PDA

View Full Version : Aryan Invasion Theory



Indra
22 April 2008, 10:48 AM
British Racialists invented the Aryan invasion theory of india to justify their colonial rule. I say its a myth and indo-aryan speakers and dravidian speakers are both the same race and not different racial groups. Dravidian people are not a distinct race, indians are genetical uniform i would say 90% of india is genetical the same. Dravidian people are darker caucasoids and indo-aryans are also not blonde and pale but black haired, brown eyed and brown skinned. I heard that lightening and lovely cream is a hit in india and sell mad so some indians may look lighter or they dont go much to sun. The eye shapes, the skull, the bones, the facial structure is same in all indians be they brahmins or shudras or untouchables, be they tamils or indo-aryans. The "white" racists stole the word aryan from indians and the swastika, swastika is a ancient hindu symbol. New genetic studies doubt aryan invasion theory. http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2006/1/12.shtml#1

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

eriko
22 June 2009, 03:21 AM
I had no idea that the British invented this theory. But I did read a few things about it and I don't think that this was merely an invention but was actually based on the findings of few years back.

But anyways what I wanted to say is that according to new evidence that has been found in context to this, it is now thought that ARYANS WERE PEOPL LIVING IN INDIA who left India and than possibly came back. And now this theory is geeting many backers.

So I think it does mean that NORTH INDIANS AND SOUTH INDIANS BOTH ARE ARYANS. People should realise this and stop discrimininating against each other.

Though it is really very sad that Europeans took up the Aryan name and Swastik making them symbols of racism. But there are many people who understand that Aryan and Nazi are two totally different things. So it is not like we need to feel bad about it anymore.

All I would say is that INDIANS (North and South both) SHOULD FEEL PROUD TO BE ARYANS because being concious about our ethinicity is not being discriminant.

Eastern Mind
22 June 2009, 07:32 AM
It isn't necessary to feel as the same race (or language etc.) in order to be non-discriminatory. Why not react joyously to our differences? I love other culture, and we should celebrate all. When theories like this are expounded it tends to negate other cultures. In India it would be the Dravidians and perhaps more. Here in Canada the British 'negated' aboriginal cultures, tossing them aside like garbage, and only later realising some of the wealth of knowledge they tossed (herbology, for example). I think this new take on the Aryan invasion theory is just a new marketing of the same idea, and remains invalid as ever.

Looking deeper, it really relates to ego,and 'Who was first?" or where did civilisation start? The west has always assumed it was somewhere around the middle east. Dumb assumption. I should say egocentric, ethnocentric assumption. Then when they found evidence of clay pots or cities somewhere in South Africa or India, they just trued to cover the whole thing up. Fortunately the common anthropologist of today has an open mind.

Aum Namasivaya

eriko
22 June 2009, 08:52 AM
I do agree with you but my point wasn't to highlight Aryans. Europeans are all the same and still the same when it comes to racial discrimination. But due to this theory (which when came did have some backing of evidence), created problems for the Indian society.

The basic fact is that racial discrimination though not much in the central view is not non-existent in India. And we need to curb this. And the present Out Of India theory is essential for this.

I think it is because that you are a Canadian and not that aware of the racial status of India. The present Australian attacks are the proof of this. It takes a racist to catch a racist, as they say.

The Out Of India theory if should help in anything is uniting the Indian people. There are many sub-divisions created in Hinduism just because some people (sorry I cannot seem to recount any names) choosed not to follow the Aryan culture. And some even went far enough to blame the Aryans for the discriminatory caste system theories.

You might be right about ego. Sometimes it gets really frustrating when Indian culture gets no credit for its contributions. Even though you say that today a common anthropologist is open minded, but I don't think it means much till common people themselves realize and respect the truth.

Recently I was at a writing forum where I was the only Indian, and I was shocked at their (most of them were Americans and Europeans; more than half being American) ignorance of India and Indian culture. Even now when we say that the West has started respecting India, it is only a half truth.

Eastern Mind
22 June 2009, 02:08 PM
Europeans are all the same? Europeans are not all the same the way Indians are not all the same. In fact there is a lot of similarity between Europe as a whole and india as a whole. Several languages, cultures etc. India, if it were not for the British, would be 10 or 15 or more independent countries today. Same as Europe.

If racial discrimination is non existent in India, why do we need to curb this? I simply do not understand your point.

I also fail to understand what 'Out of India' is supposed to mean. Sorry.

Yes, I'm Canadian. Not sure what that means in terms of this discussion. Are you implying I can never understand India?

Here in my city we have a council of Indian societies which is an umbrella organisation for the language and state associations like the Tamil Society, the Kannada society, the Bengais etc etc. I think there are 14 or 15 groups represented at the Council. It is example of the concept termed Unity in Diversity. Then there are 5 Hindu temples here. That's because there are 5 different groups with different religious needs. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier. Trying to get everyone to unify their thoughts in religiouys ways will nevwer happen. Its much more interesting this way.

