• 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!

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

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
For me It does matter. Why the Indian way of keeping history as puranas and Ithihas not used to determine the existence of historical Indian figures, Why not the Indian dating system is used of time of Rajas/Rani ect;

Why don't we hear or see anything about..let say..Prithivi Raj, Veer Shivaji, Rani Laksham Bai, Rani Durgawati, Veer Savakar or any "Indian Nationalist", when it comes to Indian History.

Don't know about those people, as I've never heard of them.

However, the Puranas and Itahasas are not good for accurate history, since they contain things which are, to be honest, incorrect. The Vayu Purana, for example, actually contains a multiplication error. In addition, they have been interpolated several times. They have not been demonstrated to be accurate renditions of history any more than Biblical legends.

You are right, Any time a Indian claims to know his/her own history they are branded a nationalist, as if its such a bad thing. While any American can pride himself in the history of his country, even if it was built on the blood of the original inhabitants.
Most unfortunate, indeed.

Me, I prefer to take pride in my heritage rather than my birthland. :clover:

And the assumption that to become civilized, the stronger have to destroy the weak, the light (skinned) has to defeat the dark (skinned)
I don't think such an assumption is as pervasive as it used to be.

Undefined by who...the Europeans? :facepalm:

Well can anyone go to India and understand all the dialects and their link to Sanskrit without knowing a word of it?
No, but such things can be studied.

How would you know why the Tamil culture is so similar to Northern but the languages are different without being from south and north of India?
Not really sure I understand.

Being a Christian in the early 1700, would you even consider Hinduism older and more advanced then Christianity.
I don't know, because I'm not familiar with the culture of early 1700s Europe.

Well its not a small task, but few things i can think of.

Recognising History as told by the people who know their own history as valid, this will be a good way to start.
Measurement of Time according to traditional methods.
Understanding variation in Language as written in ancient text and as according to tradition.
Understanding texts according to the proper traditional interpretations.
I can see a problem right away. It's actually a logical fallacy to assume that something must be correct simply because it's traditional.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
The methods of understanding history of the Asians were devised during the imperial rules of the Lands, and as i said the methods were originally used to decipher European history not Asian.

This is how I see it. Tell me if it makes sense to you.
Entomologists studied a certain type of insect. All the scientists who studied this insect were male. They noticed the big males of the spices fought over the rights to mate with the females. It was always in there minds the biggest male always got the girl. But... when a female scientist started studying this species she noticed something that the male scientists did not see... sometimes the female of the species ran off while the males fought and mated with a different male. All the male scientists had an incomplete understanding of the mating habits of this bug. It took a female to complete the picture.

My point is A Westerner will see the world a western way. It is an incomplete view point because all view points are incomplete. I sure a bunch of woman scientists would miss something a man could better see. This type of thing can't be helped.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
This is how I see it. Tell me if it makes sense to you.
Entomologists studied a certain type of insect. All the scientists who studied this insect were male. They noticed the big males of the spices fought over the rights to mate with the females. It was always in there minds the biggest male always got the girl. But... when a female scientist started studying this species she noticed something that the male scientists did not see... sometimes the female of the species ran off while the males fought and mated with a different male. All the male scientists had an incomplete understanding of the mating habits of this bug. It took a female to complete the picture.

My point is A Westerner will see the world a western way. It is an incomplete view point because all view points are incomplete. I sure a bunch of woman scientists would miss something a man could better see. This type of thing can't be helped.

I might argue that, but the analogy is true to an extent, since Europe and India developed over thousands of years to be culturally very different. However, the key here is that both the man and woman are looking at the same thing, but noticing different details.

The equivalent here would be that both Indians and Westerners are looking at the archaeology, linguistics, comparative literature/religion, etc., and noticing different details. Both are certainly important. The thing is, Indian historians/linguists/etc. have looked at the evidence, and by and large drawn similar conclusions as their European counterparts. Those who haven't aren't looking at the same thing, but at something else: tradition. It's like the woman who isn't looking at the mating habits of the insect, but at what ancient people wrote about an insect that may or may not be the one they're supposed to study.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
I might argue that, but the analogy is true to an extent, since Europe and India developed over thousands of years to be culturally very different. However, the key here is that both the man and woman are looking at the same thing, but noticing different details.

The equivalent here would be that both Indians and Westerners are looking at the archaeology, linguistics, comparative literature/religion, etc., and noticing different details. Both are certainly important. The thing is, Indian historians/linguists/etc. have looked at the evidence, and by and large drawn similar conclusions as their European counterparts. Those who haven't aren't looking at the same thing, but at something else: tradition. It's like the woman who isn't looking at the mating habits of the insect, but at what ancient people wrote about an insect that may or may not be the one they're supposed to study.

