russia and Ukraine about 10,000 years ago.
Therefore, the R1a1 expansion from the Indian sub-continent to the Balkans must have occurred prior to this Finno-Ugric expansion ~10,000 years ago; thus avoiding an mixing with the populations with the Finno-Ugric genetic marker.
The reverse major population movement, from Europe to India, within the last 10,000 years, is highly unlikely. Such a migration would have brought a Finno-Ugric genetic marker Hg N3 and also the palaeolithic, more than 20,000 years old Hg I to India.It is important to note that these two genetic markers, Hg N3 and Hg I, have not been detected in India.

Hence, Genetic evidence does not support a large scale invasion of India from Europe during the prehistoric times, since no evidence of Hg R1*-M173, Hg I-M170 or of Hg N3-TAT has been found in India, although these Haplogroups are very frequent in Europe.


Source : INDO-ARYAN AND SLAVIC LINGUISTIC AND GENETIC AFFINITIES PREDATE THE ORIGIN OF CEREAL FARMING - Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda, Snejina Sonina, Ratnakar Narale
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Why is the theory no longer accepted?


The Aryan invasion theory was not based on true archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this theory by providing new evidences that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had happened. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

Myth Of AIT :
It is not surprising that the colonial rulers of British India, missionaries and bureaucrats in particular, were interested in presenting history of Indian Subcontinent in such a way that it would suit them most. It is obvious: 'He who rules, he dictates!' Thus, a definite bias and prejudice is bound to creep in the study and recording of the history. The important point is to correct such distortions on the basis of new discoveries made by modern science and knowledge, based on objectivity, rationality and reason. It would take quite some time to accept the corrected versions about history, but let it be so. It is essential to open our mind to new discoveries and facts, arguments and evidences, setting aside our biases and prejudices. Such is the case in relation to historical distortions about ancient India brought about by British and German 'scholars'.
British, Germans, Europeans as a whole, and interestingly Indian intellectuals in British-ruled India as well, believed that about 1500 BC a nomadic people, called Aryans, invaded northwest frontiers of India, coming from the Central Asia or some part of Europe through the passes like Khyber in Hindkush Mountain Range (now in Afghanistan) and defeated and drove away the local inferior Dravidians. These Aryans were superior to local Dravidians in every respect: physique, intelligence and culture. In the fertile land of India, in the calm serenity of weather and atmosphere they developed agriculture and produced great wealth. But their most important contribution was development of Sanskrit language and composition of first literature in the form of Rig Veda around 1200 BC!
Recent discoveries in the Northwest regions of Indian Subcontinent (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) have proved that a highly developed society and civilization was firmly existent on the banks of river Saraswati. This period, when Rig Veda, the first authentic record of human wisdom and knowledge, was composed, should be taken as the beginning of the Ancient Indian history. This is because there is erroneous belief that civilization of Harappa and Mohen-jo-Daro is the oldest period of Indian history. But the recent findings and knowledge available on the basis of archeology, ancient mathematics, astronomy, some success in deciphering the language of Harappan seals, and satellite imagery has proved beyond doubt that pre-Harappan period, the Vedic period, is as important as Harappan era for correct understanding of world history.