Aum Namasivaya

Znanna
22 June 2009, 10:05 PM
Why focus on this, when really we are all reflections of the same?

OM

ZN

eriko
23 June 2009, 03:58 AM
Europeans are all the same? Europeans are not all the same the way Indians are not all the same. In fact there is a lot of similarity between Europe as a whole and india as a whole. Several languages, cultures etc. India, if it were not for the British, would be 10 or 15 or more independent countries today. Same as Europe.

Sorry about that. I think I got a little aggressive.


If racial discrimination is non existent in India, why do we need to curb this? I simply do not understand your point.Sorry, what I mean is that even though racial discrimination is not addressed in India but it does not mean that it is non-existent.


I also fail to understand what 'Out of India' is supposed to mean. Sorry.Aryans were Indians who left India and then possibly came back. This new theory is the Out of India theory if I recall correctly.


Yes, I'm Canadian. Not sure what that means in terms of this discussion. Are you implying I can never understand India? I never meant that. I just implied that there are chances that you won't be that much aware about the happenings in India if you live in Canada. Have you read the book the White Tiger by Aravind Adiga? If you have then you will see what I mean. It won the 2008 Booker Prize. It shows the real India which is non-spiritual, vulgar and dirty.


As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier. Trying to get everyone to unify their thoughts in religious ways will never happen. Its much more interesting this way.Maybe, it is not that I disagree with you. Trying to unify everyone's thought is impossible and undemocratic. And this was not what I meant. I just want the people to stop discrimination amongst each other.


Why focus on this, when really we are all reflections of the same?

But there are many people who don't think so. But anyways this is cool to hear. I don't think there is any more point in discussion when we all agree on this.

OmSriShivaShakti
23 June 2009, 06:59 PM
The Out of India theory is that the Aryans were the natives of India and then moved north and northwest into Iran and southern Europe later spawning the ancient Persian, Greek, and Roman civilizations.

Hiwaunis
13 July 2009, 03:53 PM
Pranam,
" It shows the real India which is non-spiritual, vulgar and dirty."

THE REAL INDIA!!! Maybe a side of India. Or maybe in some areas of India. But the above statement implies that the whole country is non-spiritual, vulgar and dirty.

I must have been sheltered from that when I went to India. Anyway, just because someone writes a book, get it published and wins awards doesn't mean it is the absolute truth. Birds of a feather flock together and are constantly giving each other awards.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Hiwaunis
13 July 2009, 04:00 PM
Pranam,
What proof is there to back this theory? I mean is there settlements that have been dug up? What about burial/grave sites? How about money/ coins with Aryan rulers etc? Who lead the invasion? Do these Aryans have individual names?

Where can I find information on them?

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

eriko
14 July 2009, 05:26 AM
THE REAL INDIA!!! Maybe a side of India. Or maybe in some areas of India. But the above statement implies that the whole country is non-spiritual, vulgar and dirty.
Yes that is excatly what I mean. You should know that 50% of the Indian population lives on less than Rs 20 a day, which is less than half a dollar. Do you really think that these people would be spritual or anything. Maybe not whole of India but more than 85%. What do you expect we are living in Kalyuga after all.

This could be just be my view but there are many things to back this. Example whatever I said above. Spritual realizition comes after a person does not have to worry about food and water, which is not the case in India.

Nor are there any Gurukuls or Universities that teach God. Maybe in the South, but at least not here in Delhi. I myself go to a public school coupled with multiple science and maths tutions.


I must have been sheltered from that when I went to India. Anyway, just because someone writes a book, get it published and wins awards doesn't mean it is the absolute truth. Birds of a feather flock together and are constantly giving each other awards.I don't think that it is an ordinary award. And I don't agree with you at all. You underestimate books.


Pranam,
What proof is there to back this theory? I mean is there settlements that have been dug up? What about burial/grave sites? How about money/ coins with Aryan rulers etc? Who lead the invasion? Do these Aryans have individual names?

Where can I find information on them? I read it in a article in the Newspaper 'Mail Today'.

satay
14 July 2009, 09:21 AM
namaskar,


Yes that is excatly what I mean. You should know that 50% of the Indian population lives on less than Rs 20 a day, which is less than half a dollar.

Where did you get the 50% number? If you live in Delhi, you must know that you can't live on 20 rupees a day! In fact, I doubt very much that there is a place in India where one would 'live' on 20 rs a day. So what you wrote here is non sense and not true.

What I saw in March when I was in Delhi was that people are driving BMW's, Mercedes and Lexus, models that we can't even get here in Canada!