Namaste

The issue is that the evidence the Indian historians/linguistics/etc. are looking at is presented through a Western lens already, along with all the commentary and baggage. In learning these methodologies, they also learned and internalized the Western ideologies.

This is changing now.

Namaste
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Well can anyone go to India and understand all the dialects and their link to Sanskrit without knowing a word of it?

How would you know why the Tamil culture is so similar to Northern but the languages are different without being from south and north of India?

Culture is similar because customs are picked up and shared much faster than language changes. Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Mayalayam and their regional dialects are Dravidian languages, totally unrelated to Sanskrit. Malayalam, for example has borrowed some Sanskrit grammar and features, and is over 80% Sanskrit vocabulary in literature and scholarly works. But that is not the case in everyday speech. Therefore, a typical Malayalam-speaker would probably not be able to read a medical journal in its original form unless it was translated fully into Malayalam. I suspect the same is true for the other Dravidian languages, but I'd have to delve into it.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Namaste

The issue is that the evidence the Indian historians/linguistics/etc. are looking at is presented through a Western lens already, along with all the commentary and baggage. In learning these methodologies, they also learned and internalized the Western ideologies.

This is changing now.

Namaste

Yes it is, and thank the Gods for that.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
Riverwolf;2962937]Don't know about those people, as I've never heard of them.


Wonder why

However, the Puranas and Itahasas are not good for accurate history, since they contain things which are, to be honest, incorrect. The Vayu Purana, for example, actually contains a multiplication error. In addition, they have been interpolated several times. They have not been demonstrated to be accurate renditions of history any more than Biblical legends.

yes that is the case, that is for us to fix, because Ithihas and Puranas can be changed to become more acceptable and it still has history in it, if we take the crap out of it, its understandable.
I think the biggest problem was that Itihas and Puranas were looked at as Holy books rather then what they actually are.

Most unfortunate, indeed.

Me, I prefer to take pride in my heritage rather than my birthland. :clover:

i take pride in all three, (Matrbhoomi) Motherland, (Janmbhoomi) Birthland and (Karmbhoomi) current land.

I don't think such an assumption is as pervasive as it used to be.


That is the problem, it used to be the basis of study of culture and language in the early days of European exploration.

No, but such things can be studied.

yes it can be, but using what tools.

Not really sure I understand.

hard for me to explain, forget i said it.

I don't know, because I'm not familiar with the culture of early 1700s Europe.


Maybe these things can be studied.

I can see a problem right away. It's actually a logical fallacy to assume that something must be correct simply because it's traditional.

Only to non traditionalist.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
This is how I see it. Tell me if it makes sense to you.
Entomologists studied a certain type of insect. All the scientists who studied this insect were male. They noticed the big males of the spices fought over the rights to mate with the females. It was always in there minds the biggest male always got the girl. But... when a female scientist started studying this species she noticed something that the male scientists did not see... sometimes the female of the species ran off while the males fought and mated with a different male. All the male scientists had an incomplete understanding of the mating habits of this bug. It took a female to complete the picture.

My point is A Westerner will see the world a western way. It is an incomplete view point because all view points are incomplete. I sure a bunch of woman scientists would miss something a man could better see. This type of thing can't be helped.

Yeh, I would agree.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
Culture is similar because customs are picked up and shared much faster than language changes. Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Mayalayam and their regional dialects are Dravidian languages, totally unrelated to Sanskrit. Malayalam, for example has borrowed some Sanskrit grammar and features, and is over 80% Sanskrit vocabulary in literature and scholarly works. But that is not the case in everyday speech. Therefore, a typical Malayalam-speaker would probably not be able to read a medical journal in its original form unless it was translated fully into Malayalam. I suspect the same is true for the other Dravidian languages, but I'd have to delve into it.

Hmmm, what is Dravidian?

Even the concept of a Dravidian Race is not proved by genealogical research.

its not a spoken language in North or South, that is more the case that it was made to be for scholarly works ect, rather then being a language of a specific race of people.
This would also be supported by Upanishads and other works on the Vedas, where many state that Vedic Sanskrit was developed for Vedas and was not a spoken language coming from outside influences.