Vedic Period

The melting of ice from the snow capped peaks of the Himalayas started around ten thousand years back. The opulent flow of clean and pure water hurried itself into streams and currents and turned into confluence as mighty rivers flowing down the slopes into the plains of northwest India. Saraswati, Indus, Yamuna or Jamuna, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej, and Ganges are a few rivers that can be named as having formed out of this melting of ice caps. These rivers flowed through the plains bringing with them life and prosperity on their banks. Agriculture prospered and so also the culture of ancient India. The plentiful bounty of agriculture produce offered leisure to the talented and pious Rishis for meditation and contemplation on the intricacies of the origin of the universe, awesome surprises of the nature, and purpose of human birth. In their gratitude to the bountiful nature, they offered not the floral tributes but the tributes of exquisite verses, rich in content and form. These verses later became the Vedas. The favour and the fear offered by the nature reflected in their creation of Idol worship, with Nature with her constituent parts became symbols of God. Indra, Varun, Marut, Rudra, Kuber, and Yaksha are but to name a few. Mountains and rivers, serpents and birds, trees and animals also later found symbolic value as images of Gods.
The discovery and ability to handle fire for beneficial purposes made them realize its value, and the gratitude turned into devotion, culminating into worship of Fire as Supreme God. Hence, the sun and the moon, lightning and fireplaces became the objects of reverence and worship. To complete the natural flow of gratitude these people of ancient India, Aryans, as they were called, started offering sacrifices in the fire. The places of sacrificial rituals find great importance in the ancient Indian civilization. Building of these 'Yajna Kunda' or sacrificial altars required knowledge of algebraic geometry. Thus, ancient mathematics plays important role in pinpointing the historical age of this ancient civilization.
The second important invention of the Aryans relates to creation of a 'wheel'. Today, out of familiarity, we may not understand the true import of this discovery, but if we look back into the past of about 5000 BC, we cannot but remain amazed at the knowledge of mathematics of these very ancient people. Recent discoveries point to this age of this civilization as C. 6000 BC.
One proof for this claim is the discovery of a metallic relic, the 'Head of Vashishtha'. In the year 1958 one American collector by name Harry Hicks procured a metallic antic piece in India, New Delhi, in the form of 'head of a seer'. After due scientific investigation he came to the conclusion that it was sculpted around 3800 BC. The carbon-dating techniques and nuclear research proved this beyond doubt. Such highly developed technique of metal refinery reflected equally developed culture and civilization. In the face of such factual discovery it was somewhat difficult to accept the 'Aryan Invasion' around 1500 BC. What was there during the intervening period of 2300 years! How could we say that these 'Dravidians' living in northwest India were ignorant, backward, and inferior to the 'invading Aryans'? Indeed, the doubt can be raised about the very theory of 'Aryan Invasion'.
The doubt is further corroborated by finding of the mention of the word 'Aryan' several times in Rig Veda, and it can be shown that this Rig Veda was composed around 4200-4800 BC. How can one explain the mention of the word Aryan 3000 years prior to their own invasion! In fact, the word Aryan does not pertain to any race, it was just an honorific word meaning 'Sir' or 'Sri', a person of noble character and bearing.
Third interesting point is about the discovery of mighty Ancient River Saraswati, flowing from north to south between present-day Indian states Punjab and Uttar Pradesh towards Gujarat (this river has dried up since then). The river finds mention in Rig Veda at several places, while the Ganges and the Indus are seldom mentioned. On the banks of the river Saraswati are scattered places of human settlement, as proved by excavation and satellite photography. The period is much older than that of Indus civilization of Harappa and Mohen-jo-Daro from where most of the historians want to begin their study of ancient Indian history. It is proved now that an unusual drought lasting for three hundred years from 2200 BC to 1900 BC dried up this mighty river Saraswati. Additional cause for it's drying was that its main tributaries, river Yamuna and Sutlej changed their course and joined the Ganges and Indus respectively.
Thus, these ancient people of Vedic culture and period shifted westward, eastward, and southward in their natural instinct to survive. Human settlements with corresponding cultures were established thence on the banks of the river Indus (west), the Ganges (east), and in Gujarat in the south. From Afghanistan to Gujarat we get archeological proofs of such displacement and resettlement. What we have found in Harappa and Mohen-jo-Daro are the remnants of this civilization of around 1900 BC. The spread of these displaced people due to prolonged drought was not restricted to parts of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan alone, but it went farther to central Asia and even Europe. Thus it can be said with conviction that Aryans did not come from Europe or central Asia, but they were the inhabitants of ancient Vedic India who in turn spread outside India. However, taking Harappan civilization as the ancient civilization, the British and the other European scholars conjured up Aryan Invasion (around 1500 BC) theory.