Usually we are quick to blame the western media for portraying India in a bad light but with people like you we can't really blame the westerners. :rolleyes:

eriko
14 July 2009, 10:50 AM
Where did you get the 50% number? If you live in Delhi, you must know that you can't live on 20 rupees a day! In fact, I doubt very much that there is a place in India where one would 'live' on 20 rs a day. So what you wrote here is non se and not true.
Check out Times Of India newspaper just a week old. The whole country is not Delhi. There are places where even basic necessities are not meant. If you check out the states approximately whole of the East side of India is under the control of Naxals. Reference: India Today edition (last to last year).


What I saw in March when I was in Delhi was that people are driving BMW's, Mercedes and Lexus, models that we can't even get here in Canada!This constitutes about 10% of Indian population. What you are forgetting is that Delhi is the capital of India, people are bound to have a cool lifestyle here. But how could you have possibly missed the slums sleeping on footpath?


Usually we are quick to blame the western media for portraying India in a bad light but with people like you we can't really blame the westerners. :rolleyes: Hee! Hee! I am not portraying India in bad light. That is how you are taking it. These are facts. And as a Indian I should know their effects and causes so that I can help my country grow. At least this is how I feel.

satay
14 July 2009, 12:59 PM
Check out Times Of India newspaper just a week old. The whole country is not Delhi. There are places where even basic necessities are not meant. If you check out the states approximately whole of the East side of India is under the control of Naxals. Reference: India Today edition (last to last year).


For example? Give name of one state where you think people are 'living' on 20 rupees a day and i will check it out.



This constitutes about 10% of Indian population.


Again you are pulling numbers out of thin air without giving a valid source. Please provide a source so that we can all check out the validity of these 'facts'.



Hee! Hee! I am not portraying India in bad light. That is how you are taking it. These are facts.


I have no problems with accepting facts if they are indeed facts. Please provide the source of your information. Simply saying these are 'facts' is nonsense.



And as a Indian I should know their effects and causes so that I can help my country grow. At least this is how I feel.

How so? Please share with us how you plan to grow the country.

ps: This site is for 'positive presentation' of hindu dharma and India. As the site admin I do allow some leeway on this rule, however, don't be surprised if i start enforcing this rule on you, especially seeing that your posts so far have not been in alignment with this rule.

Thanks!

Hiwaunis
14 July 2009, 04:15 PM
Yes that is excatly what I mean. You should know that 50% of the Indian population lives on less than Rs 20 a day, which is less than half a dollar. Do you really think that these people would be spritual or anything. Maybe not whole of India but more than 85%. What do you expect we are living in Kalyuga after all.

A person's life is decided before they are born due to their previous karma. Having money is not a prerequisite for spirituality. So what you are saying is that 85% of India is laying in the streets half dead??? It's just nonsense.

So is someone going door to door, family to family and asking them how much they make? And just how does the rich 15% keep the poor 85% from robbing them blind? How is the country even functioning off of the taxes of 15% of the population?


This could be just be my view but there are many things to back this. Example whatever I said above. Spritual realizition comes after a person does not have to worry about food and water, which is not the case in India.

You are wrong!! If one is focused on God then food, water, shelter (physical comforts) etc., are of no matter to him.


Nor are there any Gurukuls or Universities that teach God. Maybe in the South, but at least not here in Delhi. I myself go to a public school coupled with multiple science and maths tutions.

I don't think that it is an ordinary award. And I don't agree with you at all. You underestimate books.

Yes, I do underestimate books as well as the PEOPLE who write them. There is no reason to take something as fact just because some well known person says so.


I read it in a article in the Newspaper 'Mail Today'.

Most newspapers don't waste time researching and delivering FACTS. It's called "yellow journalism."

In time you will come to understand the saying, " the SUN rises in the EAST and set in the west.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Eastern Mind
14 July 2009, 06:32 PM
For what its worth, wikipedia (and I doubt the reliability there as well) says 2 things ... that the official government poverty line is R12 per day, and that 25% are below that. I didn't search really hard. Of course, there are freebies in India that we don't get here. Hitching rides with whomever, bananas, coconuts, amongst neighbours and friends etc. I imagine its a much more sharing culture than here in the west. So 'official poverty line' might just be meaningless unless the context is completely understood. But on my recent trip for the most part people sure looked happy enough. I got more smiles , namaste's, and spiritual greetings in a day there than in a year here.

I think there is the danger of generalising someone's posts as all nonsense when you look closely, some make sense whilst others remain as nonsense.

Aum Namasivaya

eriko
15 July 2009, 05:50 AM
For example? Give name of one state where you think people are 'living' on 20 rupees a day and i will check it out. The stats were based on the overall suryey of the country. I have allready said check out the Times Of India newspaper or site. The news is jut a week old.


Again you are pulling numbers out of thin air without giving a valid source. Please provide a source so that we can all check out the validity of these 'facts'. Well maybe this one. But if you have anything against this. Tell me the percentage of the people who are actually rich.