I don't believe that there is a Dravidian Race of people, Indians have many dialects but the racial stock are related, Aryan and Dravidian words are doing what they were intended to do, divide North from South.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear prabhu ji ,

Facts are in-Aryan Invasion Of Indus is a Lie!
Iam not sure that I would go as far as to say a lie , but the aryan invasion theory is indeed a rather missguided peice of fiction , which fortunately is now being dissproven .

this highlights the danger of trying to find explanations for things , and trying to group people and put them in boxes .

true wisdom would be to keep an open mind , as is now shown by many studies and scientific observations , that what was once concidered by some to be merely mythology is in fact a reflection of true history .

Climate change wiped out one of the world's first, great civilisations more than 4,000 years ago

I havent seen this particular link yet but so mush has come to light in the past 30 years that I hope people will look with interest at much of what was once concidered myth and gain a very different perspective on life and religion.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear prabhu ji ,

Maybe now all Indians can claim their ancestry to be indigenous Aryavarta inhabitants.

jai jai

And all Dharmics can try to reach for the status of Aryan (noble).


perfect :bow:


But many have known this (AIT) to be fake for the past 200 years.
There has been many discoveries and research that had already proved this, but never reaches the lay person.

One positive thing to come of recent discoveries is that I have met many people who are begining to look differently at the whole question of beleif due to scientific and archiological descoveries over the past years .

I am now waiting for the scientific and scolastic worlds to openly admit that many of their theories might be wrong and to look in wonder at the depth of knowledge and wisdom in the vedic literature .

So basically Nazi history gets more views then actual Aryan history.

this period in recent history should be a lesson to us all in the dangers of the ego , and that any human being should take it upon himself to assert his own superiority above any other .

may we return to a true understanding of dharma and be truely "arya"
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
Don't get too excited, yet. All this meant was that the Indus Valley Peoples weren't wiped out by invading people. Sanskrit is still part of the Indo-European family of languages, and so many Indians still share a brotherhood with Iranians, who descended from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Linguistic evidence still points to this.

yes , yes , you are both right Bharatvarsha covered a far gerater area than what is now concidered to be the indian subcontinent ,

Until the Indus Script is deciphered, that's still the standard history.

luckily I think things are now changing
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmmm, what is Dravidian?

Even the concept of a Dravidian Race is not proved by genealogical research.

its not a spoken language in North or South, that is more the case that it was made to be for scholarly works ect, rather then being a language of a specific race of people.
This would also be supported by Upanishads and other works on the Vedas, where many state that Vedic Sanskrit was developed for Vedas and was not a spoken language coming from outside influences.

I don't believe that there is a Dravidian Race of people, Indians have many dialects but the racial stock are related, Aryan and Dravidian words are doing what they were intended to do, divide North from South.

Dravidian is a language super-family, that's all. It does not, when properly used, refer to any ethnic or social group of people. Nor is there a language called 'Dravidian' any more than there is a language called Sino-Tibetan or a language called Afro-Asiatic. They are language super-families.

Dravidian is the name of a group of language families that have common descent from an ancestor language, called Proto-Dravidian. It is unrelated to other languages just as the Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Uto-Aztecan, Uralic, Austronesian languages are unrelated to each other. Dravidian languages are primarily spoken in the south of India, but one Dravidian language, Brahui, is spoken in Baluchistan.

There is no Dravidian race. There are no races at all in humans. Race is a social construct. The human genome has been fully mapped, and there is no marker for race. So forget any arguments trying to prove or disprove racism based on outdated and obsolete western thought and ignorance.

It is true that there is virtually no genetic difference between northern and southern Indians. That the languages are used to divide north and south is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. They are different languages because they are different languages.

Moreover, did you miss my post in which I said that Malayalam, a Dravidian language, totally unrelated to any languages except Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and the other languages and dialects of south India, has adopted 80% of its scholarly and professional vocabulary from Sanskrit? That professional journals and literature are written with Malayalam grammar constructions, using Sanskrit vocabulary sound like an intended division?

Meaning no disrespect, but please do not venture into linguistics.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
dear prabhu ji ,

dear prabhu ji ,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti
Maybe now all Indians can claim their ancestry to be indigenous Aryavarta inhabitants.

jai jai

Yes, as I've said many times in the past, human migrations out of Africa took several routes. There was a north-western route into Europe; a north-eastern route into Eurasia; and a south-eastern route into south Asia. At that time, the Sahara and Arabian deserts were wetlands with rivers, lakes, (deep ones), marshes, and swamps. Only about 10,000 years ago did the area dry up and become the deserts of north Africa, southwest Asia and even to Rajasthan (Thar Desert). These migrations took place over a 100,000 - 150,000 year span. Humans reached south Asia by about 50,000 years ago, and Australasia by about 40,000 years ago.

