PDA

View Full Version : Human Migrations into India



Ramakrishna
09 April 2011, 08:01 PM
Namaste all,

This is a subject I have been studying a little recently. A friend of mine recently showed me this article:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full
which basically makes the point that ancient humans from West Eurasia migrated into India and created the caste system and put themselves in the castes of "higher rank". The evidence for it is that the genetic makeup for members of the high castes are more similar to European genetics than other the genetic makeup for other castes do. The article goes into great detail and can explain it better than I can.

On one hand, this sounds like a sort of watered-down AIT, but on another hand it does not seem so absurd. After all, haven't there been numerous different waves of migrations into India since the time the first humans migrated out of Africa? Please note that my friend is not a Christian (he is actually a former Catholic, now atheist) and does not have any sort of "agenda". He is actually against AIT and believes it's false. He just has an interest in anthropology and genealogy and studies it a lot. The point that he is trying to make is basically that each wave of migrations into India "contributed linguistically and culturally in some way or another. The populations mixed with the natives, took on native customs etc."

It was my understanding that the caste system had been around (in it's pure, unadulterated form) since the beginning of Vedic civilization, but I could be wrong as I don't know much about its history. Is it not correct that the Vedas were revealed to the ancient rishis, the Vedic civilization gradually developed and flourished, and during that time there were waves of migrations into India? So where does the caste system play into this? How can the similarity of the genetic makeups of high caste members and Europeans be explained? Another thing to note is that he said these weren't "Europeans" like we think of today, but rather "Eurasians" who came from no farther west than the Balkans.

Any thoughts on this, or can anyone point me to good sources about the historical waves of migration into India?

Jai Sri Ram

flabber
10 April 2011, 01:01 AM
Million-year-old tools found near Chennai - India’s prehistory pushed back

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110325/jsp/frontpage/story_13763075.jsp

Adhvagat
10 April 2011, 01:05 AM
Million-year-old tools found near Chennai - India’s prehistory pushed back

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110325/jsp/frontpage/story_13763075.jsp

Side question: Aren't scientific prehistory and the Ramayana incompatible date-wise?

Sahasranama
10 April 2011, 01:26 AM
Side question: Aren't scientific prehistory and the Ramayana incompatible date-wise?

History cannot prove the historicity of our itihasas, but there have been findings that support the stories, for example the discovery of Dvaraka city and the bridge of Srirama, but of course this is not conclusive evidence, but I will put my faith in the itihasas nonetheless.

There are many things in our itihasas that scientists and historians will never be able to accept. How can a monkey man lift a mountain and eat the sun? This is too much to ask a scientist to believe, but for someone who has faith in the gods, this should not be such a big stretch to believe. If you believe in Gods in the first place, there's no reason not to believe that they are powerful beyond human understanding.

Adhvagat
10 April 2011, 01:41 AM
I'm just asking, not to stop believing based on science, science is always changing, slowly climbing to the top while vedic knowledge stands its high ground.

I'm merely wondering when science is going to get near it. :)

Sahasranama
10 April 2011, 01:43 AM
I'm merely wondering when science is going to get near it. :)

Probably never. It like asking, when is a person without eyes going to see?

Adhvagat
10 April 2011, 03:29 AM
Probably never. It like asking, when is a person without eyes going to see?

You see (pun), I'm not sure. I think the rise of dharma coupled with subtler and subtler sciences reaching understandings similar to what the vedas propose is going to offer humanity a new range of experiences.

Think of these threads combined:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6765
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7223

:)

Sahasranama
10 April 2011, 01:45 PM
Do you remember when Ganesha started drinking milk all over the world? Even if it happens right in front of their nose, they will remain like blind people looking into a mirror.

Ramakrishna
11 April 2011, 11:18 PM
Namaste all,

Thanks for the interesting replies, but do you all have anything to say about my original post? :) The link that Flabber posted is very very interesting. I personally believe that humans have been around longer than modern science believes, but as Pietro says, "science is always changing, slowly climbing to the top while vedic knowledge stands its high ground."

Jai Sri Ram

bp789
05 June 2011, 10:15 PM
Do you guys have any more information about the first post - the genetic origin of Indians?

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 10:56 AM
Do you guys have any more information about the first post - the genetic origin of Indians?

Look to historical and comparative linguistics for more information. Sanskrit is an ancient descendant of Proto-Indo-Aryan, which in turn split off from Proto-Indoeuropean. Proto-Indo-Aryan further split into the proto languages that became Persian, Avestan, Pashto, Sanskrit, etc. In fact, the name Iran comes from Aryan. These people became known as the Aryans, who migrated into India, hence the "Aryan invasion", according to historical linguists.

The Proto-Indoeuropeans were a small group presumed to live in the Black Sea area about 6,000-8,000 years ago. They began migrations southeast, west and northwest to populate south Asia and Europe. Hence the relationships between Sanskrit, Greek, the non-Dravidian languages of India and other Indoeuropean languages. Spoken (not Vedic) Sanskrit in turn evolved into Hindi/Urdi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, etc.