I have no problems with accepting facts if they are indeed facts. Please provide the source of your information. Simply saying these are 'facts' is nonsense.I did tell you the names of newspapers where I read all these.



How so? Please share with us how you plan to grow the country.Let me give you an example. India is a fairly illiterate country I hope you agree with me on this. So there is this programme started by the Times Of India group last year, Teach India. In which a person volunteers to spend two hours of of the week to teach the slums, villagers and whatever. And there is also another programme Teach for India, in which you spend two years of their life to teach the underprivileged. If people are not even aware of the literacy rates of my country, would they even take the initiative to do something about it?


ps: This site is for 'positive presentation' of hindu dharma and India. As the site admin I do allow some leeway on this rule, however, don't be surprised if i start enforcing this rule on you, especially seeing that your posts so far have not been in alignment with this rule. If this is the site rule, okay I won't say anything. (after this post) Though it is a shame.



A person's life is decided before they are born due to their previous karma. Having money is not a prerequisite for spirituality. So what you are saying is that 85% of India is laying in the streets half dead??? It's just nonsense.

I never meant that. So if the person's life is predecided, then we should do nothing about it?



So is someone going door to door, family to family and asking them how much they make? And just how does the rich 15% keep the poor 85% from robbing them blind? How is the country even functioning off of the taxes of 15% of the population?Industries and factories produce, they are responsible for the GDP and they are the one who profit. What I meant by 85% percent was non-spiritual people. They could be more but if people throw cigarette butts on you and eve-tease you, it does not seem likely.



You are wrong!! If one is focused on God then food, water, shelter (physical comforts) etc., are of no matter to him. This is purely theoretical argument that you are giving me.


Yes, I do underestimate books as well as the PEOPLE who write them. There is no reason to take something as fact just because some well known person says so. Seems like we are very different. I aspire to be a writer. Writing is cool. Writers become famous because of their work.



Most newspapers don't waste time researching and delivering FACTS. It's called "yellow journalism." So is there anything more reliable? Anyways Times Of India has been voted the no. one Delhi newspaper consecutively for three years.

I don't know whatever you people feel or know about India. But this is what I have read, and this is what I know. And I believe that when we know the reality, we can take steps to make it better. I am not trying to put India in bad light or whatever you are blaming me for. I am Indian in spirit, soul and mind. As a proud Indian I am very well aware of my counties flaws and as well its merit. And I accept both equally.

satay
16 July 2009, 11:09 AM
namaskar,


The stats were based on the overall suryey of the country. I have allready said check out the Times Of India newspaper or site. The news is jut a week old.


It costs 6 rupees to buy a cup of chai in Delhi. Are you telling me that 85% of population of India is 'living' on two cups of chai daily?

I tried to find information and articles on poverty at Times of India newspaper site but couldn't find this survey that you are talking about.

Regardless of what the survey says and who conducted the survey, it is nonsense to believe that 85% or 50% of Indian population is 'living' on 12 or 20 rupees a day.

eriko
16 July 2009, 11:35 AM
It costs 6 rupees to buy a cup of chai in Delhi. Are you telling me that 85% of population of India is 'living' on two cups of chai daily?Why do you think the whole country is Delhi? I said 50% live on Rs 20 a day. As for 85%, that is my personal view, I don't think that everyone is nice; I was no talking about poverty here. Most of the people are not good. Delhi is the most expensive city, only the fittest survive here. It is the capital, what do you expect. It is supposed to be developed and best in the country.


I tried to find information and articles on poverty at Times of India newspaper site but couldn't find this survey that you are talking about. I don't know. I would have told you the date as well, had not my mom given it to gabariwala. But it appeared on the front page, (though a small column) when the whole newspaper covered the 2009 budget. And there was also a face of slum girl on it.


Regardless of what the survey says and who conducted the survey, it is nonsense to believe that 85% or 50% of Indian population is 'living' on 12 or 20 rupees a day. Maybe. It is because you don't live here. But talk to any Indian, and they will tell you what the real situation is. It is actually very surprising that you don't believe me.

satay
16 July 2009, 12:22 PM
Why do you think the whole country is Delhi? I said 50% live on Rs 20 a day. As for 85%, that is my personal view, I don't think that everyone is nice; I was no talking about poverty here. Most of the people are not good. Delhi is the most expensive city, only the fittest survive here. It is the capital, what do you expect. It is supposed to be developed and best in the country.


I don't think you are getting what I am saying.

Regardless of where you are in India, in a village, in a slum, in Delhi or in a small town...my point is that it is nonsense to believe that anyone can and is surviving on 12 or 20 rupees a day in India. And to believe that 50% of population is living like that is nonsense.




Maybe. It is because you don't live here. But talk to any Indian, and they will tell you what the real situation is. It is actually very surprising that you don't believe me.