There's been no genetic influx into the Indian subcontinent from the north in over 100,000 years. Yes, some groups who took the "northeastern" route migrated over the whole Iranian plateau and into the north of the Indian subcontinent, but it was no invasion. They were people who migrated into an unpopulated and unsettled land where they developed the IVC and Vedic civilizations. The Vedic peoples are indeed indigenous to India. :yes:
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
yes that is the case, that is for us to fix, because Ithihas and Puranas can be changed to become more acceptable and it still has history in it, if we take the crap out of it, its understandable.
I think the biggest problem was that Itihas and Puranas were looked at as Holy books rather then what they actually are.

But how are such things determined?

i take pride in all three, (Matrbhoomi) Motherland, (Janmbhoomi) Birthland and (Karmbhoomi) current land.
Well, it's kinda hard for me to take pride in my brithland these days.

That is the problem, it used to be the basis of study of culture and language in the early days of European exploration.
But as it hasn't been for at least several decades, I don't see what the problem is.

yes it can be, but using what tools.
The ones that are tried and true. Why use ones that demonstrate false?

Maybe these things can be studied.
Not as interesting as pre-Christian and pre-Rennaisance Europe. Can't take seriously those ridiculous wigs and hats.

If I were to guess, however, I'd say it would heavily depend on whatever education was available at the time. One Christian is not necessarily like unto another.

Only to non traditionalist.
There have been many traditions over the years and around the world that needed to be thrown out because they demonstrated to be false. Therefore, something is not true solely on the merits of it being tradition. However, that doesn't mean all traditions must be discarded simply for being tradition.
 
Last edited:

anders

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, what is Dravidian?

Even the concept of a Dravidian Race is not proved by genealogical research.

its not a spoken language in North or South, that is more the case that it was made to be for scholarly works ect, rather then being a language of a specific race of people.
"Race" has nothing whatsoever to do with language.
This would also be supported by Upanishads and other works on the Vedas, where many state that Vedic Sanskrit was developed for Vedas and was not a spoken language coming from outside influences.
Vedic Sanskrit probably existed when the Vedas were composed, not the other way round. It must have been language spoken by some people at least in some circumstances. Then there were colloquials. The Sanskrits got petrified, but the colloquial Prakrits evolved to Apabhraṃśa dialects which in turn changed to modern Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali etc.

I don't believe that there is a Dravidian Race of people, Indians have many dialects but the racial stock are related, Aryan and Dravidian words are doing what they were intended to do, divide North from South.

Dravidian is a language super-family, that's all. It does not, when properly used, refer to any ethnic or social group of people. Nor is there a language called 'Dravidian' any more than there is a language called Sino-Tibetan or a language called Afro-Asiatic. They are language super-families.

Dravidian is the name of a group of language families that have common descent from an ancestor language, called Proto-Dravidian. It is unrelated to other languages just as the Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Uto-Aztecan, Uralic, Austronesian languages are unrelated to each other. Dravidian languages are primarily spoken in the south of India, but one Dravidian language, Brahui, is spoken in Baluchistan.

There is no Dravidian race. There are no races at all in humans. Race is a social construct. The human genome has been fully mapped, and there is no marker for race. So forget any arguments trying to prove or disprove racism based on outdated and obsolete western thought and ignorance.

It is true that there is virtually no genetic difference between northern and southern Indians. That the languages are used to divide north and south is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. They are different languages because they are different languages.

Moreover, did you miss my post in which I said that Malayalam, a Dravidian language, totally unrelated to any languages except Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and the other languages and dialects of south India, has adopted 80% of its scholarly and professional vocabulary from Sanskrit? That professional journals and literature are written with Malayalam grammar constructions, using Sanskrit vocabulary sound like an intended division?

Meaning no disrespect, but please do not venture into linguistics.
Thanks, Touch; you saved me a lot of typing.

I made a note on the Indus-Sarasvati civilization when reading this thread but lost the details. Anyway, we don't know if that culture was inspired by any other or if it left any traces that can be seen later. The language will probably never be deciphered, as all the inscriptions are very short. Guesses that it was a Dravidian language are as many as advocates of an Indo-European heritage.

The origin of the name Indo-European is quite simple: at the time it was coined, the easternmost languages in the family were found in India, and the westernmost ones in Europe. Purely geographical.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
TouchedbytheLord;2964347]Dravidian is a language super-family, that's all. It does not, when properly used, refer to any ethnic or social group of people. Nor is there a language called 'Dravidian' any more than there is a language called Sino-Tibetan or a language called Afro-Asiatic. They are language super-families.