Believer
06 June 2011, 11:11 AM
These people became known as the Aryans, who migrated into India, hence the "Aryan invasion", according to historical linguists.

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

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 11:32 AM
...India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture.

No, that I do not believe either. Invasion is the wrong word, hence my putting it in quotes. Migration is better. The usage of the phrase "Doric invasion" into Greece is also falling out of favor. Migration is also used in its place. Vedic Sanskrit is clearly Indoeuropean and not in the Dravidian language family.



The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.


Chariots are vehicles of war (yes the Hittites, an IE people with an empire had them), as are iron weapons which says to me it was a peaceful migration.

No one yet knows what language was spoken by the people of the IVC. There are only some inscriptions that have yet to be deciphered. It could have been Indoeuropean. Some linguists are trying to connect it to Dravidian, probably only because a Dravidian language is spoke in Baluchistan. But who's to say some Dravidian speakers didn't flee north for any number of reasons?

I can't see why the IVC wasn't early settlement of the migrants from central Asia into south Asia. Unless I misread the article, he's only refuting the concept of "invasion" and "conquering".

Adhvagat
07 June 2011, 06:41 AM
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2954 - I was reading this thread some days ago, a little extense, I stopped on post 12. On post 6, Sarabangha comments briefly regarding the Aryan invasion and how it was probably just a trans-himalayan migration. I'd recommend reading the previous post since the thread is a continuous line of thought.

What do you think?

Jainarayan
07 June 2011, 09:07 AM
Namaste Pietro


No, that I do not believe either. Invasion is the wrong word, hence my putting it in quotes. Migration is better.

^ This.


Sarabangha comments briefly regarding the Aryan invasion and how it was probably just a trans-himalayan migration. ...

What do you think?

I think it was a peaceful migration. Peoples have migrated for milennia and settled regions without conflicts, or even encountering other groups. I think the Aryan migration was part of the eastward and westward migration and expansion of the Proto-Indoeuropeans from central Asia. No "invasion" or conquering. Just setting out for new lands.

isavasya
07 June 2011, 10:43 AM
Is it not correct that the Vedas were revealed to the ancient rishis, the Vedic civilization gradually developed and flourished, and during that time there were waves of migrations into India? So where does the caste system play into this? Another thing to note is that he said these weren't "Europeans" like we think of today, but rather "Eurasians" who came from no farther west than the Balkans.




Namaste Ramakrishna,

No there was no such thing as migration or gradual migration of vedic people into India. When we talk about theories, they involve assumptions or speculations. As long as speculations have any backing from baisc premises then one is within his rights to make assumptions, but when basic premises itself don't support any speculation then theories are just figment of imagination. In our case our whole theory revolves around migration of aryans or more specifically VEDIC people into india. Now first thing we have got to do is check for is hint of that from vedas itself. Veda itself completely refutes any theory that vedic people came from foreign land. There is mention of 91 RIVERS in vedas and all of those rivers are present in Indian sub-continent, i.e - from pakistan to bengal. None of the rivers described are rivers of russia, ukraine, urasia or even iran. All the aryaland described in vedas too come under boundaries of indian sub-continent, so logically there is no chance that vedic people came from outside india, as if that was case at-least some rivers of europe or west asia would have been described in vedas for sure.


All in all India was always inhabited by vedic people, it is absolutely illogical to believe in any theory which makes assumptions without any backing. Also most of articles you see on internet are written from european point of view, some of those articles are sheer propaganda of max mullers and his followers. Aryavartha = India= bharat varsha :)

kallol
12 June 2011, 06:46 AM
I thought we had discussion on this in some other thread. Still I would request you to refer to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-migration-history-of-humans

The digital version has to be subscribed. I take the print version. As per the research the earliest human movement into India was in South from Africa and that was around 100000 yrs back.
There after a branch moved along the west coastline and another moved to Srilanka and Andaman. This was around 65000 yrs back. Saraswathi civilisation was established (in the Gujrat area) thereafter. After the river dried up there was movement towards Indus valley and then to Ganges.

However another branch from Africa came along the Middle east coast line to India (aorund 40000 yrs back). One offshoot from Africa went to Europe. Thereafter from the present Iran - Afghanistan one branch moved north. The Europe one moved east. Slowly they spread in the Asian China and Russia.

One branch crossed over to Alaska and moved south to the southern America.

This is the flow of DNA.

Now some common sense.

Without much protections, where would one find humans - obviously near fresh water and tropical climate areas. So earlier people were more comfortable in moving and populating the middle east (nearer to the rivers) and then the comfortable place India.

Being such a fertile place and climate suitable for rich vegetation, agriculture and living would have been very easy. The advantage of agriculture is that you sow once and enjoy for the whole year. You have no work further. So the time you get can be used for many things - knowledge is one of them. The knowledge of society, town planning, astronomy, herbal utilities, life, creation, fabrics, etc. These all are possible in a stable society.

Remember that when India was known for the weath of knowledge and wealth, the most of Europe and northern Asia were Nomads. They lived by hunting and lived by days. They lived on horse back. Such a society, which is not stable, cannot be the light house of knowledge !!!