 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Conclusion:

That the present day beliefs about ancient Indian history are factually incorrect. They are based on European perspective with gross distortions due to colonial bias and interests.
Prior to Indus Valley Civilization of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, there flourished a much progressive culture and civilization, which we may label as Vedic Period of ancient India. Recent discoveries in archeology, astronomy, ancient mathematics, and satellite photography lend unequivocal support to this claim.
Based on these new facts, it can be safely said that the 'Aryan Invasion' theory is but a myth, and instead, in reality it were the Indo-Aryans who later migrated to far off west as Indo-European race. The linguistic similarities between ancient European languages, Sanskrit, and Indian languages are not because 'the Aryans brought Sanskrit from Europe to India' but quite the opposite. 'Daughter' in English, 'Doch' in Slav, or 'Tochter' in German has not become 'Duhita' (Sanskrit, meaning one who used to milk the cows in ancient Aryan family), but reverse is the case. Ignite has not become Agni, but Agni becomes ignite and so on.


 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Let us conclude by quoting a paragraph from the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Vol. 5, pages 534-535):




"And what your European Pundits say about the Aryan's swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! Strange, that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys! This is very bad indeed. … 'You are learned men, hunt up your old books and scriptures please, and draw your own conclusions'."
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism♥Krishna;3630169 said:
Still Max Mullers lovers like you
Max Muller is unfairly castigated by chauvinist Hindus. He was among the first to work on our scriptures and re-expose us and the world to Vedas and Upanishads. We should be thankful to him for his life-times work.Of course, he was unaware of many things when he first came to India and had a colonial mind, but then he realized the wisdom of Hindu scriptures. As his work was among the first, therefore it is not surprising that he may have erred in places. About Max Muller:

I spend my happiest hours in reading Vedantic books. They are to me like the light of the morning, like the pure air of the mountains - so simple, so true, if once understood.

During the course of his Gifford Lectures on the subject of "natural religion", Müller was severely criticized for being anti-Christian. In 1891, at a meeting of the Established Presbytery of Glasgow, Mr. Thomson (Minister of Ladywell) moved a motion that Müller's teaching was "subversive of the Christian faith, and fitted to spread pantheistic and infidel views amongst the students and others" and questioned Müller's appointment as lecturer

An even stronger attack on Müller was made by Monsignor Alexander Munro in St Andrew's Cathedral. Munro, an officer of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland (and Provost of the Catholic Cathedral of Glasgow from 1884 to 1892), declared that Müller's lectures "were nothing less than a crusade against Divine revelation, against Jesus Christ, and against Christianity". The blasphemous lectures were, he continued, "the proclamation of atheism under the guise of pantheism" and "uprooted our idea of God, for it repudiated the idea of a personal God".

Similar accusations had already led to Müller's exclusion from the Boden chair in Sanskrit in favour of the conservative Monier Monier-Williams.

For Müller the discovery of common Indian and European ancestry was a powerful argument against racism, arguing that "an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar" and that "the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians".

If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered over the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant, I should point to India.

I hope this will make you change your views about Max Muller. Poor man, not loved by Christians, and not loved by many Indians for whose religious books he spent all his life.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Aup, you've lost all credibility with this defense of the AIT. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

This is just one link that debunks it through and through. There are many others. I really can't believe you're still holding on to such archaic nonsense.

http://veda.wikidot.com/aryan-invasion-theory
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Centum_Satem_map.png


My refutation is very simple.

1. Why are not Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, Murugan not mentioned in the Vedas, and

2. Why does Hindus do not worship Dyava-Prithvi, Indra, Agni, Soma, Ushas, Marutas, Vishvedevas, Apam Napat, Apah, Ashwini Kumaras, Brihaspati, Prajapati, Brahmanaspati, Pusan, Parjanya, Twastr.