Yes it is a language group, spoken primarily in the Southern Parts of India. Dravidian comes from the word Dasyus which is in the Vedas, who were described (by western historians) as flat nosed black aboriginal who originally inhabited India.
The Languages they spoke were given a group called Dravidian.

To me when people refer to Dravidian Language groups they are referring to the notion of the Dasyus Racial group as well.

Even if you don't intend to view it as a racial thing, the Word Dravidian itself was designed to separate the southern Languages from the Northern.

Dravidian is the name of a group of language families that have common descent from an ancestor language, called Proto-Dravidian. It is unrelated to other languages just as the Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Uto-Aztecan, Uralic, Austronesian languages are unrelated to each other. Dravidian languages are primarily spoken in the south of India, but one Dravidian language, Brahui, is spoken in Baluchistan.

Im not questioning the Language itself, i trust you are more informed on the Language topic then i am.

All im doing is questioning the intent of the classification.

There is no Dravidian race. There are no races at all in humans. Race is a social construct. The human genome has been fully mapped, and there is no marker for race. So forget any arguments trying to prove or disprove racism based on outdated and obsolete western thought and ignorance.

I don't see any racial difference, But the word Dravidian was and to some extent still is the cause of political and cultural divide among Indians.

It is true that there is virtually no genetic difference between northern and southern Indians. That the languages are used to divide north and south is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. They are different languages because they are different languages.

Correct, my case is against the intent and meaning of the word Dravidian itself.

Moreover, did you miss my post in which I said that Malayalam, a Dravidian language, totally unrelated to any languages except Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and the other languages and dialects of south India, has adopted 80% of its scholarly and professional vocabulary from Sanskrit?

I did read it, and i agree, no argument there.

That professional journals and literature are written with Malayalam grammar constructions, using Sanskrit vocabulary sound like an intended division?

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

Meaning no disrespect, but please do not venture into linguistics.

Nooo, No hard feelings mate, learning heaps from you, you are well versed in the Linguistics side of things, im just coming from the Nationalist Hindu/Indian Pride question/disagree to anything and everything anyone says kinda side.

:D
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
anders;2964888]"Race" has nothing whatsoever to do with language.

When did i say it has?

Vedic Sanskrit probably existed when the Vedas were composed, not the other way round. It must have been language spoken by some people at least in some circumstances. Then there were colloquials. The Sanskrits got petrified, but the colloquial Prakrits evolved to Apabhraṃśa dialects which in turn changed to modern Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali etc.

Wow, point taken.

Yeh my bad, it was a spoken language before being written.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
Riverwolf;2964454]But how are such things determined?

According to principals set out in Vedas.


But as it hasn't been for at least several decades, I don't see what the problem is.

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

The ones that are tried and true. Why use ones that demonstrate false?

And how do we determine the tried and true tools?

Not as interesting as pre-Christian and pre-Rennaisance Europe. Can't take seriously those ridiculous wigs and hats.

If I were to guess, however, I'd say it would heavily depend on whatever education was available at the time. One Christian is not necessarily like unto another.

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

There have been many traditions over the years and around the world that needed to be thrown out because they demonstrated to be false. Therefore, something is not true solely on the merits of it being tradition. However, that doesn't mean all traditions must be discarded simply for being tradition.

Exactly, without research we cant say any traditional method is incorrect.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
"Race" has nothing whatsoever to do with language.

Vedic Sanskrit probably existed when the Vedas were composed, not the other way round. It must have been language spoken by some people at least in some circumstances. Then there were colloquials. The Sanskrits got petrified, but the colloquial Prakrits evolved to Apabhraṃśa dialects which in turn changed to modern Indian languages like Hindi, Bengali etc.

And there we have it! :yes: If it weren't for Pāṇini who codified and standardized spoken Sanskrit into Classical Sanskrit, it would probably not exist as a living language. It would probably only exist as Vedic Sanskrit in the texts of the Vedas. Anglo-Saxon was never codified, and while it still exists fossilized in works such as Beowulf, no one speaks it. Well, they do but we call it English. :D

Thanks, Touch; you saved me a lot of typing.

And I got writer's cramp. :p

I made a note on the Indus-Sarasvati civilization when reading this thread but lost the details. Anyway, we don't know if that culture was inspired by any other or if it left any traces that can be seen later. The language will probably never be deciphered, as all the inscriptions are very short. Guesses that it was a Dravidian language are as many as advocates of an Indo-European heritage.

The origin of the name Indo-European is quite simple: at the time it was coined, the easternmost languages in the family were found in India, and the westernmost ones in Europe. Purely geographical.

Jai jai! :)
 
Top