If such a branch came to India, where is the original beacon of light. We do not find the same level knowledge elsewhere !!! So this is a myth.

That is why we see taxila and nalanda as the first universities where people used to come from all over the world.

This supremacy of knowledge was a big blow to the Christianity. So the missionaries influenced Max Mueller to distort the history of India based on the theories of Bible.

He himself had admitted later that there are no Aryan and Dravidian divide. the discovery of Indus valley civilisation and the recent gulf of cambay sites, etc have demolised the theory.

DNA study has reveled that there is hardly any difference in the Indian population across India which might point out to any sudden influx of outside people. Yes there has been gradual assimilation of outside people over 1000s of years.

Love and best wishes

Eastern Mind
12 June 2011, 10:53 AM
Vannakkam: It seems to me historians make great conjectures based on not too much. But maybe I'm wrong. According to this
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-stone-tools-link-early-humans.html

tools were in use around a million years ago. Still the article points to a migration. But what happened during the other 996 000 years? Civilisations could have easily come and gone I think.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
12 June 2011, 11:47 AM
Civilisations could have easily come and gone I think.

Aum Namasivaya

True. Something I read said the IVC did not just disappear, for example. The people may have moved eastward due to drought, famine or some other climate change. Or, why would it be impossible that they simply abandoned city life and took to a pastoral life again? Look at how many times there have been "back to nature" movements.

And then there's the theories that there were civilizations that pre-dated even the Egyptians. If they existed, they left no trace. The Earth has a remarkable way of burying the past.

And at the end of the day... we weren't there to see what happened. I think it doesn't matter how we got here, but rather that we're here, we know of God and connect with Him, and what we do with our lives. That's really what's important, imo.

TatTvamAsi
20 June 2011, 10:43 PM
For a complete analysis of genetic compositions of Indians (south Asians), read this article: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Genetics_and_the_Aryan_Debate.pdf

For obvious reasons, I support the Out of India theory. However, if one were to look at the issue objectively, the answer is definitely along the lines of Sanatana Dharma and everything related to Hinduism was discovered in the subcontinent. Were there migrations of different groups over the millenia? Sure. However, those people were NOT "Aryans" or some nonsense these euro-centric quacks keep harping about.

Ancient India consisted of eastern parts of present-day Iran, all of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. So there may have been people migrating left and right (pun-intended) but the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory is absolute bunk.

Ramakrishna
21 June 2011, 01:32 AM
Namaste all,

Thanks for the great responses everybody, and it's good to see you posting again Isavasya.


For a complete analysis of genetic compositions of Indians (south Asians), read this article: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Genetics_and_the_Aryan_Debate.pdf

For obvious reasons, I support the Out of India theory. However, if one were to look at the issue objectively, the answer is definitely along the lines of Sanatana Dharma and everything related to Hinduism was discovered in the subcontinent. Were there migrations of different groups over the millenia? Sure. However, those people were NOT "Aryans" or some nonsense these euro-centric quacks keep harping about.

Ancient India consisted of eastern parts of present-day Iran, all of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. So there may have been people migrating left and right (pun-intended) but the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory is absolute bunk.

That is a great article and just what I was looking for. Thanks a lot, TTA!

Jai Sri Ram

Jainarayan
21 June 2011, 10:50 AM
Were there migrations of different groups over the millenia? Sure. However, those people were NOT "Aryans" or some nonsense these euro-centric quacks keep harping about.

"Aryan" has become a dirty word, and the meaning completely changed and corrupted after being co-opted by the Nazis. Originally aryan (note small a, indicating an adjective or noun, not an ethnonym) meant "noble". It had nothing to do with "race" or nationality.


So there may have been people migrating left and right (pun-intended) but the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory is absolute bunk.

People have been migrating for 100,000 years and are still migrating. But not to worry, the Aryan "invasion" theory has fallen out of favor; as I said in a previous post, it has already been debunked.

People can (and do) believe in little grey people, but it doesn't make it true. There's more proof debunking the "invasion" into India than there is proving the existence of little grey men. Yet more people believe in little grey men. Go figure. :dunno:

smaranam
21 June 2011, 04:57 PM
Look to historical and comparative linguistics for more information. Sanskrit is an ancient descendant of Proto-Indo-Aryan, which in turn split off from Proto-Indoeuropean. Proto-Indo-Aryan further split into the proto languages that became Persian, Avestan, Pashto, Sanskrit, etc. In fact, the name Iran comes from Aryan. These people became known as the Aryans, who migrated into India, hence the "Aryan invasion", according to historical linguists.

The Proto-Indoeuropeans were a small group presumed to live in the Black Sea area about 6,000-8,000 years ago. They began migrations southeast, west and northwest to populate south Asia and Europe. Hence the relationships between Sanskrit, Greek, the non-Dravidian languages of India and other Indoeuropean languages. Spoken (not Vedic) Sanskrit in turn evolved into Hindi/Urdi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, etc.