Because, they were two people, who fused together. Why should we take it as something bad, to be refuted at all costs? It is simply like my becoming a Rajasthani though my forefathers hail from Kashmir. These foreigners, the Aryans, Parthians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushanas, Hunas, came to India a few thousand years ago, settled here, and became Hindus. What is wrong if a few small rivers join a larger river and become one? A Sutlej emptying in Indus or a Yamuna emptying in Ganga? I might add a third point:

3. Why are there stories of conflict between Shiva and yajna-performing Daksha, deluge producing Indra and Krishna, the savior? Why were the Charvaks, Lokayatas, Ajivakas, Buddhists, and Jains, against Brahmanism? Was it a conflict of cultures?

There is always some give and take in an assimilation. Don't throw a chauvinist Hindu line at me. I do not bite that. :D
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Aup, you've lost all credibility with this defense of the AIT. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

This is just one link that debunks it through and through. There are many others. I really can't believe you're still holding on to such archaic nonsense.

Aryan Invasion Theory -

Some people are so racist that they ignore the thousands of proofs against AIT.

We should ignore such max muller's lovers . They don't know that AIT is now in hell alongwith his creator .
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
My refutation is very simple.

For a hindu , it is not simple . It's funny .:p

1. Why are not Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, Murugan not mentioned in the Vedas, and
These were the avataras of bramhan . Narayana and shiva are mentioned in veda . Stop reading max muller's distorted veda.

2. Why does Hindus do not worship Dyava-Prithvi, Indra, Agni, Soma, Ushas, Marutas, Vishvedevas, Apam Napat, Apah, Ashwini Kumaras, Brihaspati, Prajapati, Brahmanaspati, Pusan, Parjanya, Twastr.
It's your belief . Hindus worship them during yadnyas . Vedas allows to worship during yadnya . They don't allow to worship them in images . Know that max muller was not a bramhan or vedic pandit . He was mlechha .

Because, they were two people, who fused together. Why should we take it as something bad, to be refuted at all costs? It is simply like my becoming a Rajasthani though my forefathers hail from Kashmir. These foreigners, the Aryans, Parthians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushanas, Hunas, came to India a few thousand years ago, settled here, and became Hindus.
Oh really ? The thousands of researches against AIT proposed by scientists were a joke ?

Hindus are living in Bharata from satyayuga ( creation of universe ) . They are the ancestors of bramha and manu . While europeans , Parthians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushanas, Hunas are all called as mlechhas .There was no any invasion in sacred bharata .

So just live in your dream of AIT.

3. Why are there stories of conflict between Shiva and yajna-performing Daksha, deluge producing Indra and Krishna, the savior? Why were the Charvaks, Lokayatas, Ajivakas, Buddhists, and Jains, against Brahmanism? Was it a conflict of cultures?
Congrats , you have read distorted version of veda written by a non-hindu . The conflicts were for other reasons . I think , about conflict between shiva and daksha , is a matter of sati ( daughter of daksha ) . So you don't know anything about puranas , where the history of gods is written . So you and so called veda master muller , have no any right to talk on such divine supreme gods .

In puranas , it is predicted that mlechhas will invade and destroy the vedic dharma in kaliyuga . I realised that its very true by seeing your claims about veda and supreme gods. Veda has a great danger from mlechhas . So I request all hindus that they should not read veda translated by a mlechha. As per Bhavishya Puran, the Mlechhas were christians and muslims ie non-hindus as while telling about them Bhavishya puran tells that they will eat forbidden meat and will speak a different language cursed by Mother Saraswati
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Give me the book and verse number in RigVeda where Narayana is mentioned. Shiva is used only once in RigVeda with a completely different meaning. Which book and verse in RigVeda says that Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, and Murugan are avataras of Brahman?

Yes, the Vedic Gods are remembered in yajnas which only a few people do now infrequently during the year. Hindus in general do not even know the names of the Vedic deities.

