Colonial Myth of Aryan Invasion Debunked

[Just Me]

P.S. By the way, Arindam, I am posting this again under new header because I
forgot to mention this book I'm reading by a highly reputed German scholar
of Hinduism, Klaus K. Klostermaier, who studied in India, and by whom I am
informed, after all these years of being misinformed, concerning what is
now, against considerable odds in academe, being revealed as the Nineteenth
Century *myth* of an "Aryan invasion" of India.

Klostermaier exposes this damnable old nonsense as having been never
anything more than a substance of pure speculation based on an arrogant (if
not racist) Colonial prejudice that the greatness of India could have arisen
by no other means than that it had come as the result of some mythical
so-called, "Aryan-European" migration into India. It must have been an
invasion of racial stock which was the same as had given rise to Greece and
Rome. How else to explain the greatness of India, other than it was the
greatness of somebody other than the Indians?

How else! The case he makes is to establish what ought otherwise to have
been obvious, that Hindu culture is the production of the indigenous people
of India--and nothing else! This is backed by a strength of archeological
research and dating of astronomical events from the Vedas which indicate
that they are much older than the date previously given circa 1,500, and
that the Rgveda may go back so far as to 4,500 B.C., giving reason to reveal
India for the original cradle of Civilization from which an Indian racial
stock, the "Aryan" went forth north and eastward into Asia, Mesopotamia and
Europe carrying linguistic characteristics which later evolved in the Indian
subcontinent as Sanskrit; Greek and Latin around Mediterranean Europe.

As the "Negro" race evolved from Australo-Melanesian racial stock out of
Indonesia and Africa, the "Aryan" arose of the Hindu peoples of the Indian
subcontinent. In Mesopotamia, the racial strains mixed to produce the
Semitic stock, and the great civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, and
Israel/Judea. Some Aryan/Indian tribes wandered northwest rather than due
west into the steppes of Russia to become the Slavic, "Caucasian" stock
which migrated into Scandinavia and Northern Europe, while others went due
north through Tibet to become the great civilization of China--and that's
all she wrote.

But this is of course my take on it, which though it seems implied by the
facts revealed in Klostermaier's writing, is not made explicit.

No doubt you, Arindam have long been hip to the butt-backwardness of the
"Indo-European" Aryan myth, which is only now news to me--because why should
I know anything more than I did in '68 when I graduated from college?

On Jul 7, 6:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Note the semantics - Vedantas or Veda-anta. The Vedantas (philosophy)
> begin where the Vedas (mystery) end. Thus while the Vedas are
> sufficient, the Vedantas are necessary as supplements. Knowledge of
> the Puranas combine the two romantically, and as a consequence they
> provide infallible insights into the subtlest workings of Nature and
> man's place in it.

Intriguing that you should have been thinking along lines of the "romantic"
here in relation to religion, as it was no more than 8 hours previous to my
finding this post from you that I was having this to say (if you can bear
with an enormous amount of preliminary verbosity) . . .

"There is no way on earth that man can ever think his way toward any Close
Encounter, as it were, of the Divine Kind. Any hope of getting at it by
thought can be no less obtuse than to be piling up, a la Spielberg, huge
heaps of dirt, grass and brush on a dining room table. Just such a
profanation would it be: dirty heaps of abstract analyses on the altar of
the divine.

Or paradoxically it would be much to the contrary, if only for the Dreyfus
film character because what he does is quite beyond any mere potentiality of
thought; his act is a meditation; a highly reverent sort of non-verbal yoga
of mud-pie mandala making from the sand and dirt of his wife's flower bed;
an appropriately concrete, wordless sort of Zen rock garden art that worked
to express what had otherwise been impossibly inexpressible. In the East,
this has long been understood, how that thought is the first barrier to be
removed from the path toward the mysteries of supra-mundane experience.

This does not by any means make the oriental religious/philosophical
traditions anti-intellectual because once the limitations of thought are
admitted and recognized, learning of a far higher sort can begin, as a finer
use for the mind stands to be uncovered--and not at all after the fashion of
Hannibal Lechter, as he would 'uncover' it; at table with a good Chardonnay
and the fava beans.

No! We of the West have always been wrong to think that thought is the
finest activity that the human mind can engage. No gargantuan mental
struggle with the metaphysics of a Kant or Heidegger has ever been higher
nor finer than listening to great music, enjoying the romance of great love,
being made witness to the ecstatic expression of great art."

> As I comprehend, the mature Hindu is a spirit
> among loving and kindly spirits, manifesting themselves as various
> aspects of Nature (Sun, Wind, Fire, Earth, Stars).

My comment that I'd hoped to have time to make on that will have to wait,
alas, for a new rising of the sun as I see by my handy clock on the quick
launch bar that it's nearly half-past midnight. It pertains, in short, to
something that I saw in the faces of some "loving and kindly spirits" that
had manifested themselves to me one morning early, circa 1970, through a
waning flame of LSD that had been all night engulfing the tissues of my
brain--very costly Mephistophelian bargain that, by the way, where billions
of brain cells are exchanged for "knowledge". And what's worse? For most
everyone but myself, the knowledge can never be anything other than suspect.
It is simply such that I may say in reply to your comment that I *know* just
what you are talking about, having once had at great hazard, the opportunity
to glimpse it, and be astonished to the point of . . . well, never mind.

> The evil and the
> harshness of the world is the result of its being a break or change
> from Heaven, the perfection of which is our natural place and our goal
> while alive. The more spiritual a society, less the evil and
> harshness of the world.

Well of course on that we couldn't be more thoroughly agreed.

>
> I am in no position to talk about Hindu scripture. I need to master
> Sanskrit, and that should take me at least 5-10 years. Then I have to
> spend several years in deep cogitation. Hopefully when I am 80+ I may
> be recognised as a master.

I once had an acid trip in which I hallucinated that I was recognized as
Barbara Streisand being applauded for a curtain call; it was such a
masterful feeling, of standing at the very cosmic center of the universe,
loved and adored by all the devas, gandharvas, apsaras, the stage hands and
especially the guy up there manning the big baby blue spot.

Damn! that was something, so fleeting as it was, couldn't have lasted longer
than about five seconds, before I was falling through the realm of Wrathful
Deities, crashing through membranes of hell after hell, until . . . never
mind.

> I have read the writings of the Dalai Lama, when he was a very young
> man. I was deeply impressed by his clear and precise writing style. I
> found that book in the library of my father's uncle, Sir U N
> Brahmachari, around 1973. I was most struck by his views on the
> Chinese, who had expelled him. What was remarkable is how much he
> admired the true Chinese culture. Indeed, that book made me have a
> very positive view of Buddhism, which lasted till you know when.

Well, no one knows the transitory nature of things better than a Buddhist,
nor would any better understand the necessity of walking according to the
Dharma which would seem to choose you: that is the Middle Way, and if it
means remaining on the grandly flowered, incense misted path of the Hindu,
that cannot be contrary to the Buddhas.

>
> Plain fact is, that prior to their becoming non-violent Buddhists 1000
> years ago, the Tibetans (a very tough people, even tougher than the
> Mongols) beat the hell out of the Chinese or anyone. So what is
> better - beating up your neighbours or getting beaten up by them?

Again, as the Great Soul Gandhi walked his middle road, he found a most
astonishing way to beat up his British neighbors by way of getting beaten up
by them--so . . . was it not Gautama Buddha who once said, "Different
strokes for different folks?"
--
JM
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com-

--

.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <

[Just Me]

Correction . . .

"Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4873b65f$0$13878$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com...

> India for the original cradle of Civilization from which an Indian racial

> stock, the "Aryan" went forth north and eastward . . .

"westward"

[Arindam Banerjee]

catching up...

In school we were also taught the Aryan Invasion Theory. Apparently Europeans
came from Europe and called the locals "Dasyus" and as they were so they could
be killed off. Indians are still taught this Aryan Invasion Theory. As per
the history taught to my children in Australia, there was nothing of
significance in India prior to Buddha.

I often wonder, what do these mediation chaps really get out of their
meditation practices.

If you do not get what you want from the Divine, as you do not believe in the
Divine, then I suppose you have to go for meditations and then hope for the
best.

> This does not by any means make the oriental religious/philosophical
> traditions anti-intellectual because once the limitations of thought are
> admitted and recognized, learning of a far higher sort can begin, as a finer
> use for the mind stands to be uncovered--and not at all after the fashion of
> Hannibal Lechter, as he would 'uncover' it; at table with a good Chardonnay
> and the fava beans.

If by intellectual we mean e=mcc=hv class blah and baloney then yes it may be
that pure meditation can help to escape from the clutches of intellectualism.

>
> No! We of the West have always been wrong to think that thought is the
> finest activity that the human mind can engage. No gargantuan mental
> struggle with the metaphysics of a Kant or Heidegger has ever been higher
> nor finer than listening to great music, enjoying the romance of great love,
> being made witness to the ecstatic expression of great art."

Great Western thinkers we may have here in aue, unfortunately not much in the
nature of gargantuan mental struggle is to be found here.

> > As I comprehend, the mature Hindu is a spirit
> > among loving and kindly spirits, manifesting themselves as various
> > aspects of Nature (Sun, Wind, Fire, Earth, Stars).
>
> My comment that I'd hoped to have time to make on that will have to wait,
> alas, for a new rising of the sun as I see by my handy clock on the quick
> launch bar that it's nearly half-past midnight. It pertains, in short, to
> something that I saw in the faces of some "loving and kindly spirits" that
> had manifested themselves to me one morning early, circa 1970, through a
> waning flame of LSD that had been all night engulfing the tissues of my
> brain--very costly Mephistophelian bargain that, by the way, where billions
> of brain cells are exchanged for "knowledge". And what's worse? For most
> everyone but myself, the knowledge can never be anything other than suspect.
> It is simply such that I may say in reply to your comment that I *know* just
> what you are talking about, having once had at great hazard, the opportunity
> to glimpse it, and be astonished to the point of . . . well, never mind.

Sounds like the TV character "Frasier", an intellectual and fathead.

Buddhism is the reaction to Brahmanism, or the traditional worship of deities
manifesting as Nature. It is essentially the story of the animosity between
the Brahmins (austere priests, scholars) and the Kshatriyas (warriors, rulers).
This animosity is very old - one of the oldest Shiva Puranas thus describes
the battle between Kshup and Dadhichi. Then the case of Parasurama is well
known to all. When the Brahmins and Kshatriyas unite for the common good, there
is peace and prosperity in abundance; when not, not.

>
> >
> > Plain fact is, that prior to their becoming non-violent Buddhists 1000
> > years ago, the Tibetans (a very tough people, even tougher than the
> > Mongols) beat the hell out of the Chinese or anyone. So what is
> > better - beating up your neighbours or getting beaten up by them?
>
> Again, as the Great Soul Gandhi walked his middle road, he found a most
> astonishing way to beat up his British neighbors by way of getting beaten up
> by them--so . . . was it not Gautama Buddha who once said, "Different
> strokes for different folks?"

Gandhi - Gad!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:58:21 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> In school we were also taught the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Too bad "school" didn't keep up with science.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM UTC+5:30, Just Me wrote:
> P.S. By the way, Arindam, I am posting this again under new header because
> I forgot to mention this book I'm reading by a highly reputed German
> scholar of Hinduism, Klaus K. Klostermaier, who studied in India, and by
> whom I am informed, after all these years of being misinformed, concerning
> what is now, against considerable odds in academe, being revealed as the
> Nineteenth Century *myth* of an "Aryan invasion" of India.

According to Schlegel, people from India or from near India took
Indo-European languages to Europe.

You could try looking into these questions: When and how did this
idea of Schlegel get changed by later European scholars? Did they
start from Schlegel's idea and change it or did they start with
observations independent of Schlegel's observations and inferences?

From the Schlegel wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Schlegel
He argued that a people originating from India have been the founders of
the first European civilizations

> Klostermaier exposes this damnable old nonsense as having been never
> anything more than a substance of pure speculation based on an arrogant
> (if not racist) Colonial prejudice

There are European scholars who postulate that IE languages came to
Europe from Asia*, not Europe. Can this be nothing more than prejudice
against Europe(ans)? If so, why would Europeans be prejudiced against
Europe(ans)?

* The red colored area on this map, a postulated homeland of the first
ProtoIndoEuropean speakers, is entirely in Asia.
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses

[David Kleinecke]

It seems to me that the most popular theory is that the place
where the PIE was spoken was, essentially, Ukraine. This theory
is based on where the known PIE vocabulary best fits the
landscape. The second-best theory says Anatolia based on that
there is where the oldest evidence is. The age-area hypothesis
suggests it was Hungary (note irony) but that is not a popular
idea.

The out-of-India hypothesis could just as well be an out-of-Iran
hypothesis or even an out-of-Syria hypothesis - based on the
oldest evidence (but I suppose out-of-Syria is effectively out-
of-Anatolia).

Personally I go with Ukraine.

[J. J. Lodder]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> catching up...

Please don't dump unwanted crossposts into alt.usage.english,

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

Are you the top cop here?

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

In alt.usage.english, in article
<5de89e1d-697a-4ba3...@googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> posted:

AYRAN INVASION THEORY IS A HOAX: History Revisited
Times of India, August 22, 1993

[Courtesy of Dinesh Agrawal]

N. S. Rajaram, an aerospace engineer by profession
explains his startling theory with regard to the Indus
Valley Civilization to Mr R. Edwin Sudhir:

IT is an interest that could not be ignored. To the
extent that it became a dominant force, compelling him to
take a breather from the routine of aerospace engineering
and devote himself full-time to the exploration of the
vistas of Indian history and test the very foundation of
theories long held to be sacred.

The man is Dr N. S. Rajaram. The interest is
history. And the theory is the Aryan invasion of the
Indus valley.

"Nothing could be farther from the truth," Dr
Rajaram emphasises, speaking of the prevailing theory
which outlines the movement of the Aryans from Central
Asia across northwest India, resulting in the settlements
in the Indus valley.

He feels this theory has its origins in the attempts
by 18th century European linguists to account for
similarities in their native and Indian tongues. Based on
linguistic and literary factors, one account pegs the
invasion to about 1500 BC. Archaeological digs at Harappa
and Mohenjadaro during the early part of this century
threw up material which was seen to corroborate this
theory.

Dr Rajaram feels the most important consequence of
the Aryan invasion is fixing the period in which the
Vedic literature came to be composed. According to the
invasion theory, this would have to be placed at the end
of the Indus civilization. But this, Dr Rajaram stresses,
leads to many inconsistencies, going by evidence coming
to the fore from diverse disciplines like ancient
mathematics, astronomy, computer science and archaeology.

The Saraswati, he explains, was the most important
river of Vedic times, adding that the focus shifted to
the Ganga after the Saraswati dried up. He says that
extensive work recently has shown that there were more
than a thou- sand settlements along the Saraswati and not
along the Indus as has been popu-larly believed. He cites
the work done by Dr V. S. Wakankar, which indicates that
the holy river altered course several times and dried up
around 1900 BC. The Yamuna and the Sutlej, the two main
tributaries were lost to Ganga and the Indus
respectively, he surmises, attributing the death of the
river to this phenomenon. It was then that the attention
shifted to the Ganga. Landsat photo-graphs confirm these
archaeological findings, adds Dr Rajaram.

Other confirmation has come from a class of work in
ancient mathematics, he adds. Known as the Sulba-sutras
or the Sulbas, these were originally devised to assist in
building sacrificial altars in temple architecture.
According to the work of the late American historian and
mathematician A. Seidenberg, a profess- or at the
University of California-Berkeley, a comparison of the
Vedic mathema- tics with the mathematics of Old Babylonia
(1700 BC) and Egyptian Middle King- dom (2000 to 1800 BC)
has revealed that these Sulba-sutras have been the font
of inspiration. Vedic altars, built according to these
calculations, have been found at sites such as Lothal and
Kalibagan going back to 2500 BC.

He enthusiastically points out that, in essence, the
Mastaba, the Egyptian flat-topped pyramid is nothing but
the turned-around version of the Smashana-cit, the
sacrificial altar described in the Baudhayana Sulba-
sutra.

Dr Rajaram explains that another bit of supporting
evidence has been the analysis of astronomical references
in the Rig Veda which shows that Vedic Aryans were around
in India well before 2500 BC.

Other evidence is out of the pages of history --Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and Hermann Jacobi in Bonn had
independently concluded that parts of the Rig Veda were
composed as early as 4000 BC. Recent computer based
analysis by Subhash Kak of the astronomical codes puts
paid to the cricism that Indian astronomy is a derivative
of its Greek counterpart.

Kak, a specialist in computer aided cryptography,
has worked on the orbital periods of the five major
planets, explains Dr Rajaram. He has shown that the
values outlined in the Rig Veda were remarkably accurate.
This evidence, Dr Rajaram feels, speaks for the
rigorousness of the ancient texts.

Linguistic evidence is another line of argument,
feels Dr Rajaram. With respect to Indus seals, unless
conclusive evidence shows that language to be Dravian
totally unrelated to Sanskrit, he feels that Aryans and
Dravidians were a single people divided only by modern
academic theory. It is only for the convenience of
European scholars that the entire "invasion" theory has
been constructed, says Dr Rajaram.

"With the passage of time, more evidence comes to
light and in that context, a new theory is proposed."...

Currently Dr Rajaram is working on putting all these
observations together in a book to be titled 'Indus to
Gangas: Ancient History in the New Light of Science'...
HE BELIEVES THAT WE SHOULD NEVER BECOME A SLAVE TO
ACCEPTED THEORIES AND DISCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO MAKE AN
EFFORT TO QUESTION THESE AND PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES. A TRUE
REFLECTION OF THE SPIRIT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY ALIVE AND
WORKING AT ITS BEST.

[Perhaps italicized text was capitalized by the original
poster. End of forwarded article.]

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

[David Kleinecke]

It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
sure none of them have been convincing/

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

M.B. Richards et al Aryan Invasion DNA data are mostly
wrong and confabulated -- Premendra Priyadarshi

June 29, 2017

"Interestingly one of the popular academic volumes
recently published in France is called 'Mais où sont
passés les Indo-Européens?' by Jean-Paul Demoule which
demonstrates quite scientifically that the story of Indo-
Europeans moving about Eurasia and bringing their
civilization from Europe to India is in fact
untenable." -- Come Carpentier

There is an axiom in IT: Garbage in, Garbage out. This
seems to have happened with M.B. Richards et al trying to
use genetics to justify fraudulent Aryan Invasion Theory.
Read on Premendra Priyadarshi's review of the unreliable
and false article of M.B. Richards et al.

S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center

Continues at:

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2017/06/mb-richards-et-al-aryan-invasion-dna.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[Arindam Banerjee]

Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit? If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
then post is likely. These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a
nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive levels
are still high.

[Dingbat]

PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
IndoEuropean languages.

> If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> then post is likely.

IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.

> These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a
> nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive
> levels are still high.

Who says it was blasted by a nuke?

[David Kleinecke]

The Hindutva position seems to be that Sanskrit is the language
of the Gods. The question arises - do they mean the language
described by Panini or the rather different language of the Rg
Veda. The usual answer is to deny there is any difference. That
puts an end to rational discussion.

It would follow that Hindutva must derive PIE from Sanskrit. This
seems to be impossible - the most famous problem being that
Sanskrit appears to have merged PIE vowels 'a', 'e' and 'o' into
one 'a' vowel. However the problems of deriving PIE pale beside
the problem of deriving Dravidian from Sanskrit.

[Dingbat]

NW Kazakhstan, S Russia and E Ukraine according to this map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes. Gods=Aliens is a position with which they are not exactly comfortable,
but may accept at a stretch. Another position is that the Gods exist in a
different dimension. These two positions are not contradictory.

The question arises - do they mean the language
> described by Panini or the rather different language of the Rg
> Veda.

It is the same language. Panini was not the originator of Sanskrit, merely a
grammarian.

Rhig Veda is more concise, cryptic, and strangely colloquial as well as I have
found, in the sense that many everyday usages can be found there.

Classical Sanskrit is more ornate, somewhat contrived maybe. Perhaps it lost
out in popularity as it became too elaborate. Then the vernaculars took over.

Kalidas is very much in the middle, as the supreme poet.

> The usual answer is to deny there is any difference. That
> puts an end to rational discussion.

I don't know what you are talking about. I have personally translated portions
from the Rhig Veda, Chanakya sutras (more like the Vedas than say Bana),
recited Kalidas, sung Shankaracharya... they are all the same language, just
the styles have changed. Mind you, before I did all that I was brought up to
believe that Rg Vedic Sanskrit differs from classical as much as Old English
does with respect to modern. Now, that is pure rubbish. All I needed to
translate the Rg Veda was the dictionary and grammar and inspiration, part of
which was to realise the inherent lasting colloquialisms that exist to our time.

> It would follow that Hindutva must derive PIE from Sanskrit.

PIE is for the West. Sanskrit turns to vernacular from apabhransha (derivations
involving less difficult speech) and chalit (local natural language in vogue)
and the mixture when generally applied is called a prakrit or a superior
natural language, which could be adopted by an entire sect like say Buddhists.

This
> seems to be impossible - the most famous problem being that
> Sanskrit appears to have merged PIE vowels 'a', 'e' and 'o' into
> one 'a' vowel. However the problems of deriving PIE pale beside
> the problem of deriving Dravidian from Sanskrit.

I remember reading an article by Aurobindo Ghosh about the derivation of
Dravidian from Sanskrit. One point I remember is that the differences have
been overly exaggerated. Dravidian going by Hindutva is a prakrit like Pali.

[Arindam Banerjee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ympSXy348

[David Kleinecke]

That YouYUbe is not at all convincing.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I didn't make it! But if really the radioactive levels are high there as
compared to normal, and vitrified rock does exist there, then there is some
inductive logic at work.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f137e939-ec22-4e48...@googlegroups.com:

Erich von Daniken. HTH.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11dde490-abff-40df...@googlegroups.com:
[Huge snip]

>
> Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit? If Sanskrit is the language of the
> gods/aliens then post is likely. These days they say that Mohenj-daro
> was blasted by a nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and
> the radioactive levels are still high.
>

"They"? where and who? Ah conspiracy "theory" folk.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro

[Arindam Banerjee]

Well, this looks more convincing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-AUScZQLo

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a903dfe1-
83d5-4220-8df...@googlegroups.com:

Graham Hancock!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock


NIOT found some wood; that there's a drowned forest isn't that
remarkable, given the global rise in sea-levels after the last
glaciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_archeology_in_the_Gulf_of_Khambhat

[Arindam Banerjee]

Yes, the great flood drowned Dwarka exactly as per tradition.
Five square miles of roads and buildings to do not equal a forest, drowned
or otherwise.

[Whiskers]

<http://rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Mohenjo-daro>

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Janet]

In article <b086411c-ec7c-4b48...@googlegroups.com>,
dklei...@gmail.com says...

debunked

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4541

Janet

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Two genetic studies negate the indological ATT, AMT, AIT

Two genetic studies by scientists including Gyaneshwer
Chaubey and Toomas Kivisild which negate the Aryan Trickle-
in/ Tourist/Migration /Invasion Theory and point to the
indigenous and autochthonous evolution of populations and
languages of Bharatam that is India.

Congratulations to Gyaneshwer Chaubey and the team of
researchers led by Toomas Kivisild .

- S. Kalyanaraman

Int J Hum Genet, 8(1-2): 41-50 (2008)

Language Shift by Indigenous Population: A Model Genetic
Study in South Asia

Gyaneshwer Chaubey1,2*, Mait Metspalu1, Monika Karmin1,
Kumarasamy Thangaraj2, Siiri Rootsi1, Juri Parik1, Anu
Solnik1, Deepa Selvi Rani2, Vijay Kumar Singh2, B. Prathap
Naidu,

Alla G. Reddy2, Ene Metspalu1, Lalji Singh2, Toomas
Kivisild1,3 and Richard Villems1

1. Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of
Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and
Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia 2. Centre for Cellular
and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India 3. Leverhulme
Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies, The Henry Wellcome
Building, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street,
Cambridge, CB2 1QH, UK

KEYWORDS Mushar; language shift; mtDNA; Y-chromosome

ABSTRACT Language shift is a phenomenon where a new
language is adopted by a population with virtually no
influence on its genetic makeup. We report here the results
of a case study, carried out on the Mushar populations,
which is thought to have undergone language shift from
Munda (an Austro-Asiatic language) to Hindi (an Indo-
European language). We compared the mtDNA and Y-chromosomal
phylogenies of this population with those of the
neighbouring Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic speaking
populations, standing at similar social status. The results
revealed much closer genetic affinity of the Mushar people
to the neighbouring Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) populations,
than to the neighbouring Hindi-speaking populations. This
example shows that the language shift as such is not
necessarily a signal for a rapid genetic admixture, either
maternally or paternally.