Namaste,

This can only be called empirical speculation of linguists. Whatever it is, do we see what it implies ? That the vedic sanAtan (?) dharma "emerged" 6-8000 years ago ?? OR is this suggesting that it was all written down in SaMsRkt later ?

More important: who acc. to this theory were the sages, Seers, to whom the Vedas were revealed ? Proto-Indo-European ?
That contradicts our entire Veda-PaurANic history which goes back millenia in time, also considering the lifetime of this earth.

Or , is it saying that KrushNa-dwAipAyana - veda vyAs wrote stories in his native proto-whatever ?


praNAm

Ganeshprasad
21 June 2011, 06:09 PM
Pranam smaranam


It's all a proto codswallop, linguistic mythology.

believe that and you believe anything, idea is to fuzz everything so any credit that is rightfully vedas will be shared by us, how can those ignorant fools be clever then us?

Jai Shree Krishna

TatTvamAsi
21 June 2011, 06:17 PM
You seem to support the Aryan Invasion/Migration which from the onset is circumspect. No self-respecting Hindu would believe in that as it is a concocted theory to transplant European superiority complex over Indian/Hindu culture.

As GaneshPrasad already stated, when the British invaded India and looked at the Hindu scriptures, they were blown away by the profundity of the philosophy, language, and the culture of the Hindus. Unable to explain how such profound knowledge could be with a culture of the subjugated, they concocted this hack of a theory to justify their invasion stating that since "Aryans" invaded India several millenia ago

Look at the source(s) that propound this nonsense called the PIE. There is a lot of new evidence to state that Indian civilization is MUCH older than even the IVC with the discovery of DwArakA off of the Gulf of Khambat in Gujarat. They posit a date of around 7000-9000 BCE. DwArakA was Krishna's city with palaces and advanced architecture. If Krishna lived so long ago, then the dates for all the epics like the MahabhAratA and RAmAyanA must be pushed back even further.

To dismiss these and other discoveries as "Hindutva" and "Hindu Fascism" as many anti-Hindu wankers do does nothing. The archeological, cultural, scriptural, and astronomical evidence overwhelmingly support the Out of India Theory. Just because westerners can't swallow the fact that Indian/Hindu culture is far superior to theirs doesn't make it untrue or suspect. One of the main goals of Hinduism to have vinaya *; humility. There are far too many westerners who read a translation of the gItA and proclaim themselves as "scholars".

There is no such thing as "Proto-Indo-European". That is a bastardized version of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and to give it credence is to yet again allow colonial hegemony over Indian culture. That cannot happen and the facts are there to support it.

If one were to take the fact that languages in other places around the world have similarity to Sanskrit, why can it not be that Sanskrit was spread around the world due to the ubiquity of Hindu culture in various places at various points in history? Hindu philosophy, language, and culture and indigenous to the subcontinent of India. NONE of it, I repeat, NONE of it, was discovered, invented, composed [choose another verb], outside of India. There is no doubt about that.

To put it more directly, do you believe that any part of the Veda or Hinduism (which includes Sanskrit and Yoga) were composed and/or discovered OUTSIDE of (ancient) India?

Jainarayan
21 June 2011, 08:22 PM
Namaste,

This can only be called empirical speculation of linguists. Whatever it is, do we see what it implies ? That the vedic sanAtan (?) dharma "emerged" 6-8000 years ago ?? OR is this suggesting that it was all written down in SaMsRkt later ?

More important: who acc. to this theory were the sages, Seers, to whom the Vedas were revealed ? Proto-Indo-European ?
That contradicts our entire Veda-PaurANic history which goes back millenia in time, also considering the lifetime of this earth.

Or , is it saying that KrushNa-dwAipAyana - veda vyAs wrote stories in his native proto-whatever ?


praNAm

There were two versions of Sanskrit: Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit is the older, and is the language of the Vedas, obviously. Pāṇini structured and codified Vedic Sanskrit into what is Classical Sanskrit, in the 4th century BCE. How far back in time the Vedas say the Earth existed, I don't know. I only know what Christian creationists claim, that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Geology and astronomy have soundly disproved that.

Vedic Sanskrit is attested to at least 1800 BCE. That's 3800 years ago. But that's when the Vedas were written down. They were orally handed down for probably centuries or milennia before that. The Indus Valley Civilization flourished from 3300–1300 BCE. It's beginning was 5300 years ago. No one knows what language was spoken by the IVC. And it had to start from something, some time earlier.

Sooo...

There's no contradiction between faith and science, except for Christian creationists. It's been proven that the similarities between Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and other Indo-european languages cannot be coincidence. They are unquestionably related and descend from some common ancestor language.

And it's only speculated that the ancestor language is about 8,000 years old. It could be far older; no one denies that. There are even some linguists (Noam Chomsky, for one) who propose that all languages descend from one called Nostratic (from Latin nostras meaning "ours"), which is even older. No one can prove it though.

Jainarayan
21 June 2011, 08:50 PM
...