Well, since you do live in India, why don't you talk to any Indian and find out the real situation instead of blindly accepting a survey?

I am not denying that there is population living in poverty. But to say that 50% of population is living on 20 ruppees a day anywhere in the country is absurd when the largest segment of Indian population is middle class.

I don't know what the problem is with people who are always harping about the shortcomings of the country instead of focusing on the positives.

dhruva023
16 July 2009, 04:56 PM
The survey that he is talking about is I think on this link.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/50-Indians-living-below-poverty-line-Govt-panel/articleshow/4722478.cms
Its not really a survey, and the title is misleading.

eriko
17 July 2009, 05:36 AM
Regardless of where you are in India, in a village, in a slum, in Delhi or in a small town...my point is that it is nonsense to believe that anyone can and is surviving on 12 or 20 rupees a day in India. And to believe that 50% of population is living like that is nonsense.

Well now I get it. But even I don't know how. Maybe I blindly trusted the survey. But it appeared in a reputed National Daily. How was I supposed to take it anyway?


Well, since you do live in India, why don't you talk to any Indian and find out the real situation instead of blindly accepting a survey?


What is the governemt there for if I myself have to go from village to village just to take survey?


I am not denying that there is population living in poverty. But to say that 50% of population is living on 20 ruppees a day anywhere in the country is absurd when the largest segment of Indian population is middle class.

Actually it is not. Not that I have heard of anyways. Besides there a big difference between the official Indian poverty line and the one set by UN.


I don't know what the problem is with people who are always harping about the shortcomings of the country instead of focusing on the positives.

I am not taking this as a negative thing. That is upto one's own perspective. For me this jut draws a line that this much work has been done and this much needs to be done, so roll up your sleeves.


The survey that he is talking about is I think on this link. I am a girl. And yes this the one.

dhruva023
17 July 2009, 09:05 AM
I am a girl. And yes this the one.

Sorry, I didn't know that.

eriko
18 July 2009, 10:39 AM
Sorry, I didn't know that.
Well now you know. Hee Hee.

Nuno Matos
21 July 2009, 08:30 PM
Namaste


" Regardless of where you are in India, in a village, in a slum, in Delhi or in a small town...my point is that it is nonsense to believe that anyone can and is surviving on 12 or 20 rupees a day in India. And to believe that 50% of population is living like that is nonsense. " ; Posted by Satay

" Well now you know. Hee Hee. " ; Posted by eriko

" Gaudapada sets out from the standpoint of the Absolute or the One-without-a-second and comes to the following conclusion: ęThe supreme truth is this: there is no birth and no dissolution, no aspirant to liberation and no liberated, and no one who is in slavery. "; in Ashram Vidya Order web site

In Eastern Mind wise words

" I think there is the danger of generalising someone's posts as all nonsense when you look closely, some make sense whilst others remain as nonsense.

Aum Namasivaya "

surtibadshah
31 July 2009, 05:18 AM
comeon guys read the article properly and surely title is misleading but it says 50% be given below povertyline card infact 28.3% qualifies for that in newdelhi only.

but you must know about india depending about what i have read the estimate i am giving cant be precise but will give you a hint of india's progress

india - one of the richest country in the world before british invaded
after independence 1947-only2% of wealth that india had remain with more than 70-80% below poverty line
1970-60 approx 60%
1980 approx 50%
1990 appox40%
2004 appox 27.5%
i think current survey would definately show around 25% or even less

wait for 2 more decade our dream will become true.

Eastern Mind
31 July 2009, 06:46 AM
Namaste all:

Re: the poverty line ... This whole debate is because of a government constructed 'line' that really doesn't exist. It sort of exists, but the government can move it up and down at will. So if you want to show improvement in your country's poverty statistics, just lower the poverty line. Governments all around are notorious for playing with such statistics that are truly meaningless. It reminds me of the days I taught after a teacher who was fond of giving out high marks to students, regardless of the quality of work. So having gotten straight As the previous year whilst learning nothing, the student would be getting Cs in my class, but learning something at least. Try explaining that one to a parent who doesn't get what learning actually is.

So to surtibadshah and your chart: My suggestion would be for the government to today move the 'poverty line' to one rupee per year. Then the goal of 0% below the poverty line will be immediate, and not take 20 years.

I think statistics like life expectancy, child mortality rates, suicide rates, etc., monitored by neutral international agencies are far better indicators of the wealth of a society. Besides all that, what is 'wealth' anyway?