Corresponding Author: Gyaneshwer Chaubey,

Department of Evolutionary Biology, Tartu University

and Estonian Biocentre, Riia 23 Tartu, 51010

Estonia Telephone: (372) 7 375 052 Fax: (372) 7 420 194

E-mail: gy...@ebc.ee

Full text can be downloaded from: http://tinyurl.com/2z3tcb

Hum Hered 2008;66:1-9 DOI: 10.1159/000114160

Maternal Footprints of Southeast Asians in North India

Kumarasamy Thangaraj a Gyaneshwer Chaubey a, b, n Toomas
Kivisild b, c Deepa Selvi Rani a Vijay Kumar Singh a
Thanseem Ismail a Denise Carvalho-Silva d Mait Metspalu b
L.V.K.S. Bhaskar aAlla G. Reddy a Sarat Chandra e Veena
Pande f B. Prathap Naidu a Niharika Adarsh gAbhilasha Verma
h Inaganti Amara Jyothi i Chandana Basu Mallick j Nidhi
Shrivastava k Ragala Devasena l Babita Kumari m Amit Kumar
Singh n Shailendra Kumar Dhar Dwivedi n Shefali Singh n
Geeta Rao n Pranav Gupta n Vartika Sonvane o Kavita Kumari
m Afsar Basha p

K.R. Bhargavi i Albert Lalremruata q Arvind Kumar Gupta j
Gurukamal Kaur r K.K. Reddy s A. Papa Rao s Richard Villems
b Chris Tyler-Smith d Lalji Singh a *

a Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad,
India; b Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, Tartu,
Estonia;c Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, d The Wellcome
TrustSanger Institute, Hinxton Cambs, UK; e Nagaland
University, Nagaland, f Kumaun University, Nainital, g BIMR
College ofLife Science, Gwalior, h Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi, i JJ College of Arts and Science, Pudukottai, j APS
University,Rewa, k GGD University, Bilaspur, l DS College
of Arts and Science for women, Perambalur, m TM Bhagalpur
University,Bhagalpu r, n VBS Purvanchal University,
Jaunpur, o BarkatUllah University, Bhopal, p St. Josph's PG
College, Kurnool,q Loyola College, Chennai, r Guru Nanak
Dev University, s S. V. University, Tirupati, India

Abstract

We have analyzed 7,137 samples from 125 different caste,
tribal and religious groups of India and 99 samples from
three populations of Nepal for the length variation in the
COII/tRNA Lys region of mtDNA. Samples showing length
variation were subjected to detailed phylogenetic analysis
based on HVS-I and informative coding region sequence
variation. The overall frequencies of the 9-bp deletion and
insertion variants in South Asia were 1.9 and 0.6%,
respectively. We have also defined a novel deep-rooting
haplogroup M43 and identified the rare haplogroup H14 in
Indian populations carrying the 9-bp deletion by complete
mtDNA sequencing. Moreover, we redefined haplogroup M6 and
dissected it into two well-defined subclades. The presence
of haplogroups F1 and B5a in Uttar Pradesh suggests minor
maternal contribution from Southeast Asia to Northern
India. The occurrence of haplogroup F1 in the Nepalese
sample implies that Nepal might have served as a bridge for
the flow of eastern lineages to India. The presence of R6
in the Nepalese, on the other hand, suggests that the gene
flow between India and Nepal has been reciprocal.

Received: March 21, 2007

Accepted after revision: August 27, 2007

Published online: January 28, 2008

Dr. Lalji Singh/Dr. K. Thangaraj

Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road,
Hyderabad-500 007 (India)

Tel. +91 40 2716 0789, Fax +91 40 2716 0591

E-Mail la...@ccmb.res.in , tha...@ccmb.res.in

http://tinyurl.com/yrdz5b

End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.ly/1EM9nsg

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 8:19:36 PM UTC+5:30, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Two genetic studies negate the indological ATT, AMT, AIT
>
> Two genetic studies by scientists including Gyaneshwer
> Chaubey and Toomas Kivisild which negate the Aryan Trickle-
> in/ Tourist/Migration /Invasion Theory and point to the
> indigenous and autochthonous evolution of populations and
> languages of Bharatam that is India.
>
> Congratulations to Gyaneshwer Chaubey and the team of
> researchers led by Toomas Kivisild .
>
> - S. Kalyanaraman
>

India's population being autochthonous would mean that the Hakamanyas,
Pahlavas, Yavanas, Kushanas, Sakas, Hunas, etc. right down to the
Moghals left no descendants in India.*

Why should anyone believe a genetic study which made a nonsensical
finding that India has no descendants of peoples which history records
as migrating to India in some numbers, even if not always large
numbers, and whose leaders ruled parts of India?

*
Hakamanya = Achemenid
Pahlava = Parthian
Yavana = Greek
Kushana = Kushan
Saka = Scythians
Huna = Ephthalite Huns

[Peter T. Daniels]

Even more to the point: the studies that "Jai Maharaj" reprinted (why do you reply to them?)
assume what they are intended to prove. (That's called "begging the question.")

[Lewis]

In message <f137e939-ec22-4e48...@googlegroups.com> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> >
>> > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
>> > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
>> > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
>> > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
>> > sure none of them have been convincing/
>>
>> Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?

> PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> IndoEuropean languages.

>> If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
>> then post is likely.

> IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.

Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is *not* PIE?

>> These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a
>> nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive
>> levels are still high.

> Who says it was blasted by a nuke?

Nutters.

And isn't it Mohenjo Daro?


--
Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Monday, July 18, 2011

Harvard Donkey trial and equus sivalensis of India which
debunks the AIT horse import theory

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/07/harvard-donkey-trial-and-equus.html

Harvard Donkey trial and equus sivalensis of India which
debunks the AIT horse import theory

Sottovoce: Harvard Donkey Trial is another name for the
CAPEEM lawsuit argued in a California court in the
context questioning reliance on AIT theory in California
Textbooks. A Harvard argument was that what was referred
to as horse in ancient texts of India was in fact a
donkey.

Thanks to Rohit Sikka for the exquisite reference cited at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/message/12791

- S. Kalyanaraman

Twenty Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal
Industry for the Year 1910 (Feb. 10, 1912) United States
Bureau of Animal Industry

Here are some key excerpts from the report which should
set AIT Arabian horse-import into India proponents to
rethink and examine the possibility that references to
horses in the Rigveda may refer to equus sivalensis type
of horses (NOT donkeys as shown in the Harvard Donkey
Trial). Note: Note: It is likely that the tonga-s found
on the village streets on the foothills of Siwalik ranges
are in fact carts drawn by the species of small types of
equus sivalensis.

Excerpts:

In a paper published in 1904: on The Multiple Origin of
Horses and Ponies,^ I recognized three distinct types of
horses, viz, the Prejvalsky, Celtie, and Norse types. In
1907 I pointed out that these three types might be known
as the "steppe," "plateau," and "forest" types,' and in
1909 added the " Siwalik " type to include horses allied
to Equus sivalensis of the Indian Pliocene deposits.*
(p.163)

Up to the end of last century it was generally taken for
granted that in all the modern horses the face is nearly
in a line with the cranium, that horses with short-
pillared molars have long been extinct, and that the
broad cannon (metacarpal and metatarsal) bones of Shires
and Clydesdales are the product of artificial selection.
Now, however, it is realized (1) that though in some
modem breeds the face is short and in a line with the
cranium, in others it is long and so strongly bent
downward that it forms, as in the Baringo zebra, an angle
of nearly 20 deg. with the cranium; (2) that in some
fossil Pleistocene horses the cannon bones are relatively
as short and broad as in Shires and Clydesdales, and (3)
that in some modern horses the internal pillar of the
molars is as short as in the oldest true horse hitherto
discovered -- ^the Equus sivalensis of the Siwalik hills
of northern India. The only horse skulls from the
Pleistocene deposits of Europe, sufficiently well
preserved to admit of the relation of the face to the
cranium being accurately determined, are those found in
the grottoes of Grimaldi near Mentone, and the only well-
preserved Pliocene horse skulls hitherto found in Asia
belong to Equus sivalensis of India. But notwithstanding
the absence of well preserved skulls it has been possible
by making use of new methods to obtain a considerable
amount of evidence in support of the view that domestic
horses had a multiple origin, that they include amongst
their ancestors not only varieties allied to the wild
horse which still survives in Mongolia, and varieties
adapted for a forest life, but also varieties specialized
for ranging over boundless deserts and plateaus, and for
living amongst foothills and upland valleys.(p.165)

Bearing all these facts in mind, it may be provisionally
assumed that Equus silvalensis of India was a tall,
broad-browed horse characterized by a long, tapering
deflected face and an interorbital prominence, a long
neck, high withers, and a high-set-on tail. As Arabs and
Indian horses with a prominence between the eyes are
usually fleet but of an uncertain temper, it is extremely
probable that Equus sivalensis belonged to a fleet race
characterized by an indomitable disposition. (p.174)

Source:

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/OUT%20OF%20STEP.htm

Out of step by Arnold Spencer Leese (c. 1951).

Horse-drawn carriage used in Allahabad.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwlUH93Q15vZikQK-l0msKXORWvbDOaoxuTpmAHqZLfZJeg6lxBA

Horse-drawn tongas transport pilgrims around the many sights in town.
Rajgir, Bihar.

http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreportbur03indugoog/annualreportbur03indugoog_djvu.txt

The multiple origin of horses and ponies (1904) by J.
Cossar Ewart Nature, Volume 69, Issue 1799, pp. 590-596
(1904). DOI: 10.1038/069590a0

Full text of the article at

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v69/n1799/pdf/069590a0.pdf

(Purchase costs US $32).

Abstract

Now that systematic attempts are being made to improve
native breeds of horses in various parts of the world, it
is obviously desirable to settle once for all whether, as
is alleged, occidental as well as oriental and African
races and breeds have sprung from the same wild
progenitors, and more especially if all ponies are merely
dwarf specimens of one or more of the recognised domestic
breeds of horses. To be in a position to arrive at a
conclusion as to the origin of the various kinds of
domestic horses, and at the same time find an answer to
the important and oft-repeated question, What is a pony?

End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://ow.ly/UIz9w

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:a7702315-6752-4b88...@googlegroups.com:

Maybe

http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?
type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl1905/19050670.htm

says there's no photos.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded message from M.

Another instance of genetics going against AIT/AMT

Friday, May 27, 2011

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/the-story-of-our-origins

Excepts below (emphasis added):

I feel *R1a1 originated here and contributed to Central
Asia* rather than the other way around

- RNK Bamezai, director of the National Centre of Applied
Human Genetics

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste
system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with
associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors
that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system
obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-
haplogroup R1a1, at times associated with a male-mediated
major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which
has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-
haplogroup R1a1 has a widespread distribution and high
frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian
subcontinent... To resolve these issues, we screened 621
Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste
position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-
most positions)... for conclusions. A peculiar
observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-
haplogroup R1a1 in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a
founder lineage for this caste group. Further,
observation of R1a1 in different tribal population
groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a in ancestors, and
extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of
530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and
Eurasians bearing the R1a1 haplogroup *supported the
autochthonous [indigenous] origin of R1a1 lineage in
India** and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins.*

- From a 2009 paper in Journal of Human Genetics by
Bamezai, et. al.

Thus, a large part of Central Asia, Southern Russia,
Ukraine onwards to the Czech Republic may well be
populated by a 15,000-year-old *migration from India*.

..the proportion of R1a1 in some Brahmin groups such as
those of West Bengal is as high as 72 per cent. This
indicates that the origins of Brahmins as a caste may
well lie in the R1a1 haplogroup. But since the antiquity
of the Ra1a haplogroup in tribals such as Central India’s
Sahariyas is older than it is among Brahmins, it is
reasonable to believe that *Brahmins may not be entrants
from outside but may have originated as a caste from the
tribal population of this country.*

End of forwarded message from M.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:52:24 AM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:

> Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is *not* PIE?

A question that could only be asked by someone who "killfiles" almost everything that's posted.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+5:30, Lewis wrote:
> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> >> > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> >> > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> >> > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> >> > sure none of them have been convincing/
> >>
> >> Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
>
> > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > IndoEuropean languages.
>
> >> If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> >> then post is likely.
>
> > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
>
> Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is *not* PIE?

The hypothetical contingency that Sanksrit is PIE is purely for the
purpose of illustrating to Arindam what PIE means, not for the purpose
of asserting that Sanskrit is PIE. As for your question, the answer is
that Arindam's coterie doesn't accept that Sanskrit is not PIE.

> >> These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a
> >> nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive
> >> levels are still high.
>
> > Who says it was blasted by a nuke?
>
> Nutters.
>
> And isn't it Mohenjo Daro?
>

/a/ is realized as short [O] in Bengali, Arindam's native language.
So, perhaps he's analyzing the <o> in Mohenjo as /a/. In a number of
languages in India, most notably Hindi, in a morpheme terminal or word
terminal context, the realization of /a/ is nothing; i.e., it's elided.
This happens to loan words too; Portuguese [kami:za] is [kami:z] in Hindi.
That could explain why he doesn't pronounce the terminal vowel in
Mohenjo.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded post:

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India

By David Frawley
Honored by the President of India with the Padma Bhushan,
the third highest civilian award granted by the
Government of India for "distinguished service of a high
order to the nation."

One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally
devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of the
Aryan invasion. According to this account, 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. This so-called pre-Aryan
civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban
ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley culture"
(as most of its initial sites were on the Indus river).
The war between the powers of light and darkness, a
prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was
thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and
dark skinned peoples. The Aryan invasion theory thus
turned the "Vedas", the original scriptures of ancient
India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more than
primitive poems of uncivilized plunderers.

This idea totally foreign to the history of India,
whether north or south has become almost an unquestioned
truth in the interpretation of ancient history Today,
after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity
have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at
last beginning to call it in question.

In this article we will summarize the main points that
have arisen. This is a complex subject that I have dealt
with in depth in my book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic
Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for those interested in
further examination of the subject.

The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for
several reasons that were largely part of the cultural
milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As
scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans
came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley
culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had
to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date
for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally
speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian
scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology.
This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and the
flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it
became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500
BC.

Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four
'Vedas' & 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year
periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are
more changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than
there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also
regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of
2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods
could have existed for any number of centuries and that
the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely
too short a figure.

It was assumed by these scholars many of whom were also
Christian missionaries unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' that
the Vedic culture was that of primitive nomads from
Central Asia. Hence they could not have founded any urban
culture like that of the Indus valley. The only basis for
this was a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig
Veda' that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature
of the culture presented within it.

Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of
the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European
invasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein
Indo-European peoples the Hittites, Mit tani and Kassites
conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An
Aryan invasion of India would have been another version
of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of
this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like
Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of
the culture by an outside invasion confirming this.

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.

This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has
remained since then. Though little has been discovered
that confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy
to question it, much less to give it up.

Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus
Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the
horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient
Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal
showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been
found, suggesting the usage of chariots.

Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been
challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads.
Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with
much flat land, of which the river plain of north India
was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable
for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called
Aryan invasion required.

That the Vedic culture used iron & must hence date later
than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC revolves
around the meaning of the Vedic term "ayas", interpreted
as iron. 'Ayas' in other Indo- European languages like
Latin or German usually means copper, bronze or ore
generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to
insist that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant
iron, particularly since other metals are not mentioned
in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold that is much more commonly
referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva Veda' and
'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as
red & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence
it is clear that 'ayas' generally meant metal and not
specifically iron.

Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig
Veda' also use ayas, even for making their cities, as do
the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in
Vedic literture to show that either the Vedic culture was
an ironbased culture or that there enemies were not.

The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of
cities'. This was used also to regard the Vedic as a
primitive non-urban culture that destroys cities and
urban civilization. However, there are also many verses
in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having
having cities of their own and being protected by cities
upto a hundred in number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni,
Saraswati and the Adityas are praised as being like a
city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt and
Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of
cities. This does not turn them into nomads. Destruction
of cities also happens in modern wars; this does not make
those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture
as destroying but not building the cities is based upon
ignoring what the Vedas actually say about their own
cities.

Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture
was not des- troyed by outside invasion, but according to
internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a
new set of cities has been found in India (like the
Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the
National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are
intermidiate between those of the Indus culture and later
ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may
eliminate the so-called dark age following the presumed
Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in
India back to the beginning of the Indus culture.

The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley
culture -made incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who
were not religious scholars much less students of
Hinduism was that its religion was different than the
Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion.
However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in
Gujarat, like Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like
Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those
used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen,
potsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in the
rituals described in the 'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the
Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic practices that
can not be merely coincidental. That some of its
practices appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also
be attributed to their misunderstanding or lack of
knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein
Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.

We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one
interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins
necessarily gives the ability to interpret them
correctly.

The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned
race like the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war
between light and darkness, and the Vedic people being
presented as children of light or children of the sun.
Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness exists
in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the
Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a
war between light and dark-skinned people? It is purely a
poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. Moreover, no
real traces of such a race are found in India.

Anthropologists have observed that the present population
of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic
groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly,
the present population of the Punjab is said to be
ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and
Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day
population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan
language speaking group. The only inference that can be
drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences
adduced above is that the Harappan population in the
Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or
more groups, the more dominent among them having very
close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan
speaking population of India.

In other words there is no racial evidence of any such
Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a continuity of
the same group of people who traditionally considered
themselves to be Aryans.

There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature
of the Indus Valley culture. Further excavation has shown
that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley
culture were east, not west of Indus. In fact, the
largest concentration of sites appears in an area of
Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient
Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was
said to have been founded by the sage Manu between the
banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati
is lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda'
& is the most frequently mentioned in the text. It is
said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in
size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from the
mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well
acquainted with this river and regarded it as their
immemorial hoemland.

The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was
indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in
India. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once
drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses
were much different than they are today. However, the
Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley
culture and before the so-called Aryan invasion or before
1500 BC. In fact this may have caused the ending of the
Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this
river and establish their culture on its banks if it
dried up before they arrived? Indeed the Saraswati as
described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately
show it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in
the Indus era it was already in decline.

Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting
astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon
astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices.
Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a time when the
vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha
(or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a
date of 1300 BC. The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda'
speak of the vernal equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades;
early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha
(early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier
eras are mentioned but these two have numerous references
to substantiate them. They prove that the Vedic culture
existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated
system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored
or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because
they yielded too early a date for the 'Vedas' than what
they presumed, not because such references did not exist.

Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya
Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list
a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures
of the 'Rig Veda', said to have conquered the region of
India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans are
mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west
to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha
(Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these
regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC. These
passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was
said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large
empires in India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of
ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting them to
suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to
the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit
this theory.

According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in
the Punjab, comming down from Central Asia. However, the
'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean
(samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships, and
to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic ancestors like
Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved
from across the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is
the father of many Vedic seers and seer families like
Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the
Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and
later sanskrit) term for ocean, samudra, originally did
not mean the ocean but any large body of water,
especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear
meaning of a term in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified
by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name as flowing
into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion
theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation of
the 'Rig Veda' by Griffith for example, who held to this
idea that samudra didn't really mean the ocean, we find
over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra does noe
mean ocean why was it traslated as such? It is therefore
without basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far
from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which
form the background of their land and the symbolism of
their hymns.

One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic
culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in
north India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and
comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna
as later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be
an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with
the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention.
However it is associated with a pig and rice culture, not
the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is
now found to be an organic development of indegenous
pottery, not an introduction of invaders.

Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous
cultural development and does not reflect any cultural
intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion.
Therefore, there is no archeological evidence
corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.

In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably
the Hittites, have now been found to have been in that
region atleast as early as 2200 BC, wherein they are
already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion
into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries,
though the evidence so far is that the people of the
mountain regions of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans
as far as recorded history can prove.

The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped
Vedic Gods like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one
named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites and Mittani signed a
treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra,
Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a
treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure
Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient Middle East
thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and
thereby show a Vedic culture in that region of the world
as well.

The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as
evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was
also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian,
though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that
the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with
those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic
development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now
suggest an Indo-European base for that language.

It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived
its civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria,
as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent
French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the
antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found
within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC.

In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject
the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu
civilization.

Current archeological data do not support the existence
of an Indo Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at
any time in the preor protohistoric periods. Instead, it
is possible to document archeologically a series of
cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural
development from prehistoric to historic periods. The
early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion
into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of
indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an
academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe
reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic
data were used to validate the concept that in turn was
used to interpret archeological and anthropological data.

In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the
assumption that there was an Aryan invasion. Then
archeological evidence was interpreted by the same
assumption. And both interpretations were then used to
justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an
exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if
assuming something is true, it is found to be true!

Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the
IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also
suggests such a possible early date for their entry into
India.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the
'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking
population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather
from a historical assumption of the 'comming of the Indo-
Europeans.

When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of
the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so
far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in
the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them
that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is
the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is
it implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities
(including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the
Aryans themselves.

Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what
is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley
civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that the Indus
Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to
the Indus Valley era:

This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were
spoken in North India with Pakistan and on the Iranian
plateau at the 6th millennium BC has the merit of
harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin
of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also
emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and
adjacent areas from the early neolithic through to the
floruit of the Indus Valley civilization.

This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or
understand the 'Vedas' their work leaves much to be
desired in this respect but that it is clear that the
whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is
beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does
not mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley
era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that of the
'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in
India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent.

The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in
our view of history as shattering as that in science
caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. It would make
ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and most
central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic
literary record already the largest and oldest of the
ancient world even at a 1500 BC date would be the record
of teachings some centuries or thousands of years before
that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most
authentic record of the ancient world. It would also tend
to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and
other Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that
the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it
would affirm the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were
early offshoots of the Vedic people through the seer
Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.

In closing, it is important to examine the social and
political implications of the Aryan invasion idea:

o First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan
and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to
each other. This kept the Hindus divided and is still a
source of social tension.

o Second, it gave the British an excuse in their
conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what
the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done
millennia ago.

o Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and
possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the
proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible
and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a
sidelight to the development of religion and civilization
to the West.

o Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a
Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified
by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture.

This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies
of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the kings before
the Buddha or Krishna were left without any historical
basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of a civil war in which
all the main kings of India participated as it is
described, became a local skirmish among petty princes
that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it
discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and almost
all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and
sages into fantacies and exaggerations.

This served a social, political and economical purpose of
domination, proving the superiority of Western culture
and religion. It made the Hindus feel that their culture
was not the great thing that their sages and ancestors
had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their
culture that its basis was neither historical nor
scientific. It made them feel that the main line of
civilization was developed first in the Middle East and
then in Europe and that the culture of India was
peripheral and secondary to the real development of world
culture.

Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but
merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars
did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did
in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the
Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan
invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological
but political and religious that is to say, not
scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have
been intentional but deep-seated political and religious
views easily cloud and blur our thinking.

It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been
questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though
Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus
today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally
Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them
and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role.
Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the
translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian
missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith,
MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians
accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history
done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism?
Universities in India also use the Western history books
and Western Vedic translations that propound such views
that denigrate their own culture and country.

The modern Western academic world is sensitive to
critisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to
take a stand against this biased interpretation of the
'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of
these historical ideas that can not stand objective
scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively
accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it
will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to
blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken
lightly, because how a culture is defined historically
creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the
modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not
in allowing a false view of one's own culture and
religion to be propagated without question. That is
merely self-betrayal.

References

1. "Atherva Veda" IX.5.4.

2. "Rig Veda" II.20.8 & IV.27.1.

3. "Rig Veda" VII.3.7; VII.15.14; VI.48.8; I.166.8;
I.189.2; VII.95.1.

4. S.R. Rao, "Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization",
Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 &
141.

5. Ibid, p. 158.

6. "Manu Samhita" II.17-18.

7. Note "Rig Veda" II.41.16; VI.61.8-13; I.3.12.

8. "Rig Veda" VII.95.2.

9. Studies from the post-graduate Research Institute of
Deccan College, Pune, and the Central Arid Zone Research
Institute (CAZRI), Jodhapur. Confirmed by use of MSS
(multi-spectral scanner) and Landsat Satellite
photography. Note MLBD Newsletter (Delhi, India: Motilal
Banarasidass), Nov. 1989. Also Sriram Sathe, "Bharatiya
Historiography", Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Hyderabad,
India, 1989, pp. 11-13.

10. "Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha", Indian National
Science Academy, Delhi, India, 1985, pp 12-13.

11. "Aitareya Brahmana", VIII.21-23; "Shatapat Brahmana",
XIII.5.4.

12. R. Griffith, "The Hymns of the Rig Veda", Motilal
Banarasidas, Delhi, 1976.

13. J. Shaffer, "The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural Myth
and Archeological Reality", from J. Lukas(Ed), 'The
people of South Asia', New York, 1984, p. 85.

14. T. Burrow, "The Proto-Indoaryans", Journal of Royal
Asiatic Society, No. 2, 1973, pp. 123-140.

15. G. R. Hunter, "The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro
and its connection with other scripts", Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co., London, 1934. J.E. Mitchiner,
"Studies in the Indus Valley Inscriptions", Oxford & IBH,
Delhi, India, 1978. Also the work of Subhash Kak as in "A
Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script", Cryptologia,
July 1988, Vol XII, No 3; "Indus Writing", The Mankind
Quarterly, Vol 30, No 1 & 2, Fall/Winter 1989; and "On
the Decipherment of the Indus Script A Preliminary Study
of its connection with Brahmi", Indian Journal of History
of Science, 22(1):51-62 (1987). Kak may be close to
deciphering the Indus Valley script into a Sanskrit like
or Vedic language.

16. J.F. Jarrige and R.H. Meadow, "The Antecedents of
Civilization in the Indus Valley", Scientific American,
August 1980.