I was supporting and agreeing with what you said. And there are other people that read these posts, so it's not all about or directed at you. So I did not deserve that tongue-lashing. I find your attack on me indefensible and uncalled-for, not to mention demeaning and insulting. I am not here to insult or denigrate or detract from Hinduism. I am here to learn. I've supported and unequivocally stated the achievements of ancient Indians and Hinduism. But you didn't read those did you?

And if you refuse to believe that an ancient ancestor language is anything more than bunk, go for it. Please explain all the similarities and regular changes between languages classified as Indo-european if they didn't come from a common ancestor. I never said or implied that the Vedas or Hinduism originated anywhere, much less outside of India. Of course they originated in India. Don't insult MY intelligence.

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY.

And I did say, if you care to read my earlier post, that "invasion" is not a good word. I also said Muller has been debunked; no one takes him seriously. You didn't see that? I also said 'aryan' simply meant noble, that the Nazis co-opted and corrupted it, turning it into a dirty word. But you choose to get defensive and be offended when none is intended. Stop looking for offense where there is none.

I will be the first to say that Europeans raped the world. They slaughtered millions in the name of religion and in greed. And it wasn't only India they overran and subjugated. Why are Muslims hostile to the west to this day? Do the Crusades come to mind? Who launched the Crusades? The Roman Catholic Church. Where is the Roman Catholic Church. Western Europe!

Ask Native Americans of North, Central and South America how many millions of their people were slaughtered by Europeans. Ask an Aztec, if you can find one who speaks Nahuatl. Oh that's right, the Spaniards (there's those Europeans again) made the language virtually extinct.

I live on the continent where millions of people who wanted nothing more than to live in peace with the land and Nature were slaughtered. So don't preach to me about the evils of the Europeans. I already know it. Again, I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY.

Clearly I am not welcome here by some people; is it because I am not Indian, and therefore not a true Hindu? Is it because my ancestors were those low-down, no-good, dirty rotten Europeans? Come right out and tell me I am not welcome, and I will read and learn and say nothing more. But it will say more about you as a Hindu than it does about me having European ancestry. In any case, I did not deserve that dressing down.

I wish the best to you that life has to offer.




Btw, I reported your post for being rude, argumentative and a strawman ("putting words in my mouth").

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2011, 07:24 AM
Pranam Minotaur




Vedic Sanskrit is attested to at least 1800 BCE. That's 3800 years ago. But that's when the Vedas were written down. They were orally handed down for probably centuries or milennia before that.

You see this is why i have a problem with academic study, they quote as if it proven, if i were to believe this then i have to question Vyasdev. he is the one who is attested to have written the shastra. to decipher any knowledge one has to consult the origin, the shastra, what they say. they inform me due to imminent on set of Kali yug the people will have short memory thus need to write them down.this was during the time off mahabharat
it is good to notice the oral tradition still flourish, alive and kicking



The Indus Valley Civilization flourished from 3300–1300 BCE. It's beginning was 5300 years ago. No one knows what language was spoken by the IVC. And it had to start from something, some time earlier.

Sooo...

There's no contradiction between faith and science, there is a gulf of difference between science and Vedas,
5300 years are mere drop in a ocean if you consider the 4 Yuga it speaks and the time scale.




except for Christian creationists. It's been proven that the similarities between Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and other Indo-european languages cannot be coincidence. They are unquestionably related and descend from some common ancestor language.

And it's only speculated that the ancestor language is about 8,000 years old. It could be far older; no one denies that. There are even some linguists (Noam Chomsky, for one) who propose that all languages descend from one called Nostratic (from Latin nostras meaning "ours"), which is even older. No one can prove it though.similarities means nothing and speculation even less. in the absence of any trace of speculated 8000 year old language it is even absurd to think about it. We learn from Vedas the Sanskrit is Language of the devas, they are our ancestors, Sanskrit is sanskrit, Latin is latin it is best leave it to that.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:30 AM
Pranam Minotaur



You see this is why i have a problem with academic study, they quote as if it proven, if i were to believe this then i have to question Vyasdev. he is the one who is attested to have written the shastra. to decipher any knowledge one has to consult the origin, the shastra, what they say.

they inform me due to imminent on set of Kali yug the people will have short memory thus need to write them down.this was during the time off mahabharat
it is good to notice the oral tradition still flourish, alive and kicking

there is a gulf of difference between science and Vedas,
5300 years are mere drop in a ocean if you consider the 4 Yuga it speaks and the time scale.

Yes, the timescales of the yuga are Satya-Yuga 1,728,000 years; Treta-Yuga 1,296,000 years; Dwapara-Yuga 864,000 years; Kali-Yuga 432,000 years (I try to do my homework and learn). I have no problem believing that, nor that Brahma began creation 8 billion years ago.

That's a little more than half the time science says the universe has existed, and twice as long as the Earth is said to exist. I can believe that the Earth is much older than science says it is, and that the universe is younger than science says. It's not that much of a contradiction.

But the important question is: when did Vyasa live? Why do you have to question Vyasa? I don't question that he wrote down the Vedas. He took one revelation and broke it into four. But what was the yuga in which he lived? And in what yuga were the Vedas revealed? Those are the important questions for me to help me understand what you believe. I'm open-minded enough, despite what some people may think.