Aum namasivaya

surtibadshah
31 July 2009, 08:53 AM
eastern mind i completely agree with you its logical. but independent survey from world bank or other institute show the same trend but bit higher poverty becuase intenational standard is higher.

but i personally think indian standard for measuring is more valid for india because its very cheap relative to western nation.

just imagine i was paid stipend of approx 2.2US$/day as a internist doctor i could live quite comfortably.haha but dont think man that practising doctors in india earn this much only.

chandu_69
31 July 2009, 09:18 AM
but i personally think indian standard for measuring is more valid for india because its very cheap relative to western nation.

just imagine i was paid stipend of approx 2.2US$/day as a internist doctor i could live quite comfortably.haha but dont think man that practising doctors in india earn this much only.

Doctor living below poverty line :D

Eastern Mind
31 July 2009, 01:19 PM
I agree that India is slowly getting 'richer' economically compared to the rest of the world. I wasn't trying to dispute that, just pointing out how propaganda can use statistics. These things have a tendency of shifting around. But this is not an economic forum. My question will be whether or not India can keep its religiousness despite this. That is of course what I meant by wealth. I recall (probably told this story on here before .. if so, my apologies... forgive me, I'm an old man..) the time I wrote a story on a Hindu palmist, and he gave me a free reading. he told me I was the first to ask, as a first question, how my spiritual life would be. He said everyone else always asked about their future economic situation.

Which would you rather be, a self-realised sadhu, or the planet's richest man?

Aum Namasivaya

surtibadshah
31 July 2009, 05:01 PM
firstly we are like friends no need to apologise that too for a thing which was not insulting atall.
and you are correct in pointing that would people be able to keep their religiousness is a serious question. i myself have seen lots of poverty and a need for money has made people soo selfish. as a child i was many time turned off by religious people,asking for reward(money) is reason for going for temple. people like myself never knew what hinduism is about till i came to canada last year.
your own experience with palmist show the desperation of indian people regarding their need of money, i think.

i never knew few sadhus, acharya, baba etc etc are famous among western people. i never like them because i use to see them more of a money people fooling others rather than helping spritually( though i was wrong somewhat).

but ya i do believe dharma will never die......
anytime i prefer to be a self realised person(though not sadhu).

chandu_69--- international standard for below poverty line is 1.25$ a day.

Eastern Mind
31 July 2009, 05:20 PM
surtibadshah:

Where are you in Canada?

Aum.

surtibadshah
31 July 2009, 05:27 PM
i stay in scarborough on pointed post drive near interssection of markham and ellsemere road.

Eastern Mind
31 July 2009, 05:30 PM
Lots of good temples there. I'm in Edmonton.

Aum

atanu
08 August 2009, 02:27 PM
i stay in scarborough on pointed post drive near interssection of markham and ellsemere road.

Well. I love the song 'scarborough fair' by Simon and Garfunkel. Is the song related to the place?

Eastern Mind
08 August 2009, 04:00 PM
Tons of Canadian Place names were caused by the British invasion. I guess they couldn't pronounce the First People's (aboriginal) names. The second largest London (150 000) in the world is about 100 miles west of Scarborough. A lot of similarities (historical naming) to Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Salem, etc.

My ancestry is British, but somehow I managed to escape that ... feelin free er by the year.

Aum Namasivaya

harekrishna
30 September 2009, 01:33 AM
Reconstructing Indian population history
Nature 461, 489-494 (24 September 2009)
http://www.nature. com/nature/ journal/v461/ n7263/abs/ nature08365. html (http://www.nature. com/nature/ journal/v461/ n7263/abs/ nature08365. html)

Recently Nature magazine published a DNA analysis of major Indian groups and castes to find about their origins. This is quite authentic and, it significantly weakens the Aryan Invasion Theory hypothesis. Here is a summary (generated with the help of one geneticist friend) -

The study found that most major Indian groups can be genetically modeled as descending from two major ancestral populations: a caucasian population and a "dravidian" south asian population. But there is no clear distinction.

- North Indian are more Caucasian, South Indians are more Dravidian. But all Indians are a mix of Caucasians and Dravidian ancestry. Caucasian:dravidian ratio for Kashmiri Pandits are 70:30 while the ratio of Andhra middle caste is 40:60. Higher castes have more aryan ancestry than lower castes, but the spread is too thin. Most people in Indian today are pretty well mixed, though in varying proportions. Most Indians can trace their ancestry to either Aryan (ie Caucasian) or Dravidian.

- In initial years of Vedic period (likely before 200-300 AD), there was a lot of intermingling and marriages between different kulas, that resulted into a mixed population. Sometime, 2000 years back, the divisions started getting more defined, and there has been little intercaste marriage after that. The loosely defined kulas or castes, became more strongly defined witht the advent of middle ages.

- Genetically, Aryans are Caucasians similar to white Europeans. Dravidians are East Asians similar to Chinese, Japanese etc. Dravidians are not genetically similar to Afrikans.

- There is another race in india - Adivasis or Tribes who are hunter-gatherers. As opposed to Dravidians or Aryans, who likely were farmers. The Adivasis were pushed into the forrest by the Dravidians. The Adivasis did not mix with other Indians.