17. C. Renfrew, "Archeology and Language", Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1987.

https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://preview.tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:26:30 PM UTC-5, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> Forwarded post:
>
> The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India
>
> By David Frawley
> Honored by the President of India with the Padma Bhushan,
> the third highest civilian award granted by the
> Government of India for "distinguished service of a high
> order to the nation."
>
> One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally
> devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of the
> Aryan invasion.

This, of course, is a lie, a lie endlessly repeated by Hindutvas who seek a
reason for their blinding hatred. Such ideas may have been "used" two centuries
ago. They are not now.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded post:

Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory

By Dr. Dinesh Agrawal

Aryan Race and Invasion Theory is not a subject of
academic interest only, rather it conditions our
perception of India's historical evolution, the sources
of her ancient glorious heritage, and indigenous socio-
economic-political institutions which have been developed
over the millennia. Consequently, the validity or
invalidity of this theory has an obvious and strong
bearing on the contemporary Indian political and social
landscape as well as the future of Indian nationalism.
The subject matter is as relevant today as it was a
hundred years ago when it was cleverly introduced in the
school text books by British rulers. The last couple of
decades have witnessed a growing interest among scholars,
social scientists, and many nationalist Indians in this
some what vapid and prosaic subject due to their aunguish
on the great damage this theory has wrought on the psyche
of the Indian society, and its tremendous contribution in
creating apparently lasting schism between the different
sections of the Hindu society. This subject must
especially and urgently interest to all those people who
are committed to the ideology of Hindutva, for one of the
primary and fundamental premises of Hindutva philosophy
lies in the fact that the Indian cultural nationalism has
been evolved and fostered over the millenia by our
ancient rishis who at the banks of holy rivers of
Saptasindhu had composed the Vedic literature - the very
foundation of Indian civilization, and realised the
eternal truth about the Creator, His creation, and means
to preserve it. The fact that these pioneers of the
ancient Vedic culture and hence the Hinduism were
indigenous people of mother India, is mendaciously denied
by the Aryan Invasion theory which professes their
foreign origin. If such a false theory is allowed to
perpetuate and given credence without any tenable and
reliable basis, the very raison d'etre of Hindutva is
endangered. In this essay, an attempt has been made to
expose the myth of Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) based on
scriptural, archaeological evidences and proper
interpretation of Vedic verses, and present the factual
situation of the ancient Vedic society and how it
progressed and evolved into all-embracing and catholic
principle, now known as Hindusim.

The Aryan issue is quite controversial and has been the
focus of historians, archaeologists, Indologists, and
sociologists for over a century. AIT is merely a proposed
'theory', and not a factual event. And theories keep
modifying, are discredited, nay even rejected with the
emergence of new knowledge and data pertaining to the
subject matter of the theories. The AIT can not be
accepted as Gospel truth knowing fully well its shaky and
dubious foundations, and now with the emergence of new
information and an objective analysis of the
archaeological data and scriptures, the validity of AIT
is seriously challenged and it stands totally untenable.
The most weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its
origin not in any Indian records (no where in any of the
ancient Indian scriptures or epics or Puranas, etc. is
there any mention of this AIT, sounds really
incredible!), but in European politics and German
nationalism of 19th century. AIT has no support either in
Indian literature, tradition, science, or not even in any
of the south Indian (Dravidians, inhabitants of south
India, who were supposed to be the victims of the so-
called Aryan invasion) literature and tradition. So a
product of European politics of the 19th century was
forced on Indian history only to serve the imperialist
policy of British colonialists to divide the Indian
society on ethnic and religious lines in order to
continue their reign on the one hand and accentuate the
religious aims of Christian missionaries on the other.
There is absolutely no reference in Indian traditions and
literature of an Aryan Invasion of Northern India, until
the British imperialists imposed this theory on an
unsuspecting and gullible Indian society and introduced
it to the school curriculum. The irony is that this is
still taught in our schools as an unmitigated truth, and
the authorities who set the curriculum of Indian history
books are not yet prepared to accept the verdict, and
make the amends. This is truly a shame! Now, more and
more evidence is emerging which not only challenges the
old myth of Aryan Invasion, but also is destroying all
the pillars on which the entire edifice of AIT had been
assiduously but cleverly built.

It is a known fact that most of the original proponents
of AIT were not historians or archaeologists but had
missionary and political axe to grind. Max Muller in fact
had been paid by the East India Company to further its
colonial aims, and others like Lassen and Weber were
ardent German nationalists, with hardly any authority or
knowledge on India, only motivated by the superiority of
German race/nationalism through white Aryan race theory.
And as everybody knows this eventually ended up in the
most calamitous event of 20th century: the World War II.
Even in the early times of the AIT's onward journey of
acceptability, there were numerous challengers like
C.J.H. Hayes, Boyed C. Shafer and Hans Kohn who made a
deep study of the evolution and character of nationalism
in Europe. They had exposed the unscientificness of many
of the budding social sciences which were utilized in the
19th century to create the myth of Aryan Race Theory.

In the last couple of decades, the discovery of the lost
track of the Rig Vedic river Saraswati, the excavation of
a chain of Harappan sites from Ropar in the Punjab to
Lothal and Dhaulavira in Gujarat all along this lost
track, the discovery of the archaeological remains of
Vedis (alters) and Yupas connected with Vedic Yajnas
(sacrifices) at Harrapan sites like Kalibangan,
decipherment of the Harappan/Indus script by many
scholars as a language belonging to Vedic Sanskrit
family, the view of the archaeologists like Prof. Dales,
Prof. Allchin etc. that the end of the Harappan
civilization came not because of the so called Aryan
invasion but as a result of a series of floods, the
discovery of the lost Dwarka city beneath the sea water
near Gujarat coast and its similarity with Harappan
civilization - all these new findings and an objective,
accurate and contextual interpretation of Vedas indicate
convincingly towards the full identity of the
Harappan/Indus civilization with post Vedic civilization,
and demand a re-examination of the entire gamut of Aryan
Race/Invasion Theories which have been forcefully pushed
down the throats of Indian society by some European
manipulators and Marxist historians all these years.

For thousands of years the Hindu society has looked upon
the Vedas as the fountainhead of all knowledge: spiritual
and secular, and the mainstay of Hindu culture, heritage
and its existence. Never our historical or religious
records have questioned this fact. Even western and far
eastern travellers who have documented their experiences
during their prolonged stay and sojourn in India have
testified the importance of Vedic literature and its
indigenous origin. And now, suddenly, in the last century
or so, these the so-called European scholars are
pontificating us that the Vedas do not belong to Hindus,
they were the creation of a barbaric horde of nomadic
tribes descended upon north India and destroyed an
advanced indigenous civilization. They even suggest that
the Sanskrit language is of non-Indian origin. This is
all absurd, preposterous, and defies the commonsense. A
nomadic, barbaric horde of invaders cannot from any
stretch of imagination produce the kind of sublime
wisdom, pure and pristine spiritual experiences of the
highest order, a universal philosophy of religious
tolerance and harmony for the entire mankind, one finds
in the Vedic literature.

Now let us examine the origin and the conditions in which
this historical fraud was concocted.

Max Muller, a renowned Indologist from Germany, is
credited with the popularization of the Aryan racial
theory in the middle of 19th century. Though later on
when Muller's reputation as a Sanskrit scholar was
getting damaged, and he was challenged by his peers,
since nowhere in the Sanskrit literature, the term Arya
denoted a racial people, he recanted and pronounced that
Aryan meant only a linguistic family and never applied to
a race. But the damage was already done. The German and
French political and nationalist groups exploited this
racial phenomenon to propagate the supremacy of an
assumed Aryan race of white people, which Hitler used to
its extreme absurdities for his barbaric crusade to
terrorize Jews and other societies. This culminated in
the holocaust of millions of innocent people. Though now
this racial nonsense has mostly been discarded in Europe,
but in India it is still being exploited and used to
divide and denigrate the Hindu society. Our aim is to
expose myth about AIT, and establish the truth of the
identity of the pioneers of the Vedic civilization and
set the historical events after the Vedic period in
proper perspective and in realistic time frame.

What, really, is the Aryan Invasion Theory?

According to this theory, northern India was invaded and
conquered by nomadic, light-skinned RACE of a people
called 'ARYANS' who descended from Central Asia (or some
unknown land ?) around 1500 BC, and destroyed an earlier
and more advanced civilization of the people habitated in
the Indus Valley and imposed upon them their culture and
language. These Indus Valley people were supposed to be
either Dravidian, or AUSTRICS or now--days' Shudra class
etc.

The main elements on which the entire structure of AIT
has been built are: Arya is a racial group, their
invasion, they were nomadic, light-skinned, their
original home was outside India, their invasion occurred
around 1500 BC, they destroyed an advanced civilization
of Indus valley, etc. And what are the evidences AIT
advocates present in support of all these wild
conjectures:

o Invasion: Mention of Conflicts in Vedic literature,
findings of skeletons at the excavated sites of
Mohanjodro and Harappa

o Nomadic, Light-skinned: Pure conjecture and
misinterpretation of Vedic hymns.

o Non-Aryan/Dravidian Nature of Indus civilization:
absence of horse, Shiva worshippers, chariots, Racial
differences, etc.

o Date of Invasion, 1500 BC: Arbitrary and speculative,
in Mesopotamia and Iraq the presence of the people
worshipping Vedic gods around 1700BC, Biblical
chronology.

Major Flaws in the Aryan Invasion Theory

A major flaw of the invasion theory was that it had no
explanation for why the Vedic literature that was assumed
to go back into the second millennium BC had no reference
to any region outside of India. Also the astronomical
references in the Rig Veda allude to events in the third
millennium BC and even earlier, indicating origin ofVedic
hymns earlier than 3000BC. The contributions of the Vedic
world to philosophy, mathematics, logic, astronomy,
medicine and other sciences provide one of the
foundations on which rests the common heritage of
mankind, is well recognized but cannot be reconciled if
Vedas were composed after 1500BC. Further, if it is
assumed that the so-called Aryans invaded the townships
in the Harappa valley and destroyed its habitants and
their civilization, how come after doing that they did
not occupy these towns? The excavations of these sites
indicate that the townships were abandoned. And if the
Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were
allegedly pushed down to the south by Aryans, how come
there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide in the respective
literatures and historical traditions. The North and
South have never been known to be culturally hostile to
each other. Prior to the descent of British on Indian
scene, there was a continuous interaction and cultural
exchange between the two regions. The Sanskrit language,
the so-called Aryan language was the lingua-franca of the
entire society for thousands of years. The three greatest
figures of later Hinduism - Shankaracharya, Madhavacharya
and Ramanujam were Southerners who are universally
respected in the North, and who have written commentaries
on Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit only for the benefit of
the entire population. Even in the ancient times some of
the great Sutra authors like Baudhayana and Apastamba
were from South. Agastya, a celebrated Vedic rishi, is
widely venerated in the South as the one who introduced
Vedic learning to the South India. And also was the South
India un-inhabitated prior to the pushing of the original
population of Indus Valley? If not, who were the original
inhabitants of South India, who accepted the newcomers
without any hostility or fight?

There is enough positive evidence in support of the
religious rites of the Harappans being similar to those
of the Vedic Aryans. Their religious motifs, deities and
sacrificial altars bespeak of Aryan faith, indicating
continuity and identity of Vedic culture with the Indus
valley civilization.

If the Aryan Hindus were outsiders, why don't they name
places outside India as their most holy places? Why
should they sing paeans in the praise of India's numerous
rivers crisscrossing the entire peninsula, and mountains
- repositories of life giving water and natural
resources, nay even bestow them a status of goddesses and
gods. If Aryans were outsiders why should they consider
this land as the 'holy land' and not their original land
as the 'holy land' or motherland? For the Muslims, their
holy placeis Mecca. For the Catholics it is Rome or
Jerusalem. For the Hindus, their pilgrim centers range
from Kailash in the North, to Rameshwaram in the South;
and from Hingalaj (Sindh) in the West to Parusuram Kund
(Arunchala Pradesh) in the East. The seven holy cities of
Hinduism include Kanchipurum in the south, Dwaraka in the
west and Ujjain in central India. The twelve jyotirlings
include Ramashwaram in Tamil Nadu, Srisailam in Andhra
Pradesh, Nashik in Maharashtra, Somnath in Gujarat and
Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. All these are located in greater
India only. No Hindu from any part of India has felt a
stranger in any other part of India when on a pilgrimage.
The seven holy rivers in Hinduism, indeed, seem to chart
out the map of the holy land. The Sindhu and the
Saraswati (now extinct) originating from the Himalayas
and move westward and southwards into the western sea;
the Ganga and the Yamuna also start in the Himalayas and
move eastward into the north-eastern sea; the Narmada
starts in central India and the Godavari starts in
western India, while the Kaveri winds its way through the
south to move into the southern sea. More than a thousand
years ago, Adi Shankaracharya, who was born in Kerala,
established several mathas (religious and spiritual
centers) including at Badrinath in the north (UP), Puri
in the east (Orissa), Dwaraka in the west (Gujarat), and
at Shringeri and Kanchi in the south. That is India, that
is Bharat, that is Hinduism.

These are some of the obvious serious objections,
inconsistencies, and glaring anomalies to which the
invasionists have no convincing or plausible explanations
which could reconcile the above facts with the Aryan
invasion theory and destruction of Indus Valley
civilization.

Now let us examine the facts about the so-called
evidences in support of AIT:

1. Real Meaning of the word Arya

In 1853, Max Muller introduced the word 'Arya' into the
English and European usage as applying to a racial and
linguistic group when propounding the Aryan Racial
theory. However, in 1888, he himself refuted his own
theory and wrote:

"I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I
mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean
simply those who speak an Aryan language... to me an
ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan
eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who
speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a
brachycephalic grammar." (Max Muller, Biographies of
Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120).

In Vedic Literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in
connection with either race or language. Instead it
refers to: gentleman, good-natured, righteous person,
noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before
the name of a person like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc.

In Ramayan (Valmiki), Rama is described as an Arya in the
following words: Arya - who cared for the equality to all
and was dear to everyone.

Etymologically, according to Max Muller, the word Arya
was derived from ar-, "plough, to cultivate". Therefore,
Arya means - "cultivator" agriculturer (civilized
sedentary, as opposed to nomads and hunter-gatherers),
landlord;

V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionary relates the word
Arya to the root r-,to which a prefix a has been appended
to give a negating meaning. And therefore the meaning of
Arya is given as "excellent, best", followed by
"respectable" and as a noun, "master, lord, worthy,
honorable, excellent", upholder of Arya values, and
further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law,
friend, Buddha.

So nowhere either in the religious scriptures or by
tradition the word Arya denotes a race or language. To
impose such a meaning on this epithet is an absolute
intellectual dishonesty, deliberate falsification of the
facts, and deceptive-scholarship. There are only four
primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mangolian, the
Australians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and
Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race
generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch.
The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north
and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of
Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically
all are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the
equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of
constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little
smaller. And these differences can not be the basis of
two altogether different races. Similar differences one
can observe even more distinctly among the people of pure
Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any
color ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with
every shade of brown in between. Similarly, the Mongolian
race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than
many so-called Caucasians. Further, a recent landmark
global study in population genetics by a team of
internationally reputed scientists over 50 years (The
History and Geography of Human Genes, by Luca Cavalli-
Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, Princeton
University Press) reveals that the people habitated in
the Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all
belong to one single race of Caucasion type. According to
this study, there is essentially, and has been no
difference racially between north Indians and the so-
called Dravidian South Indians. The racial composition
has remained almost the same for millennia. This study
also confirms that there is no race called as an Aryan
race.

2. The voluminous references to various wars and
conflicts in Rigveda are frequently cited as the proof of
an invasion and wars between invading white-skinned
Aryans and dark-skinned indigenous people. Well, the so-
called conflicts and wars mentioned in the Rigveda can be
categorized mainly in the following three types:

A. Conflicts between the forces of nature: Indra, the
Thunder-God of the Rig Veda, occupies a central position
in the naturalistic aspects of the Rigvedic religion,
since it is he who forces the clouds to part with their
all-important wealth, the rain. In this task he is pitted
against all sorts of demons and spirits whose main
activity is the prevention of rainfall and sunshine.
Rain, being the highest wealth, is depicted in terms of
more terrestrial forms of wealth, such as cows or soma.
The clouds are depicted in terms of their physical
appearance: as mountains, as the black abodes of the
demons who retain the celestial waters of the heavens
(i.e. the rains), or as the black demons themselves. This
is in no way be construed as the war between white Aryans
and black Dravidians. This is a perverted interpretation
from those who have not understood the meaning and
purport of the Vedic culture and philosophy. Most of the
verses which mention the wars/conflicts are composed
using poetic imagery, and depict the celestial battles of
the natural forces, and often take greater and greater
recourse to terrestrial terminology and anthropomorphic
depictions. The descriptions acquire an increasing
tendency to shift from naturalism to mythology. And it is
these mythological descriptions which are grabbed at by
invasion theorists as descriptions of wars between
invading Aryans and indigenous non-Aryans. An example of
such distorted interpretation is made of the following
verse:

The body lay in the midst of waters that are neither
still nor flowing. The waters press against the secret
opening of the Vrtra (the coverer) who lay in deep
darkness whose enemy is Indra. Mastered by the enemy, the
waters held back like cattle restrained by a trader.
Indra crushed the vrtra and broke open the withholding
outlet of the river. (Rig Veda, I.32.10-11)

This verse is a beautiful poetic and metamorphical
description of snow-clad dark mountains where the life-
sustaining water to feed the rivers flowing in the
Aryavarta is held by the hardened ice caps (vrtra demon)
and Indra, the rain god by allowing the sun to light its
rays on the mountains makes the ice caps break and hence
release the water. The invasionists interpret this verse
literally on human plane, as the slaying of vrtra, the
leader of dark skinned Dravidian people of Indus valley
by invading white-skinned Aryan king Indra. This is an
absurd and ludicrous interpretation of an obvious
conflict between the natural forces.

B. Conflict between Vedic and Iranian people: Another
category of conflicts in the Rigveda represents the
genuine conflict between the Vedic people and the
Iranians. At one time Iranians and Vedic people formed
one society and were living harmoniously in the northern
part of India practising Vedic culture, but at some point
in the history for some serious philosophical dispute,
the society got divided and one section moved to further
north-west, now known as Iran. However, the conflict and
controversy were continued between the two groups often
resulting into even physical fights. The Iranians not
only called their God Ahura (Vedic Asura) and their
demons Daevas (Vedic Devas), but they also called
themselves Dahas and Dahyus (Vedic Dasas, and Dasyus).
The oldest Iranian texts, moreover depict the conflicts
between the daeva-worshippers and the Dahyus on behalf of
the Dahyus, as the Vedic texts depict them on behalf of
the Deva-worshippers. Indra, the dominant God of the
Rigveda, is represented in the Iranian texts by a demon
Indra. What this all indicate that wars or conflicts of
this second category are not between Aryans and non-
Aryans, but between two estranged groups of the same
parent society which got divided by some philosophical
dichotomy. Vedas even mention the gods of Dasyus as Arya
also.

C. Conflicts between various indigenous tribal groups
over natural resources and various minor kingdoms to gain
supremacy over the land and its expansion: A global
phenomenon known to share the natural resources like,
water, cattle, vegetation and land, and expand the
geographical boundaries of the existing kingdoms. This
conflict in no way suggests any war or invasion by
outsiders on the indigenous people.

3. It is argued that in the excavations at Harappa and
Mohenjo-daro the human skeletons found do prove that a
massacre had taken place at these townships by invading
armies of Aryan nomads. Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head of
department of Southasean Archaeology and Anthropology,
Berkeley University, USA) in his "The Mythical Massacre
at Mohenjo-daro, Expedition Vol VI,3: 1964 states the
following about this evidence:

What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such
undeserved importance? Nine years of extensive
excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) - a city of three
miles in circuit - yielded the total of some 37
skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with
some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations.
Some of these were found in contorted positions and
groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many
are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all
found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the
residential district. Not a single body was found within
the area of the fortified citadel where one could
reasonably expect the final defence of this thriving
capital city to have been made.

He further questions: Where are the burned fortresses,
the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armour, the smashed
chariots and bodies of in the invaders and defenders?
Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan
sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be
brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest
and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan
invasion.

Colin Renfrew, Prof. of Archeology at Cambridge, in his
famous work, "Archeology and Language : The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988,
makes the following comments about the real meaning and
interpretation of Rig Vedic hymns:

"Many scholars have pointed out that an enemy quite
frequently smitten in these hymns is the Dasyu. The
Dasyus have been thought by some commentators to
represent the original, non-Vedic-speaking population of
the area, expelled by the incursion of the war like Aryas
in their war-chariots. As far as I can see there is
nothing in the Hymns of the Rigveda which demonstrates
that the Vedic-speaking population were intrusive to the

area: this comes rather from a historical assumption

about the 'coming' of the Indo-Europeans. It is certainly
true that the gods invoked do aid the Aryas by over-
throwing forts, but this does not in itself establish
that the Aryas had no forts themselves. Nor does the
fleetness in battle, provided by horses (who were clearly
used primarily for pulling chariots), in itself suggest
that the writers of these hymns were nomads. Indeed the
chariot is not a vehicle especially associated with
nomads. This was clearly a heroic society, glorifying in
battle. Some of these hymns, though repetitive, are very
beautiful pieces of poetry, and they are not by any means
all warlike.

..When Wheeler speaks of the Aryan invasion of the Land
of the Seven Rivers, the Punjab', he has no warranty at

all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen

references in the Rigveda to the Seven Rivers, there is
nothing in any of them that to me which implies an
invasion: the land of the Seven Rivers is the land of the
Rigveda, the scene of the action. Nothing implies that
the Aryas were strangers there. Nor is it implied that

the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the

Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryas
themselves. Most of the references, indeed, are very
general ones such as the beginning of the Hymn to Indra
(Hymn 102 of Book 9).

To thee the Mighty One I bring this mighty Hymn, for thy
desire hath been gratified by my praise. In Indra, yea in
him victorious through his strength, the Gods have joyed
at feast, and when the Soma flowed.

The Seven Rivers bear his glory far and wide, and heaven
and sky and earth display his comely form. The Sun and
Moon in change alternate run their course that we, O
Indra, may behold and may have faith . . .

The Rigveda gives no grounds for believing that the Aryas
themselves lacked for forts, strongholds and citadels.
Recent work on the decline of the Indus Valley
civilization shows that it did not have a single, simple
cause: certainly there are no grounds for blaming its
demise upon invading hordes. This seems instead to have
been a system collapse, and local movements of people may
have followed it."

M.S. Elphinstone (1841): (first governor of Bombay
Presidency, 1819-27) in his magnum opus, History of
India, writes:

Hindu scripture.... "It is opposed to their (Hindus)
foreign origin, that neither in the Code (of Manu) nor, I
believe, in the Vedas, nor in any book that is certainly
older than the code, is there any allusion to a prior
residence or to a knowledge of more than the name of any
country out of India. Even mythology goes no further than
the Himalayan chain, in which is fixed the habitation of
the gods...

..To say that it spread from a central point is an
unwarranted assumption, and even to analogy; for,
emigration and civilization have not spread in a circle,
but from east to west. Where, also, could the central
point be, from which a language could spread over India,
Greece, and Italy and yet leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia
untouched?

And, Elphinstone's final verdict:

There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus
ever inhabitated any country but their present one, and
as little for denying that they may have done so before
the earliest trace of their records or tradition.

So what these eminent scholars have concluded based on
the archaeological and literary evidence that there was
no invasion by the so-called Aryans, there was no
massacre at Harappan and Mohanjo-dara sites, Aryans were
indigenous people, and the decline of the Indus valley
civilization is due to some natural calamity.

4. Presence of Horse at Indus-Saraswati sites

It is argued that the Aryans were horse riding, used
chariots for transport, and since no signs of horse was
found at the sites of Harappa and Mohanjo-daro, the
habitants of Indus valley cannot be Aryans. Well, this
was the case in the 1930-40 when the excavation of many
sites were not completed. Now numerous excavated sites
along Indus valley and along the dried Saraswati river
have produced bones of domesticated horses. Dr. SR Rao,
the world renowned scholar of archeology, informs us that
horse bones have been found both from the 'Mature
Harappan' and 'Late Harappan' levels. Many other scholars
since then have also unearthed numerous bones of horses:
both domesticated and combat types. This simply debunks
the non-Aryan nature of the habitants of the Indus valley
and also identifies the Vedic culture with the Indus
valley civilization.

5. Origin of Siva-worship

The advocates of AIT argue that the inhabitants of Indus
valley were Siva worshippers and since Siva cult is more
prevalent among the South Indian Dravidians, therefore
the habitants of Indus valley were Dravidians. But Shiva
worship is not alien to Vedic culture, and not confined
to South India only. The words Siva and Shambhu are not
derived from the Tamil words civa (to redden, to become
angry) and cembu (copper, the red metal), but from the
Sanskrit roots si (therefore meaning "auspicious,
gracious, benevolent, helpful kind") and sam (therefore
meaning "being or existing for happiness or welfare,
granting or causing happiness, benevolent, helpful,
kind"), and the words are used in this sense only, right
from their very first occurrence. (Sanskrit- English
Dictionary by Sir M. Monier-Williams).