As I've commented before, even the late Carl Sagan was impressed with the relative accuracy of Hindu cosmology and time scales. So where is the contradiction? If anything science supports Scripture.

Kali yuga is said to have begun on Feb. 18 or January 23, 3102 BCE, depending on the Julian or Gregorian calendar. The Mahābhārata is said to have had its origins around 900 BCE. Now, did Vyasa reveal it orally, or begin writing it down at that time? I can't find anything.

So then, Kali yuga did not begin in 3102 BCE as per our calendar? If Kali yuga began in 3102 BCE, and its duration is 432,000 years, it will end in 428,898 CE. That, I understand is when Lord Krishna will be re-born, or Kalki will come.

As far as language? No one knows. No one was there. Maybe Sanskrit is the mother tongue. But the peoples of India came from somewhere and did not come into existence out of nowhere, just as the Australian Aborigines came from somewhere. On the point of language and human origins, I said once before we have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with that.

I've said before and will continue to say it: I respect your beliefs, but you need to respect mine also, though not necessarily accept them. Even the learned scholars and sages have different interpretations and don't always agree. That's the richness and beauty of Sanātana Dharma.

kallol
22 June 2011, 12:27 PM
There might be more to the origin of Hinduism in South of India than in North. Again there might be more to origin of many languages (we have today) from Tamil than others.

Though I am from Bengal but the DNA flow, the Swaraswati-Indus-Ganges trail, the incomplete alphabets of Tamil lead me to think in a different way than the Westerners want me to think.

Check for Gulf of Cambay discovery in 2000 by my Institute which present Govt of India did not want to pursue. Artifacts from there are huge and dates back to 12000 BC. Check the scripts of Tamil alphabets and you may be faced with some questions.

The penisular India is still to be discovered - particularly the submerged areas. Even in Mahabalipuram there are sunken temples and lots of structures submerged in the sea.

See Milne's chart for inundation and you will find how far India has shrunk.

As people moved from South to North the languages evolved (with influence from others also) more and more and at Sanskrit level, it was fully evolved. Then the derivatives came. even Tamil borrowed a few alphabets from sanskrit.

Out of millions of years, we have only some specks of discoveries. The history is too deep to be fully deciphered by these specks.

Love and best wishes

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2011, 12:33 PM
Pranam





But the important question is: when did Vyasa live? Why do you have to question Vyasa? I don't question that he wrote down the Vedas. He took one revelation and broke it into four. But what was the yuga in which he lived? And in what yuga were the Vedas revealed? Those are the important questions for me to help me understand what you believe. I'm open-minded enough, despite what some people may think.



Ved Vyas is born to Parasar muni, before the Panavas, he is born near the end of Dwapar yug. Kaliyug began after the reign of Pariksit maharaj the grandson of Pandavas.
Vedas are timeless revealed through various Rihis for this manvantar it would be in Satya yug.
Vyasji is Literally incarnation of Vishnu, he narrated and Ganesh ji scribed it.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 12:39 PM
Artifacts from there are huge and dates back to 12000 BC. ...

The penisular India is still to be discovered - particularly the submerged areas. Even in Mahabalipuram there are sunken temples and lots of structures submerged in the sea.

See Milne's chart for inundation and you will find how far India has shrunk.

About 10,000 years ago the ice sheets were in retreat, with sea levels rising. It should come as no surprise that cities built in coastal areas would be inundated under the rising sea. And cities are very often built where there is a plentiful food supply... as there is in the oceans. So they had the sea and they had farmland. They prospered, invented, flourished and then were sadly destroyed. We have no idea how much has been lost to history and the Earth's remarkable ability to erase the past.

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 12:42 PM
Pranam



Ved Vyas is born to Parasar muni, before the Panavas, he is born near the end of Dwapar yug. Kaliyug began after the reign of Pariksit maharaj the grandson of Pandavas.

OK, thank you. Now I understand your beliefs. :)


Vedas are timeless revealed through various Rihis for this manvantar it would be in Satya yug.
Vyasji is Literally incarnation of Vishnu, he narrated and Ganesh ji scribed it.

Jai Shree Krishna

I've seen images of Sri Ganesha writing while Vyasa dictated, and read that.

Thank you for your explanations.

Namaste.

TatTvamAsi
23 June 2011, 12:47 AM
I was supporting and agreeing with what you said. And there are other people that read these posts, so it's not all about or directed at you. So I did not deserve that tongue-lashing. I find your attack on me indefensible and uncalled-for, not to mention demeaning and insulting. I am not here to insult or denigrate or detract from Hinduism. I am here to learn. I've supported and unequivocally stated the achievements of ancient Indians and Hinduism. But you didn't read those did you?

My "attack" was not on you per se, but your parading of apparent erudition on the matter of Sanskrit and its origin. Sanskrit and its origins cannot be "reconstructed" as the people who propound the PIE language have claimed to have done. The entire PIE was reconstructed primarily using the Rig Veda; a seminal Hindu scripture.