AIT or AMT theory is not settled. Only the chauvinist hindus (like you) consider it to be settled. And it will be a big farce on history if it is rejected. Aryans were most probably inhabitants of regions near Arctic circle. They were pushed south by the last glaciation, lingered in Andronovo region around 4,000 BC. Then one line pushed east to Iran and India, while another, that of Ionians (deformed pronunciation of Aryans), pushed west to reach Balkans, Greece, Rome, and the rest of European countries.

Kindly desist from the Satya Yuga talk. It is OK as mythology but not scientific. Human history does not go beyond 200,000 years. Sati is mythology, the conflicts are religious and sociological.
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
About Hindu word and language of mlechhas (non-hindus) from Bhavishya purana :

According to bhavishya purana , mlechhas are todays christians and muslims .

Bhavishya purana is 3000 years old ."When the Kali-yuga passed 2000 years" - This are the words of bhavishya purana.
" For example: paniyam (water) is called pani, bubhuksa-hunger is called bhukh. Paniyam-drinking is called papadi and bhojanam-eating is called kakkanam. Isti is called suddharava, istini is called masapavani, ahuti is called aju and dadati is called dadhati. The word pitri is called paitara and bhrata is bather and also pati. This is the yavani lanugage in which the asva is called aspa, Janu is jainu and sapta-sindhu is called sapta-hindu. "

" Now you hear about Gurundika language. Ravi-vara (the first day of the week) is called sunday, phalguna and chaitra months are called pharvari (February). Sasti is called sixty, these kinds of examples are there."




Crime is becoming prominent in the holy place of Sapta-puri. ( ie Bharata / spta-sindu/ land of hindus ) Thus the ruling of mlecchas is also in Bharata (India) and its islands. Knowing all this, O great and intelligent sage, you should just perform the devotional service to Lord Hari.



Sarswati put mlechhas in illusion :
" Suta Goswami said: That was by the influence of goddess Sarasvati that they could not enter that place. By the order of the demigods, when the Kali-yuga pursued his 1,000 years, a brahmana named Kasyapa come down to earth from the heavenly planets with his wife Aryavatil. They had ten spotless sons who are known by the names: Upadhayaya, Diksita, Pathaka, Sukla, Misra, Agnihotri, Dvi-vedi, Tri-vedi, Catur-vedi and Pandey. Among them was the learned one full of knowledge. He went to Kashmir and worshipped goddess Sarasvati with red flowers, red akshata (rice), incense, lamps, naivedya (food offerings) and puspanjali (flower offerings). To please her he praised her with some prayers, asking her for better knowledge of Sankrt to put mlecchas into illusion. Being pleased by his prayers she remainded situated in his mind and blessed him with knowledge. Then the sage went to the country known as Misra and put all the mlecchas into illusion by the greace of goddess Sarasvati. "
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
AIT or AMT theory is not settled. Only the chauvinist hindus (like you) consider it to be settled. And it will be a big farce on history if it is rejected. Aryans were most probably inhabitants of regions near Arctic circle. They were pushed south by the last glaciation, lingered in Andronovo region around 4,000 BC. Then one line pushed east to Iran and India, while another, that of Ionians (deformed pronunciation of Aryans), pushed west to reach Balkans, Greece, Rome, and the rest of European countries.

Greatest myth in the history ! :D

All western and indian scientists had debunked so called AIT theory . Hindus dharma is hindu-vedic dharma and non-hindus's ( invading masters ) dharma is mlechha dharma ( non-vedic impure religion ) .
 

ions

Member
These foreigners, the Aryans, Parthians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushanas, Hunas, came to India a few thousand years ago, settled here, and became Hindus. What is wrong if a few small rivers join a larger river and become one?

There is nothing wrong if it were true. There is no proof this happened, rather more proof that it did not happen. In addition, the collective conciousness of old India has no invasions recorded. Such a large impact would certainly not be forgotten. Unfortunately, the impact of this false history runs quite deep.
 
Top