Moreover, most important symbols of Shaivites are located
in North India: Kashi is the most revered and auspicious
seat of Shaivism which is in the north, the traditional
holy abode of Shiva is Kailash mountain which is in the
far-north, there are passages in Rigvada which mention
Siva and Rudra and consider him an important deity. Indra
himself is called Shiva several times in Rig Veda
(2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). So Siva is not a Dravidian god
only, and by no means a non-Vedic god. The proponents of
AIT also present terra-cotta lumps found in the fire-
alters at the Harappan and other sites as an evidence of
Shiva linga, implying the Shiva cult was prevalent among
the Indus valley people. But these terra-cotta lumps have
been proved to be the measures for weighing the
commodities by the shopkeepers and merchants. Their
weights have been found in perfect integral ratios, in
the manner like 1 gm, 2 gms, 5 gms, 10 gms etc. They were
not used as the Shiva lingas for worship, but as the
weight measurements.

6. Discovery of the Submerged city of Krishna's Dwaraka

The discovery of this city is very significant and a kind
of clinching evidence in discarding the Aryan invasion as
well as its proposed date of 1500BC. Its discovery not
only establishes the authenticity of Mahabharat war and
the main events described in the epic, but clinches the
traditional antiquity of Mahabharat and Ramayana periods.
So far the AIT advocates used to either dismiss the
Mahabharat epic as a fictional work of a highly talented
poet or would place it around 1000 BC. But the remains of
this submerged city along the coast of Gujarat were dated
3000BC to 1500BC. In Mahabharat's Musal Parva, the Dwarka
is mentioned as being gradually swallowed by the ocean.
Krishna had forewarned the residents of Dwaraka to vacate
the city before the sea submerged it. The Sabha Parva
gives a detailed account of Krishna's flight from Mathura
with his followers to Dwaraka to escape continuous
attacks of Jarasandh's on Mathura and save the lives of
its subjects. For this reason, Krishna is also known as
RANCHHOR (one who runs away from the battle-field). Dr.
SR Rao and his team in 1984-88 (Marine Archaeology Unit)
undertook an extensive search of this city along the
coast of Gujarat where the Dwarikadeesh temple stands
now, and finally they succeeded in unearthing the ruins
of this submerged city off the Gujarat coast.

7. Saraswati River Discovered

It is well known that in the Rig Veda, the honor of the
greatest and the holiest of rivers was not bestowed upon
the Ganga, but upon Saraswati, now a dry river, but once
a mighty flowing river all the way from the Himalayas to
the ocean across the Rajasthan desert. The Ganga is
mentioned only once while the Saraswati is mentioned at
least 60 times. Extensive research by the late Dr.
Wakankar has shown that the Saraswati changed her course
several times, going completely dry around 1900 BC. The
latest satellite data combined with field archaeological
studies have shown that the Rig Vedic Saraswati had
stopped being a perennial river long before 3000 BC.

As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed,
"...we now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-
French expedition that when the proto-historic people
settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for
a long time."

The proto-historic people he refers to are the early
Harappans of 3000 BC. But satellite 'photos show that a
great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide
did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was
the Saraswati described in the Rig Veda. Numerous
archaeological sites have also been located along the
course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming
Vedic accounts. The great Saraswati that flowed "from the
mountain to the sea" is now seen to belong to a date long
an terior to 3000 BC. This means that the Rig Veda
describes the geography of North India long before 3000
BC. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have been in
existence no later than 3500 BC. (Aryan Invasion of
India: The Myth and the Truth By N.S. Rajaram)

River Saraswati IN RIGVEDA

The river called Saraswati is the most important of the
rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda. The image of this
'great goddess stream' dominates the text. It is not only
the most sacred river but the Goddess of wisdom. She is
said to be the Mother of the Veda.

A few Rig Vedic hymns which mention Saraswati river are
presented below:

ambitame naditame devitame sarasvati (II.41.16)

(The best mother, the best river, the best Goddess,
Saraswati)

maho arnah saraswati pra cetayati ketuna dhiyo visva
virajati (I.3.12)

(Saraswati like a great ocean appears with her ray, she
rules all inspirations)

ni tva dadhe vara a prthivya ilayspade sudinatve ahnam:

drsadvatyam manuse apayayam sarasvatyam revad agne didhi
(III.23.4)

(We set you down, oh sacred fire, at the most holy place
on Earth, in the land of Ila, in the clear brightness of
the days. On the Drishadvati, the Apaya and the Saraswati
rivers, shine out brilliantly for men)

citra id raja rajaka id anyake sarasvatim anu;

parjanya iva tatanadhi vrstya sahasram ayuta dadat
(VIII.21.18)

(Splendor is the king, all others are princes, who dwell
along the Saraswati river. Like the Rain God extending
with rain he grants a thousand times ten thousand cattle)

Saraswati like a bronze city: ayasi puh;

surpassing all other rivers and waters: visva apo mahina
sindhur anyah;

pure in her course from the mountains to the sea: sucir
yati girbhya a samudrat (VII.95.1-2)

All this indicates that the composers of the Vedic
literature were quite familiar with the Saraswati river,
and were inspired by its beauty and its vasteness that
they composed several hymns in her praise and
glorification. This also indicates that the Vedas are
much older than Mahabharat period which mentions
Saraswati as a dying river.

8. Decipherment of Indus Script

Dr. SR Rao, who has deciphered the Indus script, is an
ex-head of Archaeological Survey of India, a renowned
Marine archaeologist, has been studying archeology since
1948 and has discovered and excavated numerous Indus
sites. He has authored several monumental works on
Harappan civilization and Indus script. To summarize his
method of decipherment of Indus script, he assigned to
each Indus basic letter the same sound-value as the West
Asian letter which closely resembled it. After assigning
these values to the Indus letters, he proceeded to try to
read the inscriptions on the Indus seals. The language
that emerged turned out to be an "Aryan" one belonging to
Sanskrit family. The people who resided at Harappa,
Mohenjo-Daro, and other sites were culturally Aryan is
thus confirmed by the decipherment of the Harappan script
and its identity with Sanskrit family. The Harappa
culture was a part of a continuing evolution of the Vedic
culture which had developed on the banks of Saraswati
river. And it should be rightly termed as Vedic-Saraswati
civilization.

Among the many words yielded by Dr. Rao's decipherment
are the numerals aeka, tra, chatus, panta, happta/sapta,
dasa, dvadasa and sata (1,3,4,5,7, 10,100) and the names
of Vedic personalities like Atri, Kasyapa, Gara, Manu,
Sara, Trita, Daksa, Druhu, Kasu, and many common Sanskrit
words like, apa (water), gatha, tar (savior), trika, da,
dyau (heaven), dashada, anna (food), pa(protector), para
(supreme), maha, mahat, moks, etc.

While the direct connection between the late Indus script
(1600 BC) and the Brahmi script could not be definitely
established earlier, more and more inscriptions have been
found all over the country in the last few years, dating
1000 BC, 700 BC, and so on, which have bridged the gap
between the two. Now it is evident that the Brahmi script
evolved directly from the Indus script. (Sources:
Decipherment of the Indus Script, Dawn and Development of
Indus Civilization, Lothal and the Indus Civilization,
all by S. R. Rao)

9 New Archaeological findings

Since the first discovery of buried townships of Harappa
and Mohenjo-Daro on the Ravi and Sindhu rivers in 1922,
respectively, numerous other settlements, now number over
2500 stretching from Baluchistan to the Ganga and beyond
and down to Tapti valley, covering nearly a million and
half square kilometers, have been unearthed by various
archaeologists. And, the fact which was not known 70
years ago, but archaeologists now know, is that about 75%
of these settlements are concentrated not along the
Sindhu or even the Ganga, but along the now dried up
Saraswati river. This calamity - the drying up of the
Saraswati - and not any invasion was what led to the
disruption and abandonment of the settlements along
Saraswati river by the people who lived a Vedic life. The
drying up of the Saraswati river was a catastrophe of the
vast magnitude, which led to a massive outflow of people,
especially the elite, went into Iran, Mesopotamia and
other neighboring regions. Around the same time (2000-
1900 BC), there were constant floods or/and prolonged
draughts along the Sindhu river and its tributaries which
forced the inhabitants of the Indus valley to move to
other safer and greener locations, and hence a slow but
continuous migration of these highly civilized and
prosperous Vedic people took place. Some of them moved to
south east, and some to north west, and even towards
European regions. For the next thousand years and more,
dynasties and rulers with Indian names appear and
disappear all over the West Asia confirming the migration
of people from East towards West. There was no
destruction of an existing civilization or invasion by
any racial nomads of any kind to cause the destruction or
abandonment of these settlements.

10. Chronology of the pre-historic period of India

According to the invasionists, the Indian civilization or
the Indus Valley civilization is only 4000-5000 years
old. They place the end of this civilization around
1900BC, and invasion of Aryans around 1500BC. There is
also no plausible explanation from these invasion
advocates for a gap of 400 years between the end of the
Indus Valley civilization (IVC) and the appearance of
Aryans on the Indian scene if Aryans were responsible for
the destruction of the IVC. They propose the period of
1400-1300 BC as the beginning of the Vedic age when the
Vedas were composed and Aryans began to impose their
culture and religion on the indigenous population of the
northern India. The Ramayana and Mahabharat, if
considered as real events, must be according to them
arbitr- arily be dated in the period 1200-1000BC. And
only after 1000BC, the historic accounts of empire
building, Buddha's birth etc. have to be dated. This
chronology first proposed by Max Muller was primarily
based on his firm belief in the Biblical date of the
creation of the world, i.e. October 23, 4004 BC. Such
chronology contradicts all the archaeological evidences,
scriptural testimonies, traditional beliefs, and most
importantly defies the commonsense and scientific method.
Therefore, based on Vedic testimonies, Puranic
references, archaeological evidences, and all the
accounts presented here above, the most realistic and
accurate chronological events of the pre-historic period
of India should be fixed as follows:

o Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BC

o End of Rig Vedic Age - 3750 BC

o End of Ramayana - Mahabharat Period - 3000 BC

o Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-
2000 BC

o Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-
1900 BC

o Period of Complete chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BC

o Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400
- 250 BC

David Frawley's Paradox

The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse
archaeological records over a vast region - from the
borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and
Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million
people and believed to be living an advanced
civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely
no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans
and their successors on the other hand have left us a
literature that is probably the largest and most profound
in the world. But according to the AIT there is
absolutely no archaeological record that they ever
existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its
boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of
a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of
years that left no literature, and a huge literature by
the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no
archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd
when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and
literary records indicating a substantial movement of
Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around
2000 BC.

So, how can all these obvious anomalies and serious flaws
be reconciled? By accepting the truth that the so-called
Aryans were the original people habitants of the
townships along the Indus, Ravi, Saraswati and other
rivers of the vast northern region of the Indian
subcontinent. And no invasion by nomadic hordes from
outside India ever occurred and the civilization was not
destroyed but the population simply moved to other areas,
and developed a new syncretic civilization and culture by
mutual interaction and exchange of ideas.

The Vedic seers in Vedic literature have proclaimed and
practiced the following all-embracing, catholic, and
harmonious principles for a peaceful coexistence of
various communities. How can such people be accused of
annihilater of a civilization, murderer of innocent
people, and destroying large number of cities?

ahm bhumimdadamaryam (Rgveda)

Creater declares: I have bestowed this land to Aryas.

Kirnvanto Vishwaryam (Rgveda)

Make the entire world noble.

Aa na bhadra katavo yanto vishwatah (Rgveda)

Let noble thoughts come from all sides.

Mata Bhumih putro ham prithvyah (Atharv veda)

Earth is my mother, and I am her son.

Vasudeva kutumbubakam

The entire universe is one family.

Consequences of the Aryan Invasion Theory in Context of
India

o It serves to divide artificially India into a northern

Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made

hostile to each other by various interested parties: A
major source of social tension in south Indian states.

o It gave an easy excuse to the Britishers to justify
their conquest over India as well as validating the
various conquests and mayhems of invading armies of
religious fanatics from Arab lands and central Asia. The
argument goes that they were doing only what Aryan

ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago

to the indigenous population.

o As a corollary, the theory makes Vedic culture later
than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures,
especially the Greek culture: An absurd proposition.

o Since the identification of Christianity and the
Middle Eastern cultures, the Hindu religion and Indian
civilization are considered as a sidelight to the
development of religion and civilization in the west: A
deliberate and dishonest undermining of the antiquity and
the greatness of the ancient Indian culture.

o It allows the science of India to be given a Greek

basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the

primitive nature of the Vedic culture: In fact the
opposite is true.

o If the theory of Aryan invasion and its proposed
period were true, this discredited not only the Vedas but
the genealogies of the Puranas, and all the kings
mentioned in these scriptures including Lord Krishna,
Rama, Buddha etc. would become as fictional characters
with no historical basis: Which simply means disowning
and discarding the very basis and raison de'etre of the
Hindu civilization.

o The Mahabharat, instead of being a civil war of global
proportion in which all the main kings of India
participated as is described in the epic, would be
dismissed as a local skirmish among petty princes that

was later exaggerated by poets.

o In other words, the Aryan Invasion Theory invalidates
and discredits the most Hindu traditions and almost all
its vast and rich literary and civilizational heritage.
It turns its scriptures and sages into fantasies and
exaggerations.

o On the basis of this theory, the propaganda by the
Macaulayists was made that there was nothing great in the
Hindu culture and their ancestors and sages. And most
Hindus fell for this devious plan. It made Hindus feel
ashamed of their culture - that its basis was neither
historical nor scientific, the Vedas were the work of
nomadic shepherds and not the divine revelations or
eternal truth perceived by the rishis during their
spiritual journey, and hence there is nothing to feel
proud about India's past, nothing to be proud of being
Hindu.

In short such a view and this concocted Aryan Invasion
theory by a few European historians in order to prove the
supremacy of Christianity and Western civilization,
served (and still serving) the purpose: 'divide and
conquer the Hindus'.

Swami Vivekananda on Aryan Invasion Theory

"Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-
eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the
Lord knows where. According to some, they came from
Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from
Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think
that the Aryans were all red haired. Others, according to
their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the
writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were
all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to
prove that the Aryans lived on Swiss lake. I should not
be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and
all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord
bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for as the
truth of these theories, there is notone word in our
scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from
anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was
included Afghanistan. There it ends..."

"And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non-Aryans
and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and
irrational. It could not have been possible in those days
that a few Aryans settled and lived there with a hundred
thousand slaves at their command. The slaves would have
eaten them up, made chutney of them in five minutes. The
only explanation is to be found in the Mahabharat, which
says that in the beginning of the Satya Yoga there was
only one caste, the Brahmins, and then by differences of
occupations they went on dividing themselves into
different castes, and that is the only true and rational
explanation that has been given. And in the coming Satya
Yuga all other castes will have to go back to the same
condition." (The Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda,
Vol.III Page 293.)

So, What are the facts? Now, based on what has been
presented above, following facts about an ancient and
glorious period of India clearly emerge:

1. The Aryan Invasion and Racial theories, and Aryan-
Dravidian conflicts are a 19th century fabrication by
some European scholar. They are being exploited even now
for political reasons.

2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed
by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.

3. The language of the Indus script is related to
Sanskrit, the language of Vedas.

4. The Indus valley civilization should be aptly called
as Saraswati Vedic civilization, as the new evidences and
right interpretation of the archaeological findings
indicate.

5. There is now strong evidence that the movement of the
ancient Aryan people was from east to west, and this is
how the European languages have strong association and
origin in the Vedic Sanskrit language.

6. The ending of Indus Valley and the Saraswati
civilization was due to the constant floods and drought
in the Indus area and the drying up of the Saraswati
river. This had caused a massive emigration of the
habitants to safer and interior areas of the Indian
subcontinent and even towards the west.

7. There was no destruction of the civilization in the
Indus valley due to any invasion of any barbaric hordes.

8. The Vedic literature has no mention of any invasion or
destruction of a civilization.

9. There is no evidence in any of the literature which
indicate any Aryan-Dravidian or North-South divide, they
were never culturally hostile to each other.

10. The population living in the Indus valley and
surrounding the dried up Saraswati river practiced the
Vedic culture and religion.

References

Most of the material presented above has been taken from
the following books.

1. The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism
(1993) By Shrikant G. Talageri (Voice of India)

2. The Astronomical Code of India (1992) By Subhash Kak

3. Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization (1995) By
N.S. Rajaram and David Frawley (World Heritage Press)

4. Aryan Invasion of India: The Myth and the Truth By
N.S. Rajaram (Voice of India Publication)

5. Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar (1993) By
Koenraad Elst

6. New Light on The Aryan Problem: Manthan Oct. 1994
(Journal of Deendayal Research Institute)

7. Dawn and Development of the Indus Civilization (1991)
By S.R. Rao (Aditya Prakashan)

Dinesh Agrawal
2500 Buchenhorst Road, State College, PA 16801 USA

https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_agrawal.html

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://is.gd/jyotishi

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:23:47 PM UTC-5, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded post:
>
> Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory
>
> By Dr. Dinesh Agrawal
>
> Aryan Race and Invasion Theory is not a subject of
> academic interest only, rather it conditions our
> perception of India's historical evolution

That's the problem innit. They obsess on something no one else has heard of.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Continues:

[Dingbat]

Europeans have heard of IE speakers coming to Europe and replacing its
languages. How does this affect Europeans? Why aren't there European
chauvinists who claim that their own language couldn't have come from
elsewhere?

[Peter T. Daniels]

The case would be parallel if it were Dravidian-speakers (saving your Worship)
complaining about Aryan imperialism (or Basque-speakers complaining about IE
imperialism), but the "AIT" obsession makes no sense at all.

Hm. I just noticed this one has changed it to "ARIT." I'm even gladder I didn't
try reading what followed.

[Arindam Banerjee]

unconvincingly
>
> https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4541

"But, quite obviously, ancient atomic weapons are unimaginably inconsistent with human history. A huge number of skills are required to make them that did not exist, as well as a lot of physics knowledge known to be totally incompatible with the primitive knowledge the ancient Indians recorded."

Aliens coming to us from the distant "heavens" should have far better science
and technology that we now possess. The alien factor is not considered in the
"debunking".

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Janet

[Arindam Banerjee]

The video is there on youtube as per the link. It is not the only video.
Plenty of artifacts have been lifted, how long all this can be ignored by the
international media is the question.

[Arindam Banerjee]

They know when their existing language replaced earlier ones.

[Arindam Banerjee]

The debunking of AIT restores the Indian tradition as per the ancient texts, so
they cannot be dismissed as resulting from the smoke of opium, as was
often heard by me from my left-wing elders in the 1960-70s.

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/11/17 02:52, Lewis wrote:

> Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is*not* PIE?

It's not accepted by some cranks.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > > sure none of them have been convincing/
> >

> > Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
>

> PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> IndoEuropean languages.
>

> > If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > then post is likely.
>

> IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.

No, PIE could be like Pali or Dravidian - post Sanskrit (including the
original Vedic texts).

>
> > These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a

> > nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive
> > levels are still high.
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 4:13:27 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+5:30, Lewis wrote:
> > Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > >> > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > >> > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > >> > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > >> > sure none of them have been convincing/
> > >>
> > >> Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
> >
> > > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > > IndoEuropean languages.
> >
> > >> If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > >> then post is likely.
> >
> > > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
> >
> > Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is *not* PIE?
>
> The hypothetical contingency that Sanksrit is PIE is purely for the
> purpose of illustrating to Arindam what PIE means, not for the purpose
> of asserting that Sanskrit is PIE. As for your question, the answer is
> that Arindam's coterie doesn't accept that Sanskrit is not PIE.

I don't know what my coterie may be according to one dingbat. I cannot speak
for any coterie. What I think is that if PIE ever existed then it would be a
prakrit like Pali. Very likely, Aryans emigrated out of India and their
Sanskrit turned into PIE which in turn led to the European languages.

>
> > >> These days they say that Mohenj-daro was blasted by a
> > >> nuke. Apparently they found vitrified rock there and the radioactive
> > >> levels are still high.
> >
> > > Who says it was blasted by a nuke?
> >
> > Nutters.
> >
> > And isn't it Mohenjo Daro?
> >
> /a/ is realized as short [O] in Bengali, Arindam's native language.
> So, perhaps he's analyzing the <o> in Mohenjo as /a/. In a number of
> languages in India, most notably Hindi, in a morpheme terminal or word
> terminal context, the realization of /a/ is nothing; i.e., it's elided.
> This happens to loan words too; Portuguese [kami:za] is [kami:z] in Hindi.
> That could explain why he doesn't pronounce the terminal vowel in
> Mohenjo.

I made a typo. No deep thoughts on that please!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

How much opium is consumed in the making of Star Wars etc etc etc is another
story.

[Ross]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 1:09:27 PM UTC+13, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/11/17 02:52, Lewis wrote:
>
> > Isn't it accepted now that Sanskrit is*not* PIE?
>
> It's not accepted by some cranks.
>

This really comes back to the original question of this thread. When
Europeans became aware of Sanskrit, and the associated early Indian
culture, in the late 18th-early 19th century, they were mightily
impressed. "More perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin",
said Jones of Sanskrit. It seemed like a natural conclusion that
it was the original from which Latin and Greek were derived (despite
Jones's caution that the original language 'perhaps no longer exists').
So Schlegel (who died before the systematic reconstruction of PIE had
really begun) saw both the language and the culture as coming "from the
East". And early attempts to represent the proto-language (notably
Schleicher's) look very Sanskritish. It soon became clear to linguists,
however, that Sanskrit=PIE simply would not work. As Peter says,
some people (for non-linguistic reasons) find this hard to accept.

[Dingbat]

You once wrote of a respected priest who taught that Sanskrit has been
spoken in India for at least 10,000 years.

> What I think is that if PIE ever existed then it would be a
> prakrit like Pali.

1) If PIE was like Pali, then PIE was not Sanskrit.
2) If PIE was like Pali, then Sanskrit came from something like Pali.

> Very likely, Aryans emigrated out of India and their
> Sanskrit turned into PIE which in turn led to the European languages.

That would be PE, not PIE. If PE and Indic languages came from Sanskrit,
that would make Sanskrit and PIE one and the same.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:03:33 AM UTC+5:30, Ross wrote:
> Schlegel (who died before the systematic reconstruction of PIE had
> really begun) saw both the language and the culture as coming "from the
> East". And early attempts to represent the proto-language (notably
> Schleicher's) look very Sanskritish. It soon became clear to linguists,
> however, that Sanskrit=PIE simply would not work.

Is there a summary on how it was discovered that Sanskrit could not be PIE?

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 6:13:33 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > > > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > > > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > > > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > > > sure none of them have been convincing/
> > >
> > > Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
> >
> > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > IndoEuropean languages.
> >
> > > If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > > then post is likely.
> >
> > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
>
> No, PIE could be like Pali or Dravidian - post Sanskrit (including the
> original Vedic texts).

If you want to postulate a language that's not an ancestor of Sanskrit,
then call your postulated language something other than PIE, since PIE
is defined as an ancestor of Sanskrit.

So, a post-Sanskrit language can't be PIE. If Sanskrit has a divine
source, there was no PIE since PIE is defined as a human language that
was a source of Sanskrit and all other IE languages.

If Sanskrit didn't have a human source, however, we'd be hard pressed
to explain its similarity to other IE languages that can't be derived
from Sanskrit.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:

> > > > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > > > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > > > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > > > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > > > sure none of them have been convincing/
> > > Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
> > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > IndoEuropean languages.
> > > If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > > then post is likely.
> > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
>
> No, PIE could be like Pali or Dravidian - post Sanskrit (including the
> original Vedic texts).

That suggests you don't know what "Proto-Indo-European" means.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The notion of reconstructing PIE on the basis of the attested classical languages
seems to have been Franz Bopp's (starting in 1815).

Did you notice that the Cornell library has Bopp's library? He died just when
Cornell was getting started, and they needed to acquire a lot of books quickly.
I came across his bookplate in some old volumes and marveled at the funny name.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I've always liked W. P. Lehmann's *Theoretical Foundations of Indo-European
Studies* (I think it's called), but Holger Pedersen, *The Discovery of Language:
Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century* (1931) may be more accessible but
covers every field of linguistics. Eric Hamp once told me about the translator,
Spargo, who seems to have been a remarkable person.

[Arindam Banerjee]

So? If I say anything about anything that can be described as a coterie it does
not mean that I belong to that coterie. Yes, I think it is very likely that
Vedic shlokas have been around for 10,000 years or more. But that does not make
me a respected priest, though in theory as a Brahmin I can do priestwork.

> > What I think is that if PIE ever existed then it would be a
> > prakrit like Pali.
>
> 1) If PIE was like Pali, then PIE was not Sanskrit.

True. I would then say it is not PIE but PE and there could have been more
than one PEs.

> 2) If PIE was like Pali, then Sanskrit came from something like Pali.

False. Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.

> > Very likely, Aryans emigrated out of India and their
> > Sanskrit turned into PIE which in turn led to the European languages.
>
> That would be PE, not PIE.

Yes, yes.

> If PE and Indic languages came from Sanskrit,
> that would make Sanskrit and PIE one and the same.