What you are/were saying is that you believe there is some "ancestor" to Sanskrit called the PIE because of the similarity between some European languages and itself. What I'm asking you is, "Why does there NEED to be a 'common ancestor'?" Sanskrit is considered Deva-bASyA in Hinduism; "language of the Gods". The word Sanskrit, or samskrutam in actuality, means 'that which is perfect'. Why or how could a brilliant language like Sanskrit have "descended" from some ancestral language? Related languages could have descended from Sanskrit itself. That is what Hindus believe. That is what the evidence of the fine structure of Sanskrit points to. In fact, according to Hinduism, pANinI, in deep meditation, saw SivA doing the tAndaV (dance) and heard the 14 bIjA mantras (root sounds). The rules for Sanskrit grammar are based on those bIjA mantras and the language itself is a DISCOVERED language as opposed to INVENTED.


And if you refuse to believe that an ancient ancestor language is anything more than bunk, go for it. Please explain all the similarities and regular changes between languages classified as Indo-european if they didn't come from a common ancestor. I never said or implied that the Vedas or Hinduism originated anywhere, much less outside of India. Of course they originated in India. Don't insult MY intelligence.

Which one is it? Either Sanskrit was discovered in India or it wasn't. Your previous posts seem to indicate you believe that Sanskrit has descended from some common ancestral language called PIE. If you believe that, then you believe Sanskrit originated OUTSIDE of India, as do all euro-centric Hindu-haters.

Of course, if I were really milking this for what it's worth, I would say Sanskrit is timeless and does not have an age but I believe that every yugA, Hindu sages discover the nature of reality and find new meaning in the same timeless principles of Sanatana Dharma. Sanskrit is the language through which those principles are described just as mathematics is the language through which the physical principles of nature are described. The flavor on the top may seem to be different, but the substance is not. So differentiating between "Vedic" Sanskrit, "Classical" Sanskrit and "Bollywood" Sanskrit doesn't mean a thing in the grander scheme of things.


I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY.

And neither am I to you. Don't take it personally.

Just look up some old posts of mine; I have always tended to be a bit aggressive towards non-Indians, sometimes unintentionally. I am really wary about "new" Hindus who still hold on to euro-centric biases with respect to India and Indian history.


Clearly I am not welcome here by some people; is it because I am not Indian, and therefore not a true Hindu? Is it because my ancestors were those low-down, no-good, dirty rotten Europeans? Come right out and tell me I am not welcome, and I will read and learn and say nothing more. But it will say more about you as a Hindu than it does about me having European ancestry. In any case, I did not deserve that dressing down.

I wish the best to you that life has to offer.

You called me "defensive"? lol..

I am unabashedly Hindu; meaning I don't mince words. I personally believe one has to have the right lineage to be Hindu but I've always gotten the hot end of the iron for saying that off and online.

As many members of this forum have made it unequivocally clear, you can become Hindu if you are truly sincere and respectful towards the culture and people.

I will, however, make it amply clear that I do not respect anyone who claims they are Hindu but subversively gives credence or support to any euro-centric theories about Hinduism or India.

If you say are not one of those people, then you are most welcome.

Edit: Just read that thread about jesus and saw you clinging on to that fraud. Proves my hunch correct every single time! *Pats myself on back* :)


Btw, I reported your post for being rude,

Me? Rude? Shucks! I guess there's a first time for everything! :D

Jainarayan
25 June 2011, 09:19 AM
I've already publicly apologized. What more would you have me do?

charitra
25 June 2011, 11:22 AM
I've already publicly apologized. What more would you have me do?

Nothing.
It is another day.
Dont respond to those threads and move on.
No one owns SD or this forum, in fact on a balance your
participation is very productive
As you said it is difficult to 'properly' communicate on internet, the message may be lost in translation.
Besides dont apologize anymore.
Namaste.

Jainarayan
25 June 2011, 11:56 AM
Namaste charitra, and thank you. You are right. I appreciate it.


Nothing.
It is another day.
Dont respond to those threads and move on.
No one owns SD or this forum, in fact on a balance your
participation is very productive
As you said it is difficult to 'properly' communicate on internet, the message may be lost in translation.
Besides dont apologize anymore.
Namaste.

eriko
28 June 2011, 03:06 PM
Read this. (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/Hinduism/Aryan_Invasion.html)

Sorry no summary, don't really have that much of time. Do pass this on to other people.

Jainarayan
06 August 2011, 11:41 PM
Hindi and Urdu are two registers of the same language. Urdu is spoken primarily in Pakistan and is influenced with Arabic loanwords, and uses Arabic script. Hindi uses devanagari script and doesn't have the Arabic influence Urdu has. However, they are mutually intelligible. That is, a Hindi speaker can understand Urdu, and vice versa.

And yes, there's more evidence that Dravidian and Sanskritic languages are closer than originally thought, either being genetically related (that is, having a common ancestor), or heavy borrowing, loaning and influencing of each other.