- There is no Aryan invasion. It is more like an Aryan assimilation. The great mixed Indian race provided the basic framework of Sanatan Dharma. In middle ages as well, Indian soceity assimilated Kushans, huns into the fold of Sanatan Dharma. This assimilation failed with the advent of Evangelistic Semitic religions - such as Islam and Cristianity.

Any input is appreciated.

HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

Eastern Mind
30 September 2009, 07:16 AM
I think, like other theories, that this one starts with one basic Judeo-Christian assumption. That being: man originated in the "Holy Land" somewhere around Jerusalem, and spread from there.

When an ancient city (5000 years or so, I can't recall details) in the South of Africa was discovered, these same biased guys assumed that some whites from up north must have wandered, captured people and built it. Black Africans couldn't possibly have built it.

Starting out with a false assumption, one can construe all kinds of weird results. I'm glad that this Aryan (the superior ones) invasion theory is all but kaput. Another 20 years, once all the old biased anthropologists drop their bodies, it'll be like 'the earth is flat' theory.

Aum Namasivaya

harekrishna
30 September 2009, 10:28 AM
I think, like other theories, that this one starts with one basic Judeo-Christian assumption. That being: man originated in the "Holy Land" somewhere around Jerusalem, and spread from there.
Aum Namasivaya
Dear Eastern Mind,
This actually tells that man originated from Africa near about Ethiopia. The theory is based on being able to get mtDNA from human being's DNA. mtDNA that is carried over from generation to generation, with markers when human beings characteristics change. It discovered things which were not known earlier. Initially there was no evidence of the fact that there was human habitation in India before 4000BC. DNA mapping shows that Adivasi population existed in India even in 45000BC. South India saw their first humans in around 30000BC.
HariH Om.
Hare Krishna

rcscwc
04 March 2010, 06:34 AM
I had no idea that the British invented this theory. But I did read a few things about it and I don't think that this was merely an invention but was actually based on the findings of few years back.

But anyways what I wanted to say is that according to new evidence that has been found in context to this, it is now thought that ARYANS WERE PEOPL LIVING IN INDIA who left India and than possibly came back. And now this theory is geeting many backers.

So I think it does mean that NORTH INDIANS AND SOUTH INDIANS BOTH ARE ARYANS. People should realise this and stop discrimininating against each other.

Though it is really very sad that Europeans took up the Aryan name and Swastik making them symbols of racism. But there are many people who understand that Aryan and Nazi are two totally different things. So it is not like we need to feel bad about it anymore.

All I would say is that INDIANS (North and South both) SHOULD FEEL PROUD TO BE ARYANS because being concious about our ethinicity is not being discriminant.
AIT was unleashed originally by Max Mullar, a pid lacky of the British. If about 150 is "few" then AIT is only a few years old.

But by now AIT has been refuted. In fact many decades ago it was trashed.

BryonMorrigan
28 May 2010, 12:31 PM
Also, if I remember correctly, much of the AIT was based on the use of the Christian Bible as an infallible historical document. For example, since...according to the Bible...the Earth is only 6000 years old (LOL!), and the flood (Noah's Ark) occurred about 1700 years after that, then no civilization, other than Noah and his kin, can be older than approximately 4300 years old. (2300 B.C.E. *)

Of course, this is preposterous, and shows the kind of stupid "logic" that has prevailed throughout much of Western historical thought since Christianity inflicted the Dark Ages upon the world.

_________________________________________________________________

(*) By the way, I've noticed a few people on this board using the old "B.C./A.D." ("Before Christ"/"Anno Domini - The Year of Our Lord") dating system. Most reputable historians have changed to the secular "C.E./B.C.E." ("Common Era/Before Common Era") system, as it is rather distasteful for us non-Christians to have to date things to their religious whims. But if you really want to mess with Christians, you can use the Pagan Roman dating system, where the year 2010 is actually 2763 A.U.C. (Ab Urbe Condita - "Since the founding of the city") But I'm kind of a smartass like that... :D

Kumar_Das
07 June 2010, 12:10 AM
Aryan Invasion Theory has been busted.

The Rigveda contains several hymns that glorify a river called Saraswati.

Today satellite images have proven that there once was a river which served as the spine of the Indus valley civilization.

And this river fits precisely with the Saraswati river that the Vedic people had praised.

How can invaders praise the main river of the region they conquered?

Mahabharata says that Saraswati "dried up"

Thats EXACTLY what happened. Saraswati river dried up, which resulted in the collapse of the civilization.

Now as for racial differences, there is clearly some difference in features between dvijas and shudras/untouchables and north indians and south indians.

But both are closer than they are distinct.

The Sikh religion is supposed to be "brotherhood of mankind" that transcends race, class and caste.

Yet if we look at the most racial minded of Indians. Its the Punjabi Sikh Jatts that go on and on and on and on non-stop about how they are distinct from other Indians as "Indo Iranians" / Aryans.

Yet they will put the blame of discrimination on Hindus.:rolleyes:

kallol
19 June 2010, 02:36 PM
Those who still believe in aryan and dravidian theory are stuck in the knwoledge level of the british era and kept on by leftist academicia.

Max Mueller who proposed this theory in conjunction with the missionaries from the churches based the theory on light of Bible and the superiority of white over colored. Max Mueller himself refuted the thery later.

Points to be noted :

1. Indus Valley civilization, which is as old as 4000 BC was discovered later and this put a huge question mark on this theory.

2. There were no known organised group in Central Asia who would have come down to India. The influx to north India has been a continuos stream all through out.

3. The recent discovery by NIOT at gulf of cambay - a sunken city at 40 m depth and 40 km in the sea - has similar features of Harappa - Mahenjodaro. This is around 10000 BC. This and many others were part of the Saraswati Civilization.

4. DNA study shows that India had almost first people out of Afrika more that 120000 yrs ago. Mostly in south India. Another came through north Afrika - Iran - India around 65000 years ago. 40000 years ago a brach went out to central asia which again later on divided into two. One went to North america - south americka through the alaska. Another spread into Europe. Still another branch spread through NE India to SE asia. It had another brach by sea.

5. The skin colour is a product of the sun, environment and habit. Norther region having oblique sunray are not as intense and has more seasonal variation. The color pigment we have is mostly a protective layer for withstanding sun. Nearer the equator we have darkest skin and it becomes lighter as we move north. Even in Afrika it is there. No doubt India has it also.

6. It is natural that early humans will remain close to water bodies and coastal areas and also in temperate zones. Their movement also will follow the tropical zone and warm areas. So suddenly going to central asia (harsh weather) before populating the middle east and India is a bit far fetched.

7. With the temperate climate and abundance of water, India from the begining was an agricultural society. In agriculture you sow once and reap once and enjoy rest of the year. That is why the ealier society had so much time to do other things which also included knowledge search. This way India had the right eco system to develop into a great knowledge society and also well structured defined duty based society. That is why India had two universities Taxila and Nalanda which were great seat of knowledge. the science, medicine, astronomy, astrology, astro-physics, mathematics, spirituality, etc all developed to quite an advanced stage which were later on used by middle east and there after in west.

As far as we know, central asia was still dominated by nomads who were mostly on hunting, looting, etc for day to day needs. Yes they became great warriers, producer of weapons, had superior body built but not the higher knowledge. They became more materialistic.

8. No where in all literatures, scriptures, outsiders (who visited India), etc have ever said about two types of people.

Though I am from north, my belief is that the structured society evolved from south and moved toward north through saraswati civ, then Indus valley civ and then ganges. The languages also evolved as it moved and finally in early AD or late BC Sanskrit was developed as a full fledged language. The sruti version of the vedas, vedanta, upanishads, etc were there for ages. Much is lost and distorted but significant amount could be preserved through scripts.

Tamil - still is has incomplete script - suggesting that it might be the oldest living language in India. It has later on taken a few letters from sanskrit. Rest all languages have similar number of alphabets and phonetics. South is still to be fully discovered (around in the sea). We might be surprised that the cradle of the initial Hinduism thought process might be from there.

If you go to Russia - they will say that they have derived a lot from sankrit and Hinduism (even they do Arti in church; they have holy water which is equivalent to ganga water). Hinduism spread (in diluted) form was through out the eurasia mass. Even possibly in south america !!!!.

realdemigod
30 December 2010, 07:26 AM
Even though we have enough proof that the whole Aryan invasion is concocted..but Indian government refrains to take it off the history books and continues to mislead the students and many more..

Most of the history about many countries not only India were distorted by westerners..just to mislead the world about their pseudo supremacy.. and the funny thing is some westerners wrote about India even without ever stepping their foot on this holy land not even once in their lives..and it's total shame and irony that we refer to the books written by the same westerners to prove a point about our great country India.

PARAM
30 December 2010, 10:32 AM
This thread should be deleted now and rewrite by those who have much high knowledge about like Bryon Morrigan.

Important Threads must be answered by those who know the truth, and not by those who themselves question.

I was angry when I was reading first few posts here, according to my knowledge of History, the Aryan as a Race was made by Maxmullar, and British made invasion theory, while in Truth Arya means Noble


Satay, please delete this thread and remake with learned ones, many members posted without knowlege, if somebody who have less knowledge about it will think, we are supporting Aryan Invasion, that is untruth

The name of the thread should be something like
The Myath of Aryan Invasion Therory

satay
31 December 2010, 09:45 PM
Admin Note

Namaste,

Thread Closed for review.