No. There would be no such animal as PIE, just the scene we have and had in
India, and PEs going on to be Els.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:16:29 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 6:13:33 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > > > > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > > > > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > > > > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > > > > sure none of them have been convincing/
> > > >
> > > > Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?
> > >
> > > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > > IndoEuropean languages.
> > >
> > > > If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > > > then post is likely.
> > >
> > > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
> >
> > No, PIE could be like Pali or Dravidian - post Sanskrit (including the
> > original Vedic texts).
>
> If you want to postulate a language that's not an ancestor of Sanskrit,
> then call your postulated language something other than PIE, since PIE
> is defined as an ancestor of Sanskrit.

This definition is not accepted by the Hindutva brigade. Based upon my travels
out of India to various lands, and meeting various peoples, I would agree with
the Hindutva brigade on this point. Not that that will make me a Hindutva
guy, for Hindutva is a political position and I am not political.

> So, a post-Sanskrit language can't be PIE.

Not if there were PEs and prakrits and these are post Sanskrit, and there never
was an animal called PIE.

> If Sanskrit has a divine
> source, there was no PIE since PIE is defined as a human language that
> was a source of Sanskrit and all other IE languages.

True. Sanskrit could have an alien source or a divine source that inspired the
aliens who were our ancestors.

As the Rhig Vedic expression goes: prajapatirhishirnyushtupacchanday or "the
complex metrical rhythms of the owner of all" is behind all mystery.

Given the horrid way we humans treat the planet
and its creatures, and that we wear clothes unlike other animals, the case for
us humans being actually aliens is pretty strong. I have seen a few websites
stressing upon this.

> If Sanskrit didn't have a human source, however, we'd be hard pressed
> to explain its similarity to other IE languages that can't be derived
> from Sanskrit.

If the aliens came some say 30000 years ago and liked India more than other
parts of the world, then their Indian descendants would hang on to their
language as best they could. Others would grasp as much as they could of
Sanskrit in their own ways, and that too would depend upon the quality of
teaching. With less interest and no or bad teachers, the other languages would
either have no touch at all (as in say Asian languages) or little depending
upon aptitude.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:f32b1b29-011f-4200...@googlegroups.com:

I saw some scattered blobs on sanddune ripples. And one zoom past of some
rectilinear walls. With suspiciously flat tops.

> video. Plenty of artifacts have been lifted, how long all this can be
> ignored by the international media is the question.
>

The media - i.e. the sensationalist Discovery Channel have done it. As is
stated on one of the links I gave there's been no proper scientific
publication or further investigation since 2001. (OK one geologic scan of
the sanddunes in 2003).

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:3963c50e-c78f-4cf4...@googlegroups.com:

ITYF we're all part of the rich tapestry of life that is earthly DNA.
(and an ape derivative). Please move on from 70's conspiracy nonsense
about aliens.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:06:31 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:20:30 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> > You once wrote of a respected priest who taught that Sanskrit has been
> > spoken in India for at least 10,000 years.
>

> If I say anything about anything that can be described as a coterie it does
> not mean that I belong to that coterie. Yes, I think it is very likely that
> Vedic shlokas have been around for 10,000 years or more.

If a group of people were taught this by that priest and you are in the group,
then the group is your coterie and the priest is a teacher of the coterie.

> Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
>
> > > Very likely, Aryans emigrated out of India and their
> > > Sanskrit turned into PIE which in turn led to the European languages.
> >
> > That would be PE, not PIE.
>
> Yes, yes.
>
> > If PE and Indic languages came from Sanskrit,
> > that would make Sanskrit and PIE one and the same.
>
> No. There would be no such animal as PIE, just the scene we have and had in
> India, and PEs going on to be Els.

The term PIE was invented to refer to the ancestor of all those languages*.
You just claimed that Sanskrit is the ancestor of all those languages*.
This automatically means that you claim that what others call PIE
is the same as what you call Sanskrit.

* All those languages meaning
1) Prakits and descendants of Prakits, and
2) Languages outside India that are related to Sanskrit

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 10:59:26 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:06:31 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:20:30 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > >
> > > You once wrote of a respected priest who taught that Sanskrit has been
> > > spoken in India for at least 10,000 years.
> >
> > If I say anything about anything that can be described as a coterie it does
> > not mean that I belong to that coterie. Yes, I think it is very likely that
> > Vedic shlokas have been around for 10,000 years or more.
>
> If a group of people were taught this by that priest and you are in the group,
> then the group is your coterie and the priest is a teacher of the coterie.

Then as there will be innumerable coteries to which one must belong, that
term has no meaning except as a kind of discrimination, or branding by some
interested parties.

>
> > Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
> >
> > > > Very likely, Aryans emigrated out of India and their
> > > > Sanskrit turned into PIE which in turn led to the European languages.
> > >
> > > That would be PE, not PIE.
> >
> > Yes, yes.
> >
> > > If PE and Indic languages came from Sanskrit,
> > > that would make Sanskrit and PIE one and the same.
> >
> > No. There would be no such animal as PIE, just the scene we have and had in
> > India, and PEs going on to be Els.
>
> The term PIE was invented to refer to the ancestor of all those languages*.

Not by my coterie as you put it earlier. By European coteries.

> You just claimed that Sanskrit is the ancestor of all those languages*.

Sanskrit creates derivatives which go on to create vernaculars.

> This automatically means that you claim that what others call PIE
> is the same as what you call Sanskrit.

No. I am saying that as per my coterie there is no PIE. Only PEs and Prakrits
derived from Sanskrit.

>
> * All those languages meaning
> 1) Prakits and descendants of Prakits, and
> 2) Languages outside India that are related to Sanskrit

Again, there has never been any PIE that is the ancestor of Sanskrit as per
my Sanskritic coterie

[Arindam Banerjee]

Why?

[Dingbat]

That IE languages have a common ancestor is claimed by your coterie too.

>
> > You just claimed that Sanskrit is the ancestor of all those languages*.
>
> Sanskrit creates derivatives which go on to create vernaculars.
>
> > This automatically means that you claim that what others call PIE
> > is the same as what you call Sanskrit.
>
> No. I am saying that as per my coterie there is no PIE. Only PEs and
> Prakrits derived from Sanskrit.
> >
> > * All those languages meaning
> > 1) Prakits and descendants of Prakits, and
> > 2) Languages outside India that are related to Sanskrit
>
> Again, there has never been any PIE that is the ancestor of Sanskrit as
> per my Sanskritic coterie

If Sanskrit is PIE, then there is obviously no PIE that is an ancestor of
Sanskrit.

But there is a PIE so long as Indo-European languages have a common
ancestor.

That is if Bengali, French, etc. are not divinely created but instead have
a common ancestor, then there is a PIE - which is whatever their (most
recent) common ancestor happens to be.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Arindam Banerjee posted:
>
> . . . Hindutva is a political position and
> I am not political.

What Hindutva seeks

Ashutosh Varshney's analysis misinterprets Savarkar's own
writings.

Written by Ram Madhav
Saturday, March 29, 2014

Hinduness as a cultural identity that this ancient nation
has come to acquire is what Hindu nationalists have
always propagated.

Referring to V.D. Savarkar's Hindutva as the basic work
of Hindu nationalists, Ashutosh Varshney highlights what
he surmises as the "three ideas" that constitute the
"thematic core" of their ideology ('Modi the Moderate',
IE, March 27). First, Hindus are the primary, or
exclusive, owners of the Indian nation. India is a Hindu
rashtra (nation). Second, two minorities -- Christians and
especially Muslims -- have a profound, ambivalent
relationship with India. Third, caste divisions within
Hinduism and caste-based politics need to be minimised,
for they undermine Hindu unity. The lower castes should
follow the Brahminical model of Hinduism.

Hinduness as a cultural identity that this ancient nation
has come to acquire is what Hindu nationalists have
always propagated. In this proposition, Hindu doesn't
represent any religion or mode of worship. Instead, it is
a set of values that have come to be known as the
Sanatana Dharma. Savarkar himself had given a clear
definition to the word "Hindu" in his book: Aasindhu
sindhu paryantaa Yasya Bharata Bhoomika/ Pitrubhu
Punyabhuchaiva Tavai Hinduriti Smritah. Translated,
"Those who regard this land of Bharat spread between the
river Sindhu (in the north) and the ocean Sindhu (Sindhu
Sagar -- Indian Ocean in the south) as their Pitrubhumi
(fatherland) and Punyabhumi (holy land) are called
Hindus".

It is more about an emotional bonding with the country in
which they were born. But Savarkar never differentiated
Hindus and Muslims as superior and inferior. In the
manifesto of "Hindu Rashtra", which Varshney had referred
to as the basic text, Savarkar states: "Religious
minorities will have all the right to practise their
religion in a Hindu Rashtra and the state will ensure
that; but the Hindu Rashra won't allow creation of a
nation within a nation in the name of religious
minoritysm." What's wrong with it? This is exactly the
situation in the country where Varshney has grown up and
prospered, the United States.

Continues at:

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-hindutva-seeks-ram-madhav.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://goo.gl/4E3EEQ

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

INDIAN IDENTITY IS HINDUTVA, NOT NEHRUVIAN SECULARISM

Presented at the Bharatiya Vichar Manch Seminar on "Hindutva in Present
Context" held in Karnavati, Gujarat on September 16-17, 2009

BY DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

President of Janata Party & Fmr. Cabinet Minister for Commerce, Law &
Justice, Government of India

THE IDENTITY OF AN INDIAN

Every nation must have an identity to be regarded distinct. Even in United
States of America, a relatively young nation created by an influx of
immigration from diverse countries, scholars have felt the need to define
the identity of an American. Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington has penned
a book titled Who Are We? [Penguin Books, India 2004] to define the
American's identity as a "White Anglo-Saxon Christian who speaks English".
It seems contrived since majority of Americans are not ?White', but
Huntington is emphatic.

However, Huntington's contribution is in seeing the two components of this
identity that define it: Salience, which is the importance that the citizen
attributes to national identity over the other many sub-identities. Second,
Substance, which is what the citizens think they have in common, and which
distinguishes them from others of other countries. We in India today do not
have to conjure up a contrived identity as Huntington valiantly had to do,
because for us Salience is imbedded in the concept of Chakravartin, which
Chanakya had spelt out with great clarity, while Substance is what Hindus
have always searched for and found unity in all our diversities in, thanks
our spiritual and religious leaders. And that invariably is the Hindu-ness
of our people, which we now call as Hindutva. The whole world has known our
vast territory and millions of the inhabitants for centuries and called us
as ?India' and ?Indians' or ?Hind and Hindi' or as the Chinese know us even
today both as nation and people as ?Yindu'. The root word in all these
terms is ?Hindu', which word for the Persians, Arabs and Europeans meant a
people living beyond the Sindhu river, and for the Chinese a people living
beyond the Himalayas and bounded by the Indu Sagar [Indian Ocean]. The
world knew us in these millenniums not as nomads but as a highly civilized
people who produced exotic goods the world had never seen before and who
were hospitable to visitors from abroad. Many travelers such as Fa Hsien,
Yuan Chuang, Marco Polo, Vasco d'Gama, and Mark Twain wrote glowingly about
the behaviourial quality of the Hindus, which can be summarized as the
Hindu-ness [i.e., Hindutva] of the Indian people. More recently, Mr.Jonah
Blank, an American journalist curious about this Hindutva, took a journey
in 1991-92 from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka on the route taken by Lord Rama. He
then wrote a book about titled: Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God -- Retracing
the Ramayana Through India [published by the well known Houghton Mifflin of
Boston USA]. He writes: "India's land may be ruled by aliens from time to
time, but never her mind, never her soul.....In the end, it is always India
that does the digesting" [p.217]. He concludes: "But somehow a nebulous
sense of "Indianness" does exist, and it binds together Gujaratis,
Orissans, to Nagas who might seem to have nothing at all in common. Perhaps
it is this elusive, undefinable [yet very real] link that has allowed the
sub-continent's multitude of races to live in some rough semblance of
harmony for four thousand years"[p.218]. Despite Blank's unthinking
adherence to "facts" of Indian history as written out by British
colonialists, the reality of his direct experiences from his travels in
India makes him come to the opposite conclusion to the British colonialists
viz., India has always existed because of the Indian-ness [read: Hindutva
as Substance] of the people. This Hindu-ness or Hindutva has been our
identifying characteristic, by which we have been recognized world-wide.
The territory in which Hindus lived was known as Hindustan, i.e., a
specific area of a collective of persons who are bonded together by this
Hindu-ness. The Salience thus was given religious and spiritual
significance by tirth yatra, kumbh mela, common festivals, and in the
celebration of events in the Ithihasa, viz., Ramayana and Mahabharata.
Hindu Rashtra thus defined, is our nation that is a modern Republic today,
whose roots are also in the long unbroken Hindu civilisational history.
Throughout this history we were a Hindu Republic and not a monarchy [a
possible but weak exception being Asoka's reign]. In this ancient
Republican concept, the king did not make policy or proclaim the law. The
intellectually accomplished elite in the society, known as Brahmans, framed
the laws and state policy and the King implemented it. Hindutva hence, is
our innate nature, while Hindustan is our territorial body, but Hindu
Rashtra is our republican soul. Hindu panth [religion] is however a
theology of faith. Even if an Indian has a different faith from a Hindu, he
or she can still be possessed of Hindutva. Since India was 100 percent
Hindu a millennium ago, the only way any significant group could have a
different faith in today's India is if they were converted from Hindu
faith, or are of those whose ancestors were Hindus. Conversion of faith
does not have to imply conversion to another culture or nature. Therefore,
Hindutva can remain to be interred in a non-Hindu in India.

Hence, we can say that Hindustan is a country of Hindus and those others
whose ancestors were Hindus. Acceptance with pride this reality by non-
Hindus is to accept Hindutva. Hindu Rashtra is therefore a republican
nation of Hindus and of those of other faiths who have Hindutva in them.
This formulation settles the question of identity of the Hindustani or
Indian. We Indians have been waffling on the question of identity now for
over six decades. Time is at hand to rectify that waffle by adopting an
Agenda for Action to inculcate Hindutva as the core of our identity. Its
implementation requires political action. This is the goal of this essay:
to chart a road map for India that is Hindustan to become a Hindu Rashtra
based on Hindutva. This essay has been inspired by a comment of the
greatest sage and sanyasi of the 20th century, namely Chandashekharendra
Sarasvati, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt at Kanchipuram, TN,
who is reverentially referred to as the Parmacharya. The great sage
counseled the Indian leadership on August 15, 1947 that "having become
free, we must translate that freedom into independence". It is the content
of that independence that should have concerned all thinkers since then,
but did not. Prime Minister Nehru disregarded Parmacharya's advice,
ignorantly perhaps thinking that freedom and independence were synonymous
words. These words are however not synonyms, and moreover, without
independence we cannot retain freedom either for long. That is the danger
today. Freedom is a physical attribute of a citizen's rights, such as the
right to a livelihood, the freedom of travel etc., while independence of a
nation rests on the quality of the citizen's thought such as his or her
attitude to duties, morality, inter-personal relations, social commitment,
and nationalism. This requires knowledge of the correct history of
Hindustan a common language and a healthy mindset to act for the benefit of
the nation. Hindutva embodies all these aspects. Hindutva however has to be
inculcated in our people from values and norms that emerge out of Hindu
renaissance, that is, a Hindu theology which is shorn of the accumulated
but unacceptable baggage of the past as also by co-opting new scientific
discoveries, perceptions and by synergizing with modernity. This is the
only way that Hindustan can become a modern Hindu Rashtra, thus achieving
independence after having recovered our freedom [in 1947]? as Parmacharya
had wanted.. I shall present such an Agenda here in three parts: First, I
will highlight those parameters of Hindu theology which will circumscribe
any Hindutva Agenda; Second, I will discuss a Five Point Hindutva Agenda as
a road map for political action today; Third, I will raise some issues for
consideration in the implementation of this Agenda. I THE PARAMETERS OF
HINDU THEOLOGY Hinduism is not a theology founded on the revelation of a
single prophet or constituted by a single scripture that which all
adherents have to blindly believe in. It is instead accumulated wisdom of
sages through centuries that has been codified as four Vedas, Upanishad, 18
Puranas, two Ithihasas, etc., There is in Hinduism no ?Church' to belong
to, and to obey its dictums, or to believe in a ?Pope' who is held to be
infallible, or to regard a ?Bible' as the sole Holy Book to specify what to
believe in and what not to. Nor is there the likes of a Koran, Hadith or a
Sura in Hinduism to goad the faithful in the name of submission to God, to
commit as His direction violence against unbelievers termed as Kafirs and
Dhimmis. Therefore, structurally, there is no scope for a Hindu to be a
fundamentalist. For, fundamentalism by definition, requires an
unquestioning commitment to the scripture in its pristine original version.
For Hindus, there is no one scripture to revert to for theological purity
since there are many scriptures which raise a plethora of beliefs and
sustain faith, debates, and profound speculations on basic questions[e.g.,
Upanishads], such as on advaita, dvaita, astika and nastika. Questioning,
debating and synthesizing are an integral part of Hindu theology. Nor does
Hinduism have just one prophet to revere, or prohibits holding any other
view of religious experience. But most of all, Hindus are committed to the
search for truth [including knowing what is truth], for which incessant
debate is permitted. Fundamentalists on the other hand unquestioningly are
committed to ?the Book'. This is why Hindutva can never become
fundamentalist, which Muslims and Christians can. Hindus thus have a vast
rainbow spectrum of scriptures and a monumental accumulated wisdom of many
sages that is contained in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas etc., all of
which intellectually hold that the Ultimate Truth is manifested in manifold
ways. Culled from these scriptures are nine basic and liberal beliefs that
constitute the Hindu-ness [that is, Hindutva] of a believer [see Annexure
1]. In brief it can be said that parameters of Hindu theology are Satyam,
Shivam, and Sundaram. Hinduism also formally acknowledges that that there
are many paths to reach God and hence treats other religions with respect
on the principle of Sarva Pantha Sama Bhava even if these paths are not
considered equally efficacious for reaching the Divine. That is why in
Hindu civilisational history, there has never been burning of religious
books of others, destructing places of these other religions, crucifying of
prophets of other religions, holding of inquisitions, or even disrespecting
other schools of thought. Jews and Zoroastrians suffering persecution in
their own countries and elsewhere, found safe refuge only in Hindu India
and were assisted by Hindus to practice their religion freely. No other
religion has this track record or proud legacy of accomodation. Hindus
instead have always believed in shashtrarthas[debate] to convert others to
their point of view. Hence, even when Buddha challenged the ritualistic
practices of Hindus, or Mahavira and Nanak gave fresh perspectives on Hindu
concepts, there was never any persecution or denunciation of these great
seers. Indeed these visionary seers are considered Hindu avataras and their
teachings were challenged in debates and then synthesized into Hindu
theology itself. That is why the Indian Constitution defines Hindus to
include Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, and in the crucial theological
precepts, Hinduism of karma vidhi and re-incarnation is accepted by these
other religions. Religious persecution however later came to India with
Islam and Christianity and through their instrumentalities, in which the
Hindus became their targets thereafter.

Even today in a 83% Hindu nation, that reality of targeting of Hindus
exists in new and more camouflaged forms. Hence, the essentiality of
Hinduism, or alternatively the core quality of being a Hindu, which we may
call as our Hindu-ness [i.e., Hindutva], is that theologically there is no
danger of Hindutva, or the advocacy of the same, of ever degenerating into
fundamentalism. In fact, so liberal, sophisticated, and focused on inward
evolution is Hindu theology, that in a series of Supreme Court judgments,
various Constitutional Benches found it hard even to define Hinduism and
Hindutva as anything but a way of life, as we discover from an useful
review of these judgments by Bal Apte MP [in Supreme Court on Hindutva,
India First Foundation, 2005].

HINDUTVA DEFINED

Hindu-ness of outlook on life had been called Hindutva by Swami
Vivekananda, and Hindutva's political perspective was subsequently
developed by Veer Savarkar. Deendayal Upadhaya briefly dealt with the
concept of Hindutva when he wrote about chiti in his seminal work: Integral
Humanism. The focus of all three profound thinkers is the multi-dimensional
development of the Hindus as an individuals, and which then have to be
aggregated and harmonized to foster a united community on the collective
concept of Hindutva. I shall therefore rely on the works of all three
visionaries to formulate the Agenda of Hindutva herein. Thus, I shall
address the question of agenda of Hindutva for political action here within
the parameters set by Swami Vivekananda, Veer Savarkar and Deendayal
Upadhyaya. Swami Vivekananda defined Hindutva, upon returning from Chicago
in 1896 in an address in Lahore as follows: "Mark me, then and then alone
you are a Hindu when the very name Hindu sends through you a galvanic shock
of strength. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when every man and woman
who bears the name Hindu, from any country, speaking our language or any
other language, becomes at once the nearest and dearest to you. Then and
then alone you are a Hindu when the distress of anyone bearing the name
Hindu comes to your heart and makes you fell as if your own son or daughter
were in distress" [Collected Works, vol 3, page 379]. Paraphrasing what
Veer Savarkar had said, the following is what he said enlightened Hindus
need to tell India's minorities and others: "If you come along with us,
then with you. If you do not, then without you. If you oppose us, then
inspite of you. Hindutva shall prevail". And Deendayal Upadhyaya outlined
how to modernize the concepts of Hindutva as follows: "We have to discard
the status quo mentality and usher in a new era. Indeed our efforts at
reconstruction need not be clouded by prejudice or disregard for all that
is inherited from our past. On the other hand, there is no need to cling to
past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility". This
is the essence of renaissance. Thus, we should invite Muslims and
Christians to join us Hindus on the basis of common ancestry or even seek
their return to our fold as Hindus, in this grand endeavour as Hindustanis,
on the substance of our shared and common ancestry. However, it is
essential to resolve an intrinsic paradox of Hindutva arising out of the
individual freedom afforded by Hindu theology. The individual-centric
distinctiveness of Hinduism, makes it possible to see millions of Hindus,
for example, to come to Kumbh Mela on their own, without a fatwa or
invitation or even any publicity about date and place of the Mela, and
peacefully and without guidance or dictation, perform their pujas and then
depart. It is purely voluntary even as the state does not provide any
organization, or subsidy for travel expenses. This is individualism par
excellence. With this kind of widespread voluntary commitment of Hindus,
seen not only in Kumbh Mela, but in other pilgrimage occasions such as in
Sabarimalai, Vaishno Devi, etc., and the reality of our tolerant
civilisational history, can we feel secure that we Hindus can and will
unite when it becomes necessary to defend against sinister, sophisticated,
and violent threats that the religion faces today? We cannot be sure,
because the Kumbh Mela spirit not only represents the innate strength of
Hinduism, but paradoxically also it's main weakness. That is, those who
assemble at Kumbh Mela do it as an act of individual piety. Hindus do not
go to Kumbh Mela to be with other Hindus in a religious congregation, but
because they believe that their individual salvation lies in going there.
But the current threats to Hindu religion requires a coordinated collective
response. Therein lies the paradox to be resolved. Hindus therefore lack
the necessary modern mindset that can collectively bond the community in an
inclusive virile wholesome unity, which is necessary today to meet the
threats that religion faces from terrorism, conversions, religious minority
appeasement, and distortions in the history textbooks [for a discussion of
the nature of this siege see my Hindus Under Siege: The Way Out (HarAnand,
New Delhi, 2005)]. Patriotic Hindus should understand this structural
limitation in the theology of Hinduism, that is individualism, is
mistakenly taken as apathy, but it requires us to find ways to rectify it
for the national good. In the Ramjanmabhoomi Mandir campaign, and the Rama
Setu Raksha Abhiyan, the VHP had demonstrated that this individualism is
not apathy and that this limitation can be overcome by mass action. This
limitation must not only be overcome but we must try rectify it not on an
ad hoc basis but on a durable foundation that is sustainable, because
Hinduism is being targeted today as never before by terrorism, religious
conversion, minority appeasement, debasement in history textbooks, and
distortions in the mass media. It is worthy of notice that, recognizing
this limitation, Hindu spiritual leaders in the past have from time to time
come forward to rectify it, whenever the need arose e.g., as the Sringeri
Shankaracharya Vidhyaranya did by founding the Vijayanagaram dynasty or
Swami Ramdas did with Shivaji and the Mahratta campaign.

Such involvement of sanyasis is required even more urgently today.
Following the lead taken in 1964 by Guru Golwalkar, the Sarsanghachalak of
RSS, to bring the Sadhus and sanyasis, into a forum for which the VHP was
founded. The VHP has since engaged in mobilization of the sants and sadhus
through the Dharma Sansad, and now in the Dharma Raksha Manch for social
action, which has become crucial for our spiritual consolidation. In fact,
this is the real substance of India as Swami Vivekananda had aptly put it
when he stated that: "National union of India must be a gathering up of its
scattered spiritual forces. A Nation in India must be a union of those
whose hearts beat to the same spiritual tune.... The common ground that we
have is our sacred traditions, our religion. That is the only common
ground... upon that we shall have to build". Let us recall here that well
before the birth of Christianity and Islam, Hindu religion had been
intellectually dethroned by Hinayana Buddhism. But Adi Sankaracharya
rethroned Hinduism through his famous shastrarthas [religious debate] and
caused a renaissance in Buddhism itself, which later came to be known as
Mahayana Buddhism, conceptually in complete harmony with, if not
indistinguishable from Hindu theology. It is Mahayana Buddhism that spread
to China, Cambodia and Vietnam. In Tamil Nadu, the Azhwars and Nayanmars,
also through shastrarthas, repositioned Hinduism after dethroning Jainism
and Buddhism. Since then the Hindu dharmacharyas have always been looked up
to whenever Hindu society faced a threat or crisis, for guidance to meet
these dangers. The recent efforts of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati of the Arsha
Vidya Gurukulam in forming the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha that includes all
the Shankaracharyas, Mahamandaleshwars, Akharas, and others as members, as
a body corporate, is highly necessary and noteworthy.

Moreover, the facts of our history have to be well understood so that we
are not condemned to re-live it. Militant Islam and later crusading
Christianity had come to India, and aggressively had challenged Hinduism.
Because we had then very civilized rules of warfare such as fighting only
on open barren fields, and between sunrise and sunset, besides forgiving
the loser and sending him back with due honour, these Muslim and Christian
invaders despite being much smaller in numbers, seized power in sequence by
the changing the rules of combat, and thus established their own state in
India lasting centuries. This change of rules is what Prithviraj Chauhan
had not realized while repeatedly defeating Mohammed Ghori and then
forgiving him. But Chhatrapati Shivaji had fully understood the perfidy of
these aggressors, and accordingly improvised new tactics while dealing with
the likes of Aurangzeb and Afzal Khan. The difference [in outcomes
achieved] between Chauhan and Shivaji thus speaks for itself. Today the
terrorists and religious missionaries are doing precisely that again, of
playing by new and even more clandestine deceptive rules and by media
management. We Hindus have to accordingly devise a new strategy for dealing
with them, and will be successful only after understanding the rules by
which these enemy forces will scheme against us. It must be said at this
juncture that Hindus, barring a small exception, however despite being
duped by perfidy of the aggressors for the last thousand years, and even in
defeat, remained steadfast in their individual commitment to the Hindu
religion. Thus, despite state patronage to the ensuing onslaught, plunder,
impoverishment and victimisation, spread over a thousand years, those of
Hindu faith could not be decimated, and thus today, Hinduism remains the
theology of the vast Indian majority in the length and breadth of the
terrain of India [see Annexure 2]. Defiant Hindus thus suffered persecution
and economic deprivation during Islamic and Christian reigns, such as
through differential taxation [e.g., jezia and zamindari land revenue
appropriation] and plain brutality, but by and large refused to capitulate
and convert. This is an unprecedented achievement in any civilisational
history of any nation. Compare this with the historical fact that Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt crumbled to become 100% Islamic within three
decades of Islamic aggression, and so did Europe become 100% Christian
within five decades of the Crusades.

Even after almost a thousand years of such targeting by Muslims and
Christian rulers, undivided India in 1947 was more than 75 % Hindu. This
was partly because of the victorious Vijayanagaram [which lasted twice as
long and over a larger area than Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb], the
Sikh reign, and Mahratta kingdoms, and later the Freedom Movement, each
inspired by sanyasis such Sringeri Shankaracharya, Swami Ramdas, Guru
Nanak, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayanand Sarasvati of Arya Samaj, and Sri
Aurobindo, besides patriots like Bankim Chatterjee and Subramania Bharati,
who by their preaching about the Hindu identity ensured that the flame of
Hindu defiance never dimmed. It was also due to individual defiance of
Hindus such as of Rana Pratap, Rani Jhansi, Rani Chennamma, Kattaboman and
Netaji Subhas Bose. These icons are admired not because they led us to
victory [in fact they were defeated or killed], or had found out for us
Hindus a safe compromise with the aggressors [they did not!], but because
of their courage of conviction in the face of huge odds not to submit to
tyranny. That courageous defiance is also is part of our glorious legacy of
Hindutva. But those who capitulated like Raja Man Singh or Jai Chand or
Pudukottai Raja in order to live in pomp and grandeur by capitulating
before the invader for selfish motives and betraying our heroes in war with
the aggressor, are despised today by the people. Thus, Hindus safeguarded
the nation remembering their heroes even those who lost, and rejecting
those who had capitulated to the invader even if they prospered. This is
also an essence of Hindutva. But such passive defiance or intermittent
victories in the battlefield to safeguard Hindu Rashtra is not sufficient
for the future survival of the Hindu civilization. Hindus today have won
their freedom but it has not been translated into civilisational
independence as Parmacharya had wanted. In 1947, temporal power and freedom
were defacto restored to the Hindu majority. But the Indian state formally
adopted secularism, which concept however was never properly defined or
debated. For example, it left vague what a modern Indian's connection was
with the nation's Hindu past and legacy. What Nehru grafted on the nation
was a vague concept of secularism which operationally meant that anything
European in mores and manners was good and anything Hindu was obscurantist.
In the name of secularism, it was taboo for a public servant even to break
a coconut or light an oil lamp to inaugurate an official function on the
ground that religious symbols must not invade public life! This orthodox
concept of secularism has debilitated the civilisational independence of
the Hindus since 1947 after we had recovered our freedom. Secular orthodoxy
was promoted by Jawarharlal Nehru and his Leftist advisers in a number of
ways. The government took over supervision of temples, legislated on Hindu
personal laws, and regulated religious festivals, but kept aloof from the
Muslim and Christian religious affairs. In fact, data from Karnataka show
that during 1997-2002, over 250,000 temples under state government
administration had appropriated Rs 391.40 crores in revenue from devotee
offerings, but only Rs.84.00 crores of that was spent on the temples for
its upkeep. As a consequence of this meager expenditure, over 8000 temples
went into disuse. Madrasas and Haj travel however received Rs. 180.60
crores from these temple funds! Churches got Rs.44.00 crores, thus
diverting a total of 78.58% of Hindu temple donations to Muslim, Christian
and other non-Hindu activities!! Is this not incredible in a nation of 83%
Hindu even in the name of secularism? The secularism principle was thus
foisted on the Hindu masses without making him understand why they had to
abide by such discriminatory legislation, but not Muslims and Christians.
As a result of the Nehruvian secularist's chicanery and treachery, the
renaissance that had begun in the late nineteenth century to redefine the
Hindu identity [in contemporary terms and norms valid in a pluralistic
society], was aborted by the confusion thus created in Hindu minds by a
vaguely understood concept of secularism. Confusion causes debilitation of
one's strength. Adherence to Hinduism today is also being sought to be
diluted and debilitated in the name of modernity and this dilution is made
a norm of secularism. Religion, it is advocated, is personal. To be a good
Hindu today is conceptually being reduced to just praying, piety, visiting
temples, and celebrating religious festivals. This is not enough to meet
the challenge that Hindus face today from hostile forces of Islam and
Christianity. Electoral politics has further confounded the issues arising
out of secularism, and hence the Indian society is becoming gradually and
increasingly fragmented in outlook and of confused perspective. Hindu
society, divided by caste, is becoming increasingly mutually antagonistic.
The nation's enemies are easily gaining simply by leveraging secularism and
modernity in this era of mass communication and globalization. Moreover,
secularism as practiced today is a one- way commitment for Hindus only. If
any atrocity takes place in Hindus, for example, Muslims and Christians do
not protest and side with Hindus. Hence, time has arrived to completely
reject this confused, confounded and one-sided concept of secularism, and
not even attempt to re-define it as between ?authentic' and ?pseudo-
secularism'. We need instead to make a clean break, by simply saying that
we reject secularism as being vague and instead want India to be a
spiritual society based on Hindu ethos and Hindutva. Hinduism guarantees
sarva pantha sama bhava and hence Hindutva based on Hindu theology is no
threat to any other religion as Justice Bharucha had pointed out[op.cit.].
Attempts at Hindu debilitation are also being made through falsification in
history texts adopted for curriculum in the education system, to disconnect
and disinherit the contemporary Indian from the past glory of Hindu India.
The intrinsic Hindu unity has been sought to be undone by legitimizing such
bogus concepts as Aryan-Dravidian racial divide theory [AIT], or that India
as a concept never existed till the British imperialists invented it, or
that Indians have always been ruled by invaders from abroad. There is no
such word as ?Aryan' in Sanskrit literature [closest is 'arya' meaning
honourable person, and not community] or Dravidian [Adi Sankara had in his
shasthrartha with Mandana Mishra at Varanasi, called himself as a 'Dravida
shishu' that is a child of where three oceans' coastline meet, i.e., Kaladi
in Kerala and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu; i.e., south India].

Continues in Part 2 of 3 parts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

INDIAN IDENTITY IS HINDUTVA, NOT NEHRUVIAN SECULARISM

Part 2 of 3 parts:

The theory (AIT) was deliberate distortion by British imperialists and
propagated by their witting and unwitting mental slaves of India.
Incidentally, the Aryan-Dravidian myth has now been exploded by modern
research on DNA of Indians and Europeans conducted by Professor C.Panse of
Newton, Mass. USA, Dr.Ms. Patel of Houston, Texas USA, and other scholars.
Most recently, Dr.Toomas Kivisild of Cambridge University, U.K., and
Dr.Gyaneshwar Chaubey of the University of Tartu in Estonia, have concluded
after four years of research on 12,000 samples that all Indians "had common
genetic traits irrespective of the regions of India to which they
belonged." Thus they rule out the so-called AIT [Aryan Invasion Theory]. In
light of such new research, the British Broadcasting Corporation[BBC]
service in it's October 6, 2005 service completely debunked the Aryan --
Dravidian race theory stating that: "Theory was not just wrong, it included
unacceptably racist ideas" [www.bbc.co.uk, religion&ethics homepage,
Thursday, 6/10/05]. Modern India is portrayed by foreign interests through
school and college curriculum as a discontinuity in history and as a new
entity much as are today's Greece, Egypt or Iraq. That curriculum is
largely intact today. On the contrary efforts are afoot to bolster the
disparagement of our past in the new dispensation today. A rudderless
India, disconnected from her past has, as a consequence, becomes a fertile
field for religious poachers and neo-imperialists from abroad who paint
India as a mosaic of immigrants, not as a nation, but much like a crowd on
a platform in a railway station. But instead the reality is that today's
India is connected to her hoary past because this India is a nation of
Hindus and those others [such as Muslims and Christians] whose ancestors
were Hindus. That definition applies to Jews and Parsis too because of
inter-marriage which is now proved by DNA testing. The identity of Indian
is thus Hindustani, a Hindu Rashtra i.e., a republican nation of Hindus and
those others[non-Hindus] who proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were
Hindus. It is this acknowledgement that remains pending today. We can
accept Muslims and Christians as part of our Hindustani family when they
proudly acknowledge this fact and accept that change religion does not
require change of culture. Thus the cultural identity of India is
undeniably, immutably, and obviously its Hindu-ness, that is Hindutva.

It is however being clandestinely propagated that India has belonged to
those who forcibly occupied it. This is the theme around which the Islamic
fundamentalists and fraud Christian crusaders are again at work, much as
they were a thousand years ago, but of course in new dispensations,
sophistication, and media forms. Thus the concept of intrinsic Hindu unity
based on Hindutva, and India's Hindu foundation are dangerously under
challenge by these forces. Tragically most Hindus today are not even
cognizant of it. That is why we need today to campaign today for
inculcation of Hindutva, to wake up our people, for which we need a clear
commitment an Agenda. Swami Vivekananda propounded the concept of Hinduness
[Hindutva]. The roots of Hindutva are thus in Swami Vivekananda's sermons
and writings, and represent the Vedantic definition of the identity of the
modern Hindu. However, Marxist intellectuals and their Macaulayist fellow
travelers have deliberately obfuscated the Vedanta roots of Hindutva and
have run a vicious campaign to wrap the concept in Fundamentalism. Hence
before I venture further here, I need first to rebut the premises
underlying this campaign since the renaissance that had begun in the late

nineteenth century to redefine the Hindu identity [in contemporary terms
and norms valid in a pluralistic society], was aborted by the confusion

thus created in Hindu minds by a vaguely understood concepts implicit in
the Marxist and neo-Marxist verbiage because of which Indian society became

gradually and increasingly fragmented in outlook and of confused

perspective. This is understandable since Vedantic Hindutva is antithetical
to Marxism. Marx had advocated that human history is capable of economic
interpretation only and in this one- dimensional society, violent class
struggle between the haves and have-nots is the only method of change. It
must lead to the annihilation of the haves by the have-nots, which Marx
termed as "revolutionary violence".

But this challenge today confronting Hindus is much more difficult to meet
than it was ever earlier in history, because the forces at work to erode
and undermine Hindu faith, unlike before, are unseen, clandestine,
pernicious, deceptive but most of all sophisticated and media- savvy.
Tragically therefore, a much larger numbers and more educated of Hindus
have been unwittingly co-opted in this sinister conspiracy directed by
foreigners who have no love for India and who also see much as Lord
Macaulay did in the nineteenth century, that the hoary Hindu foundation of
India is a stumbling block for the furtherance of their nefarious
perfidious game. The concept of a collective Hindu mindset is being
ridiculed as chauvinist and retrograde, even fundamentalist. The BJP is
regularly advised by its enemies to purge out Hindutva from its poll plank
to become more "acceptable". This fatuous advice from enemies deserves to
thrown into the dustbin where it belongs. There is nothing to debate in
this because such a debate would only be dysfunctional and will disrupt the
synergy between voter appeal and cadre morale that is necessary for
electoral success of the Hindutva forces. It should always be remembered
that despite all the wooing of Muslim vote by diluting the Hindutva agenda,
even by eschewing any reference to it, the share of total Muslim vote
received by the BJP never exceeded 5%, while the Congress Party received a
steady 36%. The future political action for electoral success for Hindutva
forces therefore lies in acquiring a USP, which can be achieved only
through Hindu ideological consolidation of the voters. That is why Hindutva
is crucial, because if the Hindus become a vote bank and engage in bloc-
voting in a nation of 83% Hindus, then Muslim and Christian vote banks will
become redundant. The corporate Hindu unity and identity based on Hindutva,
is that of a collective mindset that identifies us all, Hindus and others,
with a motherland from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean and it's glorious
civilisational past, and the concomitant resolve of it's representative
leadership, defined as "chakravartin" by Chanakya, to defend that vision.
It is this concept and resolve that is being sought to be discarded or is
just evaporating under the onslaught of the Nehruvian secularists.

However pious a Hindu becomes, or how many millions come to Kumbh mela,
Sabarimala etc., however prosperous Hindu temples and ashrams become from
doting devotees' offerings, when the nation is in danger it is this
collective mindset of the people that matters, and not the piety of the
individual in that collective. Otherwise we may be numerous like goats and
sheep, but will run helter skelter at the sight of just one tiger or hyena.
Or we can be individually strong and well fed like circus lions, but obey
the commands of a physically much weaker circus ring master because of the
enslaved mindset. Hindu society today lacking a cohesive corporate
identity, is thus in the process of becoming fragmented, and hence
increasingly in disarray. This fission process is on simultaneously with
the reality of millions of Hindus going to temples regularly. The Hindu
consciousness that is needed today therefore is that which encompasses the
willingness and determination to collectively defend the faith from the
erosion that is being induced by the disconnect with our glorious past.
That glorious past in aptly summarized in the writings of Dr.Ambedkar, and
his oration in the Constituent Assembly for a strong united country. In his
scholarly paper presented in a 1916 Columbia University seminar[and
published in Indian Antiquary, vol. XLI, May 1917 p.81-95] Dr.Ambedkar then
a mere graduate student studying for a Ph.D. in economics, had stated: "It
is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for
granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the
Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of it's culture. It has not only
a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and much more
fundamental unity -- the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land
from end to end". Ambedkar wrote in this vein several such brilliant books,
but alas, Nehru and his cohorts so thoroughly frustrated him and
electorally humiliated him that in the end bitterness drove him to his sad
end. We must honour him now as a great Rajrishi and co-opt his writings as
part of the Hindutva literature.

That is, by a failure to usher a renaissance after 1947 India has lost her
opportunity to cleanse the accumulated dirt and unwanted baggage of the
past. The nation missed a chance to demolish the birth-based caste theory
as Ambedkar had wanted to do. The battering that the concept of Hindu unity
and Indian identity has taken at the hands of Nehruvian secularists since
1947 has led to the present social malaise. Thus, even though Hindus are
above 80 percent of the population in India, they have not been able to
understand their roots in, and obligations to, the Hindu society in a
pluralistic democracy. Today the sacrilege of Hindu concepts and hoary
institutions, is being carried out not with the crude brutality of past
invasions, but with the sophistication of the constitutional instruments of
law. The desecration of Hindu icons, for example the Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt,
is being made to look legal, thereby completely confusing the Hindu people,
and thus making them unable to recognize the danger, or to realize that
Hindus have to unite to defend against the threats to their legacy. We
Hindus are under siege today; and we do not know it !! That is, what is
truly alarming is that Hindu society could be dissembled today without much
protest since we have been lulled into loss of self-esteem about our past
or that the capacity to think collectively as Hindus has been grossly
weakened. Hindus are thus being today systematically prepared for
psychological enslavement and conceptual capture by subtle brain-washing.
Hindus are being lulled, while Muslims and Christians are being subject to
relentless propaganda that they are different, and are citizens of India as
would be a shareholder in a company that is run for profit, and not as
those who are descendents of Hindus, and a product of conversion and force,
and that they too have a duty to perform in protecting Hindu culture. But,
if this degeneration and disconnect are not rectified and repaired by a
resolve to unite people, the Indian nation may go into a tail spin and
ultimately fade away like other civilizations, like Greece and Egypt, have
for much the same reason. To resist this siege, we need Hindutva. Numbers
[of those claiming to be adherents to Hinduism] do not matter in today's
information society. It is the durability and clarity of the 20 Hindu
mindset and quality of commitment to Hinduness of those who unite that
matters in the forging of an instrument to fight this creeping danger.
However, today the Hindu mind suffers from a cognitive dissonance, that is,
a mental disorientation that arises from conflicting modes of thought
because it lacks a framework of consistent beliefs. Today's Hindu suffers
from equivocation and temporization in his mindset in his craze to appear
to be impartial and sound secular. We cannot be impartial or equivocate for
example between the fire brigade and the fire. We are under a siege and we
have to break through it and get it lifted. Equivocation and nonchalance at
this juncture will destroy us. Nor we Hindus can fight this existential
threat unless we first identify what we have to fight. We cannot
effectively respond unless we understand the nature and complexity of the
challenge. What makes the task of defending Hinduism much more difficult
today is that the oppressors are not obvious murderous entities as were
Ghazni, Ghori, or Clive. The means of communication and the supply of funds
in the hands of our enemies are multiples of that available in the past,
for camouflaging their evil purposes. That basic strategy of those who want
to see a weak and pliant India remains the same as before: Making Hindus to
lose their self esteem by disparaging their tradition, the strategy of
British imperialists for the conquest of India. Only the tactics have
changed. Now the target is the Hindu institutions and Hindu icons, and the
route is not the creation of a comprador class of civil servants and
Zamindar-revenue collectors as the British did to subdue the nation, but
fostering a psychological milieu to denigrate the heritage and to delink
the Hindu from his past legacy thereby causing a loss of self esteem and a
pride in the nation's past, as had been attempted in the Rama Setu issue.
At the same time, the lack of Hindu unity and the determined bloc voting in
elections by Muslims and Christians has created a significantly large
leverage for these two religious communities in economic, social and
foreign policy making.

Thus, although uniform civil code is a Directive Principle of state policy
in the Constitution, it is taboo to ask for it because of this leverage. It
is not as if Muslims will not accept uniform laws when it suits them, even
if it is against the Shariat. For example, Muslims accept uniform criminal
code under the IPC even though it infringes the Shariat, but resist uniform
civil code because it violates the Shariat. These contradictions are
permitted for Muslims by the Mullahs because India is Darul Harab.
Accordingly Muslim leadership deploys its leverage where it is tactically
advantageous. This leverage exists despite the people of India who declare
in the Census that they are adherents of religions which were born on
Indian soil, that is Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains constituted 83.21%
of the total Indian population in last Census in 2001. In 1941, this
proportion, adjusted for Partition, was 84.44%. But this figure hides the
fact that Hindus resident in undivided Pakistan have migrated to post-
Partition India which is why the share of Hindus and co-religionists have
barely reduced since 1941. In the area now called Bangladesh, Hindus were
30% in 1941. In 2001 they are less than 8%. In Pakistan of today, Hindus
were 20% in 1941, and less than 2% in 2001. Such religious cleansing has
however not been noticed by anybody in the world! When Hindus do not care,
why should the world take notice? If the figures are adjusted for this
migration, then in the five decades 1951-2001, Hindus have lost more 3
percent points in share of Indian population, while Muslims have increased
their share by about 3%. What is even more significant is that Hindus have
lost 12% points since 1881, and the loss in share has begun to accelerate
since 1971 partly due to illegal migration of Muslims from Bangladesh. The
continued rise in the share of Muslims and Christians in the total
population is a threat to the Hindu foundation of the nation. And we have
to find ways and means to meet this threat as well.

Thus, differential application of family planning, non-uniform civil code,
illegal migration, and induced religious conversion have together have
created a serious looming crisis for the Hindu demographic character of the
nation. We can see clearly what Muslim majority will mean to Hindus when we
look at the situation in Kashmir or in Meerut, Mau or even in the tiny town
panchayat of Melvisharam near Vellore. In these areas, Muslims in majority
behave toward Hindu minority much as Saudi Arabian rulers behave with Hindu
migrant workers in religious oppression. Moreover, patriots concerned with
the safeguarding of the Hindu foundation of the nation have to take note
that conversion to Christian faith has been put on a war footing by
religious entrepreneurs. In Dallas, Texas USA, the Global Pastors Network
[GPN] held a conference in 2006 and resolved that over the next fifteen
years, the organization will support financially worldwide the construction
of five million churches and conversion of one billion persons to
Christianity. From India alone the target, according the Evangelist Pat
Robertson, is 100 million persons. Hence, Hindus are facing a terrible
pincer: Islamic fast population growth and illegal migration, in
conjunction with Christian money induced conversion activities. Hindus have
therefore to hang together or ultimately be hanged separately. This is no
inflamed psychosis. Not long ago, despite being the overwhelming majority,
Hindus had to pay discriminatory taxes to the Muslim and Christian emperors
who were ruling India. Lack of unity and lack of a strategy were the
reasons for this subjugation, and not poverty. In fact when the onslaught
and enslavement took place, India was the richest country in the world and
of 100% Hindus. Within 1000 years thereafter, we were reduced to the
poorest in the world and with millions of Muslims and Christians despite
Hindus valiant resistance. Now if the demographic restructuring described
herein goes on unchecked in the current globalised scenario then the danger
becomes several fold. If one were to study the terrorism in Kashmir and
Manipur, it is apparent that Hindus have been the special target.

The driving away of the Hindu population from the Kashmir valley by
targeted terrorism of Islamic jihadis is the single biggest human rights
atrocity since Nazi Germany pogroms against the Jews. Yet it has hardly
received noticed in international fora. Why? Hindu population in Bangladesh
has declined from 30 percent in 1950 to less than 8 percent of the total
population today by deliberate targeted ethnic cleansing by Islamic
fanatics aided and abetted by their government[see Hindus in Bangladesh,
Pakistan and India's State of Jammu& Kashmir: A Survey of Human
Rights,June17,2005, www.hinduamericanfoundation.org] and yet there is no
outcry. Why? This is because of the lack of Hindu mindset to retaliate
against atrocities against Hindus. When in 1949, anti-Hindu riots took
place in East Pakistan, Sardar Patel had declared that if the government
there could not control it, then India was quite capable of putting it down
for them. Soon after, the riots stopped! Terrorist attacks against India
and Hindus in particular thus is growing because we seem today incapable of
retaliating in a manner that it deters future attacks. According to the
well known National Counter terrorism Center, a US government body, in it's
report titled A Chronology of International Terrorism for 2004 states that:
"India suffered more significant acts of terrorism than any other country
in 2004?, a damning comment because today in 2009 the situation is much
worse. India is today suffering on an average about 25 incidents of
terrorism a month. India's Home Ministry in it's 2004-05 Annual Report to
Parliament had acknowledged that 29 of the 35 states and union territories
are affected by terrorism. Moreover, all India's neighbours have become
hot-beds for anti-Indian terrorists training. Because of a lack of Hindu
unity and a mindset for deterrent retaliation, terrorists have become
encouraged. In 1989, the Indian government released five dreaded terrorists
to get back the kidnapped daughter, Rubaiyya, of the then Home Minister.
Kashmir terrorists got a huge boost by this capitulation. When the Indian
Airlines plane with 339 passengers was hijacked to Kandahar in Afghanistan,
the government again capitulated whatever the reason, and released three of
the most dangerous terrorists. Today three of the most murderous terrorist
organizations in Kashmir are directed by these three freed terrorists. Then
there is the case of the LTTE which murdered Rajiv Gandhi. We never made
any effort to apprehend the leader of the LTTE V. Prabhakaran who had
ordered the assassination. Even more surprising, those MPs [of PMK, MDMK,
and DMK] who publicly praise that leader and hold the assassination as
justified, have become Union Ministers in a coalition led by the widow of
Rajiv Gandhi! And the daughter of the slain leader went to the convicted
murder conspirator in Vellore jail to cry together with the killer about
the woe befallen to her father and victim! The only explanation can be that
the Gandhi family has something to hide in the assassination. Terrorism
cannot be fought by appeasement. But that precisely is what the government
is doing. Tragically, innocent Hindus have invariably been the victims of
this capitulation. To combat terrorism, there has to be a determination to
never to negotiate a settlement with terrorists. Citizens of a country have
to be educated that there will be hazards when faced with acts of
terrorism, but that the goal of the government will always have to be to
hunt down the terrorists and fix them. Only under such a zero tolerance
policy towards terrorism, will the ultimate good emerge. For example in the
Indian Airlines hijack case in order not to risk 339 passengers' lives the
government released Mohammed Azhar from jail. But Azhar went to Pakistan
after his release and formed the Jaish-e-Mohammed which has since then
killed nearly two thousand innocent Hindus and is still continuing to do
so. How has the nation gained by the Kandahar capitulation then?

Hence the national political leadership has to treat the fight against
terrorism as a dharmayudh, as fight to the finish and a religious duty not
to negotiate, compromise or capitulate to terrorists. The government must
also safeguard the nation by adopting a policy of deterrence by making the
terrorists' political objectives nullified [see my book: Terrorism in
India: A Strategy for Deterrence, Har Anand, 2007 for specific deterrence
policies]. The well known organization Transparency International has
graded about 140 countries according to the corruption levels from least to
the most. India appears near the bottom of the list as among the most
corrupt. Recently The Mitrokhin Archives II has been published wherein KGB
documents have been relied on to conclude that shamefully "India was on
sale for KGB bribes". If India is the one of the most corrupt countries
today and purchasable, it is because the core Hindu values of simplicity,
sacrifice and abstinence have been systematically downgraded over the
years. Wealth obtained by any means has become the criteria for social
status and political activity.

There was a time in India when persons of learning and simplicity enjoyed
the moral authority in society to make even kings bow before them. Not long
ago, Mahatma Gandhi and later Jayaprakash Narayan without holding office
were here exercising the same moral authority over political leaders. In a
very short period, that Hindu value has evaporated. India is fast becoming
a Banana Republic in which everything, person, or policy appears to be
available to anyone with ill-gotten wealth, of course for a price. The
proposal, now implemented in some states, to have reservation in government
employment for Muslims and "Dalit" Christians is another such sell-out.
Reservation quotas are strictly for those whom the Hindu society due to
degeneration had suppressed or had isolated from the mainstream scheduled
caste and Tribes thus suffered imposed disabilities. But those who were
ruling classes in our nation, such as Muslims and Christians, and that too
for a total of 1000 years, cannot claim that their disability is imposed to
avail of this facility. But some political parties in reckless disregard
for equity and history, have sold out for bloc votes the national interest
by advocating for such a reservation proposal. In such a situation the
nation's independence and sovereignty slides into danger of being subverted
and then rendered impotent. Such betrayal has happened before in our
history, not when the nation was poor but was the richest country in the
world. India then was ahead in science, mathematics, art and architecture.
And yet because the moral fibre had weakened, all was lost. We had to
struggle hard to recover our freedom. But by the time we did, we had lost
all our wealth and dropped to the bottom of the list of countries in
poverty. II The Hindutva Agenda Therefore my call today is first and
foremost for undiluted unity of Hindus, a unity based on a mindset that is
nurtured and fostered on the fundamentals of a renaissance. Only then
Hindus can meet the challenge of Christian missionaries and Islamic
fundamentalists. I can do no better here than quote Swami Dayananda
Sarasvati: "Faced with militant missionaries. Hinduism has to show that its
plurality and all- encompassing acceptance are not signs of disparateness
or disunity. For that, a collective voice is needed." Since the task to
defeat the nefarious forces ranged today against Hindu society is not going
to be easy, we cannot therefore trust those amongst in our midst whose
commitment to the motherland is ambivalent or ad hoc or those who feel no
kinship to the Hindu past of the nation. We partitioned a quarter of
Hindustan to enable those Muslims who could not live with Hindus in a
democratic framework of equality and fraternity. Hence, we have to ensure
by our persuasive powers of Saam, Dhaam, Bheda, and Dand to foster in all
citizens to Hinduness or Hindutva.

Continues in Part 3 of 3 parts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

INDIAN IDENTITY IS HINDUTVA, NOT NEHRUVIAN SECULARISM

Part 3 of 3 parts:

With this in mind, I suggest the following Agenda for Action: First, the
concept of Hindustan defines the identity of India. That is, Hindustan is a
nation of Hindus and those others who proudly accept that their ancestors
are Hindus. Muslims and Christians shall be part of the Hindustan if they
accept this truth and revere it. That is the first dimension of Hindutva,
that is of a Brihad Hindutva. Therefore, the first item of a Hindutva
Agenda has to be to establish the overriding Hindustani identity of all
citizens of Bharat, that is India based on the concept of Brihad Hindutva.
In this inclusive concept of Hindutva we have to examine and determine if
the present divisive caste system can be considered as sustainable. Second,
Sanskrit and the Devanagari script, in addition to the mother tongue and
its script, will one day in the future, be Hindustan's link language. All
the main Indian languages have already a large percentage of their
vocabulary common with Sanskrit. Even Tamil which is considered as ancient,
has 40% words in common with Sanskrit. The scripts of all Indian languages
are derived or evolved from Brahmi script. Hence, the second item of the
Hindutva Agenda has to be a commitment to re-throne Sanskrit with
Devanagari script as Hindustan's link language, which is to be achieved
through a compulsory 3-language formula of mother tongue, Hindi, and
English in all schools, and by a steady sanskritization of Hindi's
vocabulary till Sanskritized Hindi becomes indistinguishable from Sanskrit.
Third, Hindus, and those others who are proud of their Hindu past and
origins, must learn the correct history of India. That history which
records that Hindus have always been, and are one; that caste is not birth-
based nor immutable but a code of discipline by choice and adherence. India
is a continuum, sanatana. That is, ancient Hindus and their descendents
have always lived in this area from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean, an
area called Akhand Hindustan, and did not come from outside; and that there
is no truth in the Aryan-Dravidian race theory. Instead Hindus went abroad
to spread learning. Also fresh perspectives have to be given to chronology
including recognizing that the Vijaynagaram Dynasty lasted 300 years
reigning over a larger area than the Mughals from Akbar to Aurangzeb which
lasted about 150 years. But most all this history must record the valiant
and continuous struggle against the foreign invaders whether Islamic or
Christian and the ultimate victory in 1947 and never having had
capitulated. So the third item of the Hindutva Agenda item has to be a
total and complete re-writing of history text books, that are then
prescribed in educational institutions. Fourth, the virat Hindutva mindset
is to retaliate when attacked. The retaliation must be massive enough to
deter future attacks. If terrorists come from training camps in Pakistan,
Bangla Desh or Sri Lanka, Hindus must seek to carpet bomb those training
camps, no matter the consequences. If 5 lakh Kashmiri Hindus are driven out
of the Valley by Islamic terrorists, we must arm and financially equip 10
lakhs of the able-bodied ex-servicemen to go with their families and settle
in the former residences of the driven-out Hindus. If Bangla Desh permits
its population to infiltrate into Hindustan, then our armed forces should
annex the northern parts of Bangla Desh [above the line from Khulna to
Sylhet] as compensation within the meaning of the Indian Independence Act
of June 1947 passed by the British Parliament to legitimize Partition. The
Act was framed on the principle that territory in proportion to Muslims not
wanting to live under what Jinnah called as the ?hegemony' of the Hindus,
be carved out as Pakistan. One-third of Banla Desh has already infiltrated
into Hindustan to live under Hindu ?hegemony' so one- third of Bangla Desh
territory must be re-claimed, or Bangla Desh should take their people back.
Thus, virat Hindutva minded Indians must prefer to lose everything they
possess rather than submit to treachery, tyranny or to terrorism. Today
those in India who submit to terrorists and hijackers hence must be
vehemently despised as anti-Hindus. They cannot be good Hindus just because
they are pious or go regularly to the temple, or good Hindustanis just
because they are citizens of India or even tom-tom religious slogans.
Today's so-called self proclaimed "good" Hindus have however failed to
avenge or retaliate for the attack on Parliament, Akshaya Mandir, Ayodhya,
and even a former Prime Minister's[Rajiv Gandhi's] assassination. On the
other hand those who defend these assassins and praise the terrorist
organization behind them, are central government Ministers today. Thus, the
fourth item of the Hindutva Agenda has to be a commitment of ?zero
tolerance' for terrorists, also for those who forcibly or by inducements
seek to convert Hindus to other religion, and to never negotiate with them
unless they surrender, and to retaliate against the political objectives of
these enemies. This is virat Hindutva. At this juncture I would like to add
a basic axiom that we must always remember. While we may adhere to the
principle of Hindu secularism, i.e., sarva pantha sama bhava, we must never
forget one fundamental tenet of Islamic behavior: Islam teaches that
Muslims must behave differently when in majority, from when in strong
minority [if majority waffles or appeases], and in weak minority [if
majority is united and clear sighted]. Saudi Arabia is in the first
category, termed as Darul Islam, India, UK and Germany is in the second
category called Darul Harab. Australia, China, and US is in the third
category held to be Darul Ahad or takkiyya. This categorization applies
even within countries. Kashmir is held to be Darul Islam, and hence Hindus
have to be driven out or killed as kafirs, or brutalized as dhimmis, their
temples razed, and their women publicly raped. Even in Tamil Nadu where
Muslims state-wise are less than 5% of the population, and culturally very
close to Hindus, there are 40 Town Panchayats where Muslims are in
majority, and there the Muslim psychology undergoes a complete
transformation. Thus, what happens in Kashmir happens also in these elected
Town Panchayats but in more subdued forms for the hapless minority Hindus
of these Town Panchayats. I had to go before the Madras High Court in PIL
to ensure that the poorest scheduled caste Hindus of Melvisharam Town
Panchayat (75% Muslim) are provided the minimum civic amenities to the
Hindu area. Hindus had been a choice by the Panchayat: Either convert to
Islam, or lose civic amenities. For 29 20 years the Hindus held out and
suffered horrible civic conditions till they came to me, and I went to
court. Still the problem is not over. The DMK TN Government has gone in
appeal to the Supreme Court. I believe similar is the fate of Hindus in Mau
and Azamgarh, Meerut, and good parts of Assam. Darul Islam is a Muslim
religious concept of a land where Muslims rule, and the non- believers in
Islam are termed as ?Dhimmis".

The term 'Dhimmi' was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina[Khaybar
to be exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert
to Islam, then they would accept second class status politically,
culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including the
right to modesty of women, and the special tax jizya. There is thus no
scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals in the political,
cultural, or social system in a Darul Islam where Muslims rule. Secular
order in India thus is possible only when Muslims are not in power. Thondi,
Rasathipuram, and other places prove that the Muslim mind suffers from a
dangerous duality --of seeking secularism when out of power and imposing a
brutal demeaning theocracy for non-Muslims when in power. It is this
duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern education and other
means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming majority in India. We do
not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical
regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ?X' represents
the two trends -- Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising,
and intersecting in the year 2061. The ?dhimmitude' of Jews in Medina and
later in Mecca represents the beginning of religious apartheid inherent and
basic to Islamic mores, and practiced long before what we saw in South
Africa on the basis of colour and race, and that which became prevalent
during the Islamic imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus were dhimmis
for six hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger
majority in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough.
Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.

In his Presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940,
Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his own
inimitable way to suit his patrons, viz., the British colonialists: "To
visualize Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common nation is
a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some unawakened Hindu
leaders....The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are two different
civilisations.... since their thought process grow on different beliefs."
Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his concept
of non- compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after Independence and
Partition, instead of building on this rejection by many Muslims, the Nehru
era saw increasing pandering precisely to the religious element that
believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi vigorously continued this
appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.
But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the
government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had
demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring
legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah
Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel from his
Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line clerics who
protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere and to defacto
amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These relatives on a directive
from the Vatican thought that if secular law would be applied to Muslims,
it can be to the Christians too. This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim
clerics, since the Shariat had already been amended, without protest, in
the criminal law of India. The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform
criminal code that equally applies to all religious communities. I
therefore ask the clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in
India direct that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariat
prescribes? If Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic
in rejecting the uniform civil code?

In India, Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has had
other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused
to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to carry night soil and
suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or it meant gross mental
torture. Guru Tegh Bahadur, for example, had to see his disciples sawed in
half, before the pious Guru's own head was severed and displayed in public.
The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted valiant
Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to convert and thus made to carry
night soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared to be asprashya or
"untouchable". The ranks of the Scheduled Caste community which was not
more than 1% of the population before the advent of Islam in India, swelled
to 14 percent by the time Mughal rule collapsed. Thus, today's SC community
especially those who are still Hindus, consists mostly of those valiant
Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to become Muslims but preferred
ostracization and ignominy in order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today
should offer koti koti pranams to them for keeping the Bhagwa Dhwaj of
Hindu religion flying even at great personal cost and misery. Here I
suggest therefore that we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam
before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us.

In a later publication, I will write about the true nature of Christianity
and how to combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus. At this
juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as it is indeed
violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati boldly wrote to the Vatican Pope,
nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his religion to
Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because it is a return
to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.
Islam is not only and merely what is stated in the Koran. Islam is a
trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. This trilogy defines a "true" Muslim or
believer. Therefore those who sing praises of the Koran to prove that Islam
is intrinsically humane, have not read the Sira and Hadith. While Koran is
a compilation of revelations of Allah to Mohammed through angel Gabriel,
Sira is essentially a biography of Mohammed, while Hadiths are a collection
of proverbs, poems, and practices of Mohammed. Thus Islamic theology is
Koran plus what the Prophet said or did. This is borne by content analysis
of the trilogy. Koran has 153,000 words, while Sira has 408,000 words, and
Hadith compiled by Bukhari has 338,000 words. Hence, Koran is just 17 % of
Islam, while Sira and Hadith are 83% and about Prophet Mohammed. For 13
years in Mecca, Mohammed preached the Koran and managed to convert just 150
persons. But in Medina, Mohammed did and said what is contained in Sira and
Hadith. Within 10 years he became the King of Arabia, and converted 100
percent of the people who survived the sword of Islam. To enforce his
revelations, Mohammed resorted to Jihad, which meant sacred violence as a
process of spreading Islam. Holy war is just one phase of Jihad, because
Jihad is a process. It is in Sira that one finds a detailed manual of the
complete strategy of jihad and political dimension of Islam. Sira is about
how Mohammed dealt with those who disagreed with him. In Mecca, Mohammed
was conciliatory because he was in a hopeless minority. But he became
completely different in Medina, While Koran is personal to every Muslim or
believer, Sira and Hadith affect non- believers. Islamic theology is
obsessed with what to do with unbelievers and non-believers. Unlike
Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact says that
other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them, and justifies
violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-believers in Islam is:
convert or accept dhimmitude. Hence, the explanation for Thondi,
Rasathipuram, Mau etc., and the duality in ethics practiced by Muslims
everywhere. A true hard-core Muslim is Dr.Jekyll when in minority, and
Mr.Hyde when in majority. Hindus should also not be defensive about Mosques
built on where temples stood because, as the Supreme Court has held in the
Faruqui vs. Union of India case [(1994)6 SCC360] that a masjid is not an
essential part of Islamic theology, and have been, and can be demolished
for public good. Of course, because of this no one in a democracy can take
law into his own hands to demolish these masjids. But a Government can
remove the masjids in Ayodhya, Kashi, and Brindavan, in fact in 300 other
places to rebuild the original temples under law. We should seek Muslims
cooperation in this.

Therefore one basic axiom for virat Hindutva is: never permit Hindus to
become a minority anywhere in Hindustan. Populate, de-populate, re-convert,
and use Saam, Dhaam, Bheda, Danda, but never allow Muslims to become
majority anywhere -- from village to state. For any kind of secularism,
genuine, pseudo, or Hindu, we Hindus have to be necessarily in majority. We
cannot blame Muslims for this -- their mind is clear and set by Islam. We
Hindus are at fault -- our mindset is of the numerous goats in a forest or
of lions in a circus. We lack today a virat Hindutva mindset.

Fifth, our Hindutva ideology has to be based on Ekatma Manavad or Integral
Humanism. Deendayal Upadhyaya recognized as far back as 1965 that the world
cannot be a happier place merely by material progress. There has to be a
harmonisation of material progress with spiritual development of any human
being. This reality has dawned after centuries on Christians and even
Communists. No wonder, the Newsweek article [Annexure 4] states that
Americans feel increasingly that they logically "are all Hindus today". The
Chinese President Hu Jintao actually got a resolution passed in a special
session of the Communist Party of China in October 2006 that Chinese
progress is sustainable only if China adopts the concept of "Harmonious
Society" in which blending of material progress with spiritual values
[drawn from Confucious and Buddha] is the only way to progress for China.
In 2007 China ruled by the atheistic Communist Party convened an
international conference on Buddhism! Thus, the far-sighted Deendayalji
advocated the concept of the ?Integral Human', which concept is squarely
within the Hindu ethos and based on Hindutva. Ekatma Manavad or Integral
Humanism, as he termed it, contrasts this harmonization as it differs from
capitalism and communism. [The tabular presentation in Annexure 3 brings
this out].

Therefore one basic axiom for virat Hindutva is: never permit Hindus to
become a minority anywhere in Hindustan. Populate, de-populate, re-convert,
and use Saam, Dhaam, Bheda, Danda, but never allow Muslims to become
majority anywhere -- from village to state. For any kind of secularism,
genuine, pseudo, or Hindu, we Hindus have to be necessarily in majority. We
cannot blame Muslims for this -- their mind is clear and set by Islam. We
Hindus are at fault -- our mindset is of the numerous goats in a forest or
of lions in a circus. We lack today a virat Hindutva mindset.

Fifth, our Hindutva ideology has to be based on Ekatma Manavad or Integral
Humanism. Deendayal Upadhyaya recognized as far back as 1965 that the world
cannot be a happier place merely by material progress. There has to be a
harmonisation of material progress with spiritual development of any human
being. This reality has dawned after centuries on Christians and even
Communists. No wonder, the Newsweek article [Annexure 4] states that
Americans feel increasingly that they logically "are all Hindus today". The
Chinese President Hu Jintao actually got a resolution passed in a special
session of the Communist Party of China in October 2006 that Chinese
progress is sustainable only if China adopts the concept of "Harmonious
Society" in which blending of material progress with spiritual values
[drawn from Confucious and Buddha] is the only way to progress for China.
In 2007 China ruled by the atheistic Communist Party convened an
international conference on Buddhism! Thus, the far-sighted Deendayalji
advocated the concept of the ?Integral Human', which concept is squarely
within the Hindu ethos and based on Hindutva. Ekatma Manavad or Integral
Humanism, as he termed it, contrasts this harmonization as it differs from
capitalism and communism. [The tabular presentation in Annexure 3 brings
this out].

III Political Action for Implementation of the Agenda: Three Steps

These five items together constitute the Brihad Virat Ekatma Hindutva
Agenda, which if followed and sincerely implemented will lead to a bonding
that Hindus need today to confront the challenge that Hindu civilization is
facing from Islamic terrorists, fraud Christian missionaries from abroad,
and a gang of Marxists and Macaulayist intellectuals in the academia and
media, who are also aided and abetted by confused Hindus within the
country. Without such a Hindu unity based on the implied mindset in the
Agenda we will be unable to nullify and root out the subversion and erosion
that undermine today the Hindu foundation of India. This foundation is what
makes India distinctive in the world, and hence we must safeguard this
legacy with all the might and moral fibre that we can muster, for and with
Hindutva, and thus seek the implementation of this five-point Hindutva
Agenda. In the implementation of this Agenda we will get great moral
support from Hindus resident abroad because of their sheer commitment to
the Hindus. I refer not only to skilled professionals in US and Europe, but
in equal measure if not more to the valiant indentured and brutalized
labour taken forcibly from India by British colonialists to far away
Guyana, Fiji, Mauritius and Africa, who despite being isolated and cut off
from contact with the motherland fiercely fought for generations to keep
their Hindu identity. The motherland must now own them as its dear tested
children, and co-opt them in our struggle to establish Hindutva in
Hindustan to achieve Hindu Rashtra. Moreover, we must also welcome anyone
who becomes a Hindu whatever his pedigree and blood as Swami Vivekananda,
Veer Savarkar[as exemplified by his attitude in the Sister Nivedita case],
and Deendayalji made clear: no discrimination between Indian and foreigner
Hindu. Free from economic constraints and aching for an identity, and well
educated, I have seen the Hindus abroad able to organize and effectively
challenge the attempts to slander Hindu religious symbols and icons.
Overseas Hindus have contributed during our Freedom Struggle, the fight
against the Emergency, and in enabling our acharyas to spread the message
of the Hindu religion abroad. Our final goal has to be to spread Hindutva
and Hindu theology abroad, but by example and not by inducing conversion.
This has to been done without demeaning other religions.

At home, since in a democracy the war is in fighting of elections, we must
therefore resolve to foster a Hindu consciousness that leads to a cohesive
vigorous Hindu unity and mindset, so that the Hindustani voter, will cast
his ballot in an election only for a Front that will be loyal to the
Hindutva Agenda. We cannot afford to be tolerant anymore of past excuses
for failure to implement a Hindutva Agenda. Hence, to use the Quit India
cry: We must do or die in the effort. Therefore the time for political
action is now. From my personal experience as a Minister in a minority
government, I can say that lack of majority in Parliament is no excuse for
implementing any agenda. As a Minister of Law in the minority
Chandrashekhar government I got made K.M. Pandey, the Sessions Judge of
Faizabad, a High Court judge despite the fact that the previous V.P.
Singh's three-legged government had issued orders on file that since Pandey
had directed the locks on the so-called Babri Masjid to be removed, he
should never be made a High Court judge. Mulayam Singh was our Chief
Minister of UP, and I however got his protests sufficiently moderated. He
cooperated because he knew I would do it anyway make Pandey a judge of the
High Court. The same clarity enabled the Chandrashekhar government to get
Saifuddin Soz's kidnapped daughter freed without releasing any dreaded
terrorists. There are methods for doing that -- mostly based on
retaliation. In each case it is the mindset of those elected to high office
that matters. It was this mindset that enabled the Chandrashekhar
government to nearly solve by an agreement the question of building of a
Ram temple in Ayodhya. The government however fell before it could be
clinched. But it is easier said than done to expect that politicians would
do or die for the Hindutva Agenda. As our rudderless democracy has drifted,
we are today in a "match-fixing mode" even in electoral contests. In Tamil
Nadu, the DMK and AIADMK are bitter enemies, but in most crucial
constituencies, a match-fixing arrangements for money had been worked out
between Sasikala of the AIADMK and Arcot Veerasamy of the DMK, who are
alter egos of their respective top leaders, and determined to keep out the
Hindutva forces from Tamil Nadu. The same match-fixing disease has spread
to other parties nation-wide. We have to cure it before it completely
debilitates and destroys our democracy as it has done in Latin American
countries such as Colombia and Peru.

Therefore, to meet this challenge, the second step, after the electoral
battle is over, is to form a Hindutva Parliamentary and Legislative Forum
of hopefully 50 or more MPs and likewise 10% of the Legislative Assemblies.
These Forums must use every rule in the parliamentary procedure to make the
government accountable for the Hindutva Agenda and to speak, debate and get
implemented the five agenda items of Brihad Virat Ekatma Hindutva. For the
efficacy of this, a staff of retired Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha Secretariat
officials should be created, with remuneration, to draft, file and get
listed Motions, Call Attention Notices, Questions, and Petitions. The third
step necessary arises from the reluctance today to confront and expose the
anti- Hindu personages in Parliament, Academia and Media because of this
disease of "match-fixing". It is said that such attacks would be personal
and counter productive. There is, as is being argued however nothing
"personal" in such directed and organized attacks. Just as the world
focused on Hitler or Mussolini, without thinking of it being personal, or
our Hindutva enemies today focus on persons in our ranks without being
apologetic, therefore we should identify and expose especially the person
who has emerged as the fountain head of the anti-Hindutva campaign today.
That person today is Ms. Sonia Gandhi, who is actually a surrogate for the
Vatican in India and the dangerous secret violent and underground Opus Dei.
Every foreign and fraud Christian missionary from abroad has got protection
from her, and they been able to work on tourist visas with impunity to
blatantly and vulgarly convert Hindus to Christianity. I am not impressed
with Sonia Gandhi adorning a sari, speaking Hindi, visiting temples and
sporting the Namaste as a greeting. It does not make her an Indian, leave
alone becoming a Hindu. Let us not be gullible because of this. Sita was
fooled by Ravana who came dressed as a sadhu in bhagwa colour clothes. He
exploited her piety and abducted her. Hence, it is sad that in the
Parliament for the last ten years no one has thought it fit to confront Ms.
Sonia Gandhi about her past dubious life of lies, corruption, immoral
politics, and her long-term connections with the nation's enemies. She is a
citizen by fraud and can be deprived of this citizenship anytime under
Section 10 of the Citizenship Act. And yet every government has instead
sought to protect her and her complicit son. This "match-fixing" seems to
have the dimension of blackmail too for efficacy! But Sonia Gandhi is the
catalyst for Hindutva's enemies, and today is cocooned and positioned to
deliver India to our enemies. Hence the fight for Hindutva has to include
the dethroning of Ms. Sonia Gandhi from office, and her ilk from Indian
politics. There is nothing personal about it. It is as essential as Sri
Rama putting vaali out of business by whatever means, and for much the same
reason -- -Vaali was an ally of Ravana and controlling Sugrive's army,
while Sonia is a surrogate for the Vatican and Opus Dei positioned inside
the government. Since we are in a modern democracy, the methodology of
putting Ms. Sonia Gandhi out of action has to be tailored to democratic
norms. There is no alternative to that. We cannot permit any short-cutting
of the democratic procedure. That means we restrict ourselves to exposure,
censure, and deprivation of her civil rights by legal means and
constitutionally, to drive her out. But we cannot in this struggle have in
our midst those suffering from the "Arjun virus" as the late Swami
Chinmayananda once pointed out referring to Arjun's declining to fight at
Kurukshetra. In dealing with Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her ilk, there cannot be
any ambivalence permitted. Nor therefore those who have something to hide
from the public, and hence amenable to her blackmail be permitted in the
command structure of the Hindutva campaign. Ms.Sonia Gandhi's sinister
character is now well established with her having been caught perjuring on
her educational qualifications, hiding her family's pre-War Nazi past and
post-War KGB connections, the dubious financial deals with Ottavio
Quattrocchi, her 1960s shameful employment with a Pakistani agency, her
smuggling out antiques and temple statues for auction abroad with the help
of Naveen Chawla's wife, and her now established Swiss Bank secret and
illegal accounts of Rs 10,000 crores or more [see "Know Your Sonia" in
www.janataparty.org] As a widow of the LTTE-murdered Rajiv Gandhi she has
felt no shame or held as immoral in entering into an electoral pact with
those parties which had praised the LTTE and defended the assassination of
her husband as necessary. She not only wrote to the President of India to
commute the death sentence awarded to Rajiv Gandhi's killers by the Supreme
Court, but sent her daughter to meet them illegally in prison to pacify
these killers --about what is yet to be found out! The struggle for
Hindutva cannot succeed in India unless she is out of the way because she
has emerged just as Hitler had, as the fulcrum and financial clearing house
for all the international and national enemies of Hindu civilisation. The
Hindutva movement today cannot afford the warm forgiving heart of a
Prithviraj Chauhan. We instead need the cool brain of a Shivaji. The
ambivalence of some of the Opposition leaders towards Ms. Sonia Gandhi is
therefore, according to me, the first main obstacle in the political front
to the march of Hindutva, and in the implementation of the Hindutva Agenda.
Hence this ambivalence must be first cured, before Ms. Sonia Gandhi is
targeted and moved out of the way by sanctioned democratic tactics and
methods. These above noted steps are thus the essential political actions
for the implementation of of Brihad Virat Ekatma Hindutva Agenda to weld
Hindustanis again vibrant citizens of a Hindu Rashtra.

3-part series concluded.

More at:
http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/indian-identity-is-hindutva-not-nehruvian-secularism-dr-subramanian-swamy/

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.ly/1EM9nsg

[Arindam Banerjee]

Which is Sanskrit.

> >
> > > You just claimed that Sanskrit is the ancestor of all those languages*.
> >
> > Sanskrit creates derivatives which go on to create vernaculars.
> >
> > > This automatically means that you claim that what others call PIE
> > > is the same as what you call Sanskrit.
> >
> > No. I am saying that as per my coterie there is no PIE. Only PEs and
> > Prakrits derived from Sanskrit.
> > >
> > > * All those languages meaning
> > > 1) Prakits and descendants of Prakits, and
> > > 2) Languages outside India that are related to Sanskrit
> >
> > Again, there has never been any PIE that is the ancestor of Sanskrit as
> > per my Sanskritic coterie
>
> If Sanskrit is PIE, then there is obviously no PIE that is an ancestor of
> Sanskrit.

There is no PIE, period. Nothing proto about Sanskrit. The laws of evolution
do not apply to Sanskrit. The earliest Vedic texts are amazing, far superior to
anything written later. That is why my coterie holds them to have a Divine
Source. Styles changed over centuries but the basic language remained the same,
as refined as ever.

>
> But there is a PIE so long as Indo-European languages have a common
> ancestor.

There is no PIE. Every vernacular has its ancestor/s. Vernaculars are living
languages that have their own lifetimes accordingly. But Sanskrit is not like
a vernacular, though it can be used as one.

>
> That is if Bengali, French, etc. are not divinely created but instead have
> a common ancestor, then there is a PIE - which is whatever their (most
> recent) common ancestor happens to be.

The roots of modern Bengali are well known. There are dozens of dialects
especially when we consider Bangladesh. Modern Bengali is more Sanskritised
than *most* of them; there could be some local pockets where the dialect is
more sanskritised but this is not my field. There are many ancestors thus to
any spoken language. In the case of Bengali, apart from Sanskrit we have
Arabic, Persian, English, Portuguese influences. Then there are the local
tones and words. Spoken languages are very dynamic unlike the classical
languages, that have to be static. So I don't see why there should be so much
stress upon a single, common PIE. There were lots of prakrits based upon
Sanskrit, in India and Europe. However the Sanskritic tradition was handed down
only in India, thanks to the Brahmins.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

I am going through the video again, and yes to begin with they look like
sand dunes.

at 0:47 yes they do look like sand dunes but later on from
1:00 onwards they do not look like sand dunes but they do look like buildings
and roads.
The ruins are covered with sand so they make look like sand dunes to begin
with. They are 7 miles off the coast, about 170 feet below the surface.
Pottery shards have been brought back.
The city has existed from 32000 to 9000 years ago, going by the artifacts
brought back.
At 2:30 they say that Hindu scholars are right about their civilisation being
many tens of thousands of years old.
At 3:11 they found that under 70 feet of water outside modern Dwaraka there
was a sandstone wall and other man-made artifacts for a modern port.

Later on they talk about Salva and flying saucers and electric weapons and
yes these are not supported by any Hindu text I am aware of. Yes in the
Mahabharata and Ramayana there ae many fabulous weapons like the Brahmastra,
and in the Ramayana there is Ravana's Pushpak Viman which is a flying
machine. But the story of Dwarka's fall as given in the Mahabharata is not
from the foreign attack. Dwarka's population became arrogant and died out as
a result of a civil war. Krishna was disillusioned and gave up His life after
he was accidentally shot by a hunter. Balarama too gave up His life, and that
was the last of the Divine incarnations. As per the texts.

That the oceans rose and swallowed Dwarka up, is well known to all Hindus. It
is thus not surprising that the underwater ruins have been found. It is quite
enough to prove that Hinduism goes back very very long back, over 9000 years
at least, going by the floods happening from the end of the Ice Age.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Origin and Development of Indian Languages

The Hans India
July 27, 2015

Ever since human beings have invented scripts, writing
has reflected the culture, lifestyle, society and the
polity of contemporary society. In the process, each
culture evolved its own language and created a huge
literary base. This literary base of a civilisation tells
us about the evolution of each of its languages and
culture through the span of centuries.

Role of Sanskrit

Sanskrit is the mother of many Indian languages. The
Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Dharmasutras are all
written in Sanskrit. There is also a variety of secular
and regional literature. By reading about the languages
and literature created in the past, we shall be able to
understand our civilization better and appreciate the
diversity and richness of our culture.

All this was possible because of the language that
developed during that time. Sanskrit is the most ancient
language of our country. It is one of the twenty-two
languages listed in the Indian Constitution .The
literature in Sanskrit is vast, beginning with the most
ancient thought embodied in the Rig Veda, the oldest
literary heritage of mankind, and the Zend Avesta.

It was Sanskrit that gave impetus to the study of
linguistics scientifically during the eighteenth century.
The great grammarian Panini, analysed Sanskrit and its
word formation in his unrivalled descriptive grammar
Ashtadhyayi. . . .

Continues at:

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-07-27/Origin-and-development-of-Indian-languages-166230

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://ow.ly/UIz9w

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

The myth of the aryan invasion

By Swami B.V. Giri

http://gosai.com/writings/the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

uNmaiviLambi <tripur...@yahoo.com> posted:

Great article. AIT is a myth perpetrated by colonisers to
demoralize Hindus to make them feel their culture came
from Europe and also that they are also alien after all
so Europeans can stay and conquer us. This also can make
us feel guilty, that we usurped some one else's country.
Europeans are so used to aggressive barbarism by northern
Europeans, they saw others in the same light. All they
can think of is race,migration, conquest and killings.
- uNmaiviLambi

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:50:37 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:

> > > > > Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
>

> There is no PIE, period. Nothing proto about Sanskrit.

You said the Prakits came from Sanskrit; look at your sentence above
that starts with 'Pali.' This means that you consider Sanskrit a
proto-language of the Prakits.

> The laws of evolution do not apply to Sanskrit.

How other than by evolution could the Prakits come from Sanskrit?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:19:27 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:50:37 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > > > > > Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
> >
> > There is no PIE, period. Nothing proto about Sanskrit.
>
> You said the Prakits came from Sanskrit; look at your sentence above
> that starts with 'Pali.' This means that you consider Sanskrit a
> proto-language of the Prakits.

The problem of calling Sanskrit a proto-language is that it reduces Sanskrit
to the level of all other languages.

>
> > The laws of evolution do not apply to Sanskrit.
>
> How other than by evolution could the Prakits come from Sanskrit?

Prakrits come from Sanskrit. Sanskrit comes fully formed as a gift to us
unworthy humans from the Gods and Goddesses.

The very first line of the Rhig Veda (I think I talked about it earlier in this
ng) is so stunningly deep and meaningful, it took me years to understand.

So as there has never been any development found in Sanskrit save in style
and some minor matters, and as the Vedas the original literature remain
supreme in depth and vastness, it is not possible to see anything remotely
similar earlier to Sanskrit.

Evolution means something less developed before, but comparable. One cannot
say that IC chips evolved from bows and arrows.

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 12:06:40 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:19:27 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:50:37 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
> > >
> > > There is no PIE, period. Nothing proto about Sanskrit.
> >
> > You said the Prakits came from Sanskrit; look at your sentence above
> > that starts with 'Pali.' This means that you consider Sanskrit a
> > proto-language of the Prakits.
>
> The problem of calling Sanskrit a proto-language is that it reduces
> Sanskrit to the level of all other languages.

No, it doesn't; it only reduces Prakits to the level of other natural
languages. Sanskrit being a proto-language of Prakits would prevent
Prakits from having a divine origin. It would not prevent Sanskrit
from being a divine invention that doesn't come from an older language;
after all, there are invented languages, eg. Klingon, that don't come
from an older language.

> > > The laws of evolution do not apply to Sanskrit.
> >
> > How other than by evolution could the Prakits come from Sanskrit?
>
> Prakrits come from Sanskrit. Sanskrit comes fully formed as a gift to us
> unworthy humans from the Gods and Goddesses.

Fine, but describe a process by which a Prakit could have come from
Sanskrit.

> So as there has never been any development found in Sanskrit save in style
> and some minor matters,

If Sanskrit developed into Prakits, then obviously major development
(changes) took place. Changes over millenia, not merely centuries, is how
you got your Bengali with its many differences from Sanskrit, differences
that were even more pronounced a few centuries back when scholars hadn't
yet started sanskritizing Bengali.

> Evolution means something less developed before, but comparable.

From where did you get this meaning of evolution? Those who claim that
man evolved from proto-lizards don't claim that man is less developed
than proto-lizards.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:01:14 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 12:06:40 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:19:27 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:50:37 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Pali came from Sanskrit, like all other prakrits.
> > > >
> > > > There is no PIE, period. Nothing proto about Sanskrit.
> > >
> > > You said the Prakits came from Sanskrit; look at your sentence above
> > > that starts with 'Pali.' This means that you consider Sanskrit a
> > > proto-language of the Prakits.
> >
> > The problem of calling Sanskrit a proto-language is that it reduces
> > Sanskrit to the level of all other languages.
>
> No, it doesn't; it only reduces Prakits to the level of other natural
> languages. Sanskrit being a proto-language of Prakits would prevent
> Prakits from having a divine origin. It would not prevent Sanskrit
> from being a divine invention that doesn't come from an older language;
> after all, there are invented languages, eg. Klingon, that don't come
> from an older language.

Prakrits are sanskritisations of natural languages that become widespread for
sectarian reasons or expansionist impulses. When it becomes big enough it
becomes a classic language in its own right.

The similarity between Sanskrit and Klingon both as alien languages is
certainly there. If all other languages other than Klingon vanish then Klingon
will be the new Sanskrit without any proto-language.

> > > > The laws of evolution do not apply to Sanskrit.
> > >
> > > How other than by evolution could the Prakits come from Sanskrit?
> >
> > Prakrits come from Sanskrit. Sanskrit comes fully formed as a gift to us
> > unworthy humans from the Gods and Goddesses.
>
> Fine, but describe a process by which a Prakit could have come from
> Sanskrit.

I think I did that sometime earlier in this thread.

>
> > So as there has never been any development found in Sanskrit save in style
> > and some minor matters,
>
> If Sanskrit developed into Prakits, then obviously major development
> (changes) took place. Changes over millenia, not merely centuries, is how
> you got your Bengali with its many differences from Sanskrit, differences
> that were even more pronounced a few centuries back when scholars hadn't
> yet started sanskritizing Bengali.

Modern Bengali owes itself to Michael Madhusudan Dutta, who wrotely highly
Sanskritised Bengali. His epic poem "Meghnad-bodh-kavya" is rated the supreme work in
Bengali literature. 19th century Bengali was highly Sanskritic, with Bankim
Chandra, Tagore, and many others using Sanskritic expressions. Vidyasagar moshai
a great Sanskrit scholar Sanskritised the Bengali script, and was influential
in the primary schooling of Bengali. This Sanskritisation of Bengali was a
key factor in the Bengal Renaissance, which lasted well into the 1960s till
outed by Marxism with its anti-Hinduism of all sorts.

Thus when there is public mood for Sanskritisation, there is general
improvement; when under secular or democratic influences involving populism
and intellectual debasement, there is at best stagnation.

In any long and lasting culture, there are periods of rise and fall.

[Arindam Banerjee]

From biology texts relating to mutations.

Those who claim that
> man evolved from proto-lizards don't claim that man is less developed
> than proto-lizards.

The evolution claim for humans is that humans developed from a sort of ape
extinct today.

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 3:03:25 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:01:14 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 12:06:40 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem of calling Sanskrit a proto-language is that it reduces
> > > Sanskrit to the level of all other languages.
> >
> > No, it doesn't; it only reduces Prakits to the level of other natural
> > languages. Sanskrit being a proto-language of Prakits would prevent
> > Prakits from having a divine origin. It would not prevent Sanskrit
> > from being a divine invention that doesn't come from an older language;
> > after all, there are invented languages, eg. Klingon, that don't come
> > from an older language.
>
> Prakrits are sanskritisations of natural languages

For example, Pali? Describe the language that got Sanskritized to turn
it into Pali. That is, what was the language like before it got
Sanskritized?

[Arindam Banerjee]

Some local language whose adherents liked the sound of Sanskrit but could
not pronouce the words. The mis-prounced words are called apabhrangsha.
Together with the local words they become the prakrit which gets more and
more sanskritised with some grammar coming in, with more sanskritic words,
till it reaches a classic standard. Like the classical Bengali of Bankim
Chandra and Michael Madhusudan Dutta, which my great-great-grandparents saw
developing before their eyes. But these days few write in classical or
"sadhu" Bangla, let alone speak it. In my young days one could do both and if
you are taught in the Bengali medium you will at least know about it. Had
classic Bangla taken off as did Pali thanks to Buddhism then some 2000 years
later or so it would be called a prakrit. Now, it is a part of the overall
Bengali language.

[Dingbat]

... and that those extinct apes, in turn, evolved from cold blooded animals;
let's call those cold-blooded animals proto-lizards for this discussion.

See here:
Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids.
...
The earliest mammals are generally agreed to have been the ancestors of
todays' monotremes. Monotremes resemble reptiles and differ from all
other mammals in that they lay shell-covered eggs
http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

[Arindam Banerjee]

They still call it the *theory* of evolution. It could be that aliens
created life forms from time to time.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <352e3d3d-d1e9-4553...@googlegroups.com>,

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Prakrits come from Sanskrit. Sanskrit comes fully formed as a gift to us
>unworthy humans from the Gods and Goddesses.

Is there any point arguiing with someone who expresses such silly views?

This is the same person who claims to believe that atoms get smaller
when you cut something in half, and that there is no pressure at the
centre of a planet. Either he is stupid or he is a troll; there is
no point dealing with him either way.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Why is it either/or? Clearly it's inclusive, not exclusive, or.

[Arindam Banerjee]

then fuck off. I don't want to have anything to do with such racist and
bigoted scum like you.

[Arindam Banerjee]

You were always a piece of shit, Daniels.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <6a5a7a05-55f0-43cc...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> This is the same person who claims to believe that atoms get smaller
>> when you cut something in half, and that there is no pressure at the
>> centre of a planet. Either he is stupid or he is a troll; there is
>> no point dealing with him either way.

>Why is it either/or? Clearly it's inclusive, not exclusive, or.

If someone's trolling, you can't easily tell whether they're stupid,
because everything they do is an act. I imagine that consistent
trolling requires a fair degree of intelligence.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

We've seen a very great deal of this one.

[musika]

Then don't.


--
Ray
UK

[Peter Moylan]

I'd forgotten that bit about the centre of a planet.

There was a film version of "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" that
came up with an especially stupid version of that error. All the way
down through the caves, the people experienced normal gravity. Then,
quite abruptly, they hit a point where they started floating in the air.

Of course, the real error lay in supposing that you could get to the
centre through caves. At the centre the pressure is so high that any
cavity would be crushed.

Not to mention problems with the temperature.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Sanskrit is a divine language - here's why

By bhattathiri
February 26, 2004

Bhagavad Gita is originally written in Sanskrit.

There are many aspects by which a language can be said as sacred and
how we use it. If a language is used to discover the sacredness,
purity and spirituality of life, it becomes a sacred language.
Whether or not a language is sacred is determined by who is using it.
This in turn has a great deal to do with whether a language is being
used consciously or unconsciously, whether we use language as an
instrument to accomplish our real purpose in life, that is, wake up
and find out who we are; or we are unconsciously programmed by
language, to maintain patterns of a struggle for individual survival
established by previous generations.

People are always at the effect of the unconscious operation of any
language. Suppose a group of people listen to some very simple
Sanskrit sounds, sung in a rhythmic sequence, and then individually
duplicate the sounds, based upon what they heard many times.Everybody
will think that in "my turn" that there is little space left to
actually listen and enjoy the sounds. This overriding preoccupation
with getting it right is accompanied by an endless barrage of
strategies, evaluations, comparisons, judgements, expectations,
hopes, rationalizations and fears of consequences. By writing down
this list of what everyone was thinking, the unconscious operation of
language becomes visible. Most people are not aware they are thinking
all this until they see the language of it written on a flip chart.

But this is just peeling away the first layer. There's a still deeper
layer of the unconscious operation of language where we have
predefined who we are, based on whether or not we get it right.

We are given every opportunity to simply have a good time, improvise,
play with sounds. But instead we choose to take it as a test of
survival. In other words, it's more important to prove our capacity
to survive than it is to have a good time. The hidden unconscious
language that we base our lives upon, dictates to us that we must get
it right or we will be dominated by others, and that threatens our
safety, our well being and ultimately our survival. The first sign of
a non-sacred, survival language is that it refers to "getting it
right" as "smart", as "success" etc. Such a language defines a person
by the way he/she performs in a particular circumstance. The person
is always at the effect of the language. If I get it right, I'm
smart. If I get it wrong, I'm stupid.

The problems and conflicts that occur with a survival language are
myriad. To be happy, one must get it right all the time. And his
primary motivation for doing so is to prove that he is brilliant so
others won't control him .. The problem with "getting better" is that
he becomes programmed to always be getting better, but it's never
good enough. Getting better is an endless proposition. This survival
model of language has conflict and suffering woven into its very
fabric.

This particular phenomenon is defined in the Yog Sutras as avidyaa,
the fundamental lack of awareness which is the root klesha, or subtle
cause of all suffering. The definition of avidyaa is: anitya-ashuci-
duhkha-anaatmasu nitya-shuci-sukha-aatma-khyaatir avidyaa

"Avidyaa (ignorance) is an identity with a self which is not the
self; with happiness in what is actually suffering; with purity in
what is really impurity; and permanence in what is really
impermanent." Avidyaa perfectly describes the nature of a survival
language. A survival language is steeped in avidyaa. As long as who I
am, is defined by such a language, I remain the victim of an endless
vicious circle.

The question is -- why would we choose a language which keeps us in
perpetual self-judgement. The fact is that we never chose the
language. It has always been around, and as children, we were given
no other options. As long as we do not consciously redesign the way
we use language, we remain at the effect of the past, conditioned by
the very language of the past to repeat the patterns of the past,
again and again.

As long as this survival model of language is in effect, it seems
virtually impossible for people to learn Sanskrit. This is to a large
degree due to the fact that Sanskrit is a perfect model of a sacred
language, and a sacred language cannot be learned by means of a
survival language.

This is not to say that English or any other language could not be
used as a sacred language. In fact, it has to be, to begin the study
of Sanskrit. Conversely, Sanskrit could be used in a survival mode.
It's just that in the design of most languages, there is very little
safeguard against them being used as survival languages. And in the
design of Sanskrit, there is every conceivable feature built in to
keep it operating as a sacred language.

The single most outstanding difference between a sacred and a
survival language is the definition, orientation and usage in the
language of the word "I". "I" or its equivalent is the source of
language. Without I, there is no you, he, she or it. The evolution of
the word "I" into a complex language is a process of creation. In the
development of a sacred language, the process is a conscious one;
language is an emanation, a creation, an instrument of "I". In a
survival language, "I" is an effect of the cultural patterns already
unconsciously established by the language. In Sanskrit, even the
sounds which make the word for "I" are consciously selected. AHAM.
"A" is the first spoken sound, as well as the first sound of the
Sanskrit alphabet. It can be discovered by breathing, in and with the
mouth slightly open, releasing the breath with sound that requires
the minimal effort. It naturally arises in the throat before the
articulation of all other sounds. "HA" is the last letter of the
Sanskrit alphabet. After all the systematic patterns created by the
movement of the tongue and lips have produced in perfect order all
the other letters of the alphabet, the final sound is "HA". It also
is the only consonant sound that moves by the power of the breath
alone, and the only consonant in exact proximity to "A" . The final
letter "M" is the very last sound produced in the mouth, because it
occurs due to the closing of the lips. In Sanskrit, AHAM is the
beginning, the breath of life which brings forth creation, and the
end. And this is expressed not just symbolically by the letters A-H-
A-M, but physically, based on their location in the mouth.

The other most important attribute of a sacred language is that each
of its individual sounds are regarded as sacred. Anyone can feel this
by getting relaxed and repeating the AHAM, over and over, and while
doing so, feeling a complete all-encompassing expression of self.
Then, becoming silent, continue to feel "A" as the inhalation and HAM
as the exhalation. "A" is the only sound which is truly internal.
"HAM" is the most complete expression possible, arising directly from
"A", and closing after passing through all the positions of all other
existing sounds. The design of a sacred language is such that the
sounds perfectly express the vibrational essence of that which they
describe. In this way, words establish knowledge and understanding
directly.

The next stage of establishing a sacred language is an intimacy with
the other sounds of the language, becoming familiar with their exact
location, savoring their delicacy, feeling their force and power, and
the unique way they vibrate the body and atmosphere. This is simply a
matter of enjoying sound without inhibition, as we did when we were
children. In the process of learning the Sanskrit alphabet, one
discovers that all sounds are encompassed in "AHAM". As other words
are created, the sounds which compose them become the means by which
"I-AHAM" establish my relationship of unity with, rather than
separateness from, all existence.

Important characteristic of a sacred language is that the purpose for
which it's being used is discovering one's own true nature. Sanskrit
is so highly developed and refined as a tool for serving this purpose
that even the task of learning the language seems "difficult" --
unless the motive for learning is aligned with the function of the
language, that is, to know oneself. When Sanskrit is approached with
the humility and one-pointedness that is the trademark of a genuine
search for truth, it becomes revealed. There arises a simple joy in
all aspects of its study. Singing the alphabet is especially
inspiring even when one has become proficient. Shri Brahmananda
Sarasvati, although a master of Sanskrit, with more than 60 years of
study behind him, and his speech impaired by a stroke, still seems to
find his greatest delight in leading a group of students through the
alphabet. Perhaps, this says a much as anything about the nature of a
sacred language.

We seldom hear anyone over seven years of age singing the English
alphabet. Its not that these sounds aren't enjoyable to sing. We do
not have the same relation to the English language that adults and
children alike who have learned Sanskrit have with it. That relation
is a sacred one, based on the energy conveyed through sound, a love
for the unique characteristics of each sound in engaging the mind,
body, the breath, vocal resonance, the mouth, tongue and lips.

Because of the simplicity of life in ancient times, there was an
acute awareness that all changes in life took place as a result of
changes in language. As new discoveries occurred in language, there
was an immediate and very noticeable shift in human beings'
interactions and in the way that they perceived their environment.
The evolution of human awareness was inextricably linked to the
development of language. It was natural that more and more attention
should be given to its development as the single most important
factor in changing the quality of human life. This eventually gave
way to discoveries whose magnitude is inconceivable to us in modern
times, where language tends to be taken for granted.

The discovery, development and refinement of Sanskrit must have taken
place over millennia. Although Sanskrit along