Ramana
14 February 2012, 06:08 AM
Namaste all,

This is a subject I have been studying a little recently. A friend of mine recently showed me this article:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full
which basically makes the point that ancient humans from West Eurasia migrated into India and created the caste system and put themselves in the castes of "higher rank". The evidence for it is that the genetic makeup for members of the high castes are more similar to European genetics than other the genetic makeup for other castes do. The article goes into great detail and can explain it better than I can.

On one hand, this sounds like a sort of watered-down AIT, but on another hand it does not seem so absurd. After all, haven't there been numerous different waves of migrations into India since the time the first humans migrated out of Africa? Please note that my friend is not a Christian (he is actually a former Catholic, now atheist) and does not have any sort of "agenda". He is actually against AIT and believes it's false. He just has an interest in anthropology and genealogy and studies it a lot. The point that he is trying to make is basically that each wave of migrations into India "contributed linguistically and culturally in some way or another. The populations mixed with the natives, took on native customs etc."

It was my understanding that the caste system had been around (in it's pure, unadulterated form) since the beginning of Vedic civilization, but I could be wrong as I don't know much about its history. Is it not correct that the Vedas were revealed to the ancient rishis, the Vedic civilization gradually developed and flourished, and during that time there were waves of migrations into India? So where does the caste system play into this? How can the similarity of the genetic makeups of high caste members and Europeans be explained? Another thing to note is that he said these weren't "Europeans" like we think of today, but rather "Eurasians" who came from no farther west than the Balkans.

Any thoughts on this, or can anyone point me to good sources about the historical waves of migration into India?

Jai Sri Ram

Dear Ramakrishna,

Sai Ram

Regarding human migrations , please note our ancient puranas point out migrations from India to out side. India is the cradle of all the civilization,
If any similarities between Hindus and Europeans , it is mainly due to migration from India long ego.

Ramana

Ramana
14 February 2012, 06:30 AM
History cannot prove the historicity of our itihasas, but there have been findings that support the stories, for example the discovery of Dvaraka city and the bridge of Srirama, but of course this is not conclusive evidence, but I will put my faith in the itihasas nonetheless.

There are many things in our itihasas that scientists and historians will never be able to accept. How can a monkey man lift a mountain and eat the sun? This is too much to ask a scientist to believe, but for someone who has faith in the gods, this should not be such a big stretch to believe. If you believe in Gods in the first place, there's no reason not to believe that they are powerful beyond human understanding.


I fully agree with your views.
In Ramayana there is mention of 4 tusk elephant , seen by Hanuman during his Lanka exploits,The question is how could there be a mention of the elephants with four tusks unless Valmiki and the people of his era were familiar with such creatures? A quick search on the Encarta Encyclopedia will let us know that these four-tusked elephants were known as Mastodontoidea, which are said to have evolved around 38 million years ago and became extinct about 15 million years ago ( quote )

Basically the ancient Indian history is distorted due to various reasons during the British rule and it still continues. Unless we Indians come out of the British Influence we can never know the true history of India.

Gotam
04 March 2012, 07:55 AM
Basically the ancient Indian history is distorted due to various reasons during the British rule and it still continues. Unless we Indians come out of the British Influence we can never know the true history of India.

Namaste Ramana,

Although I am only an outsider with a very modest knowledge of the subject, it might be sufficient to realise that this is true.

But when I read what Indians write about the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, I wonder if there is not an element that is often neglected. This AIT was used by colonial propaganda and it was influenced by colonial mentality from the outset, but that could also have happened to the Out of India Theory, and I think it would have, if at that time, the OIT had seemed to be the most plausible one. The AIT had the advantage of simplicity, and hence, of compatibility with the very low standard of linguistic and genetic knowledge of the European 19th century.

In fact, the most logical conclusion from the AIT would not have been the one the colonisers made, but rather an "anti-colonial" one: if Indian civilisation had resulted from the interaction of uncivilised warriors from the North with civilised inhabitants of the subcontinent, and if these warriors had also invaded Europe, then, the coloniser necessarily had more primitive ancestors than the colonised...

If the British had taken their own theory seriously, they should have followed the example of the "Aryan invaders", and adopted Hindu culture.

From my readings on the subject, I conclude that there is some truth in both theories. I would summarise this as follows:

- Most European languages developed from languages that migrated out of India (exceptions being Basque, Finnish and Hungarian).

-The old European religion looks like a primitive version of Hinduism, and probably migrated with the languages out of India, before Sanatana Dharma was well developed, or perhaps losing much of its riches in the course of migration.

-Even the new European religion, Christianity, adopted many Indo-European elements, but they were often distorted.

- Several dozens of milennia before this cultural Out-of-India movement, that may not have involved large population migrations, common ancestors of both Europeans and Indians migrated to both India and Europe from the Middle East or the area that is now Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and probably, they arrived in India before arriving in Europe. Probably, there was already a population present in India, and part of this population may have come from East Asia, or have invaded East Asia from India.

Is there anything that contradicts this hypothesis, to your knowledge?

Jainarayan
04 March 2012, 11:08 AM
Self-deleted. Not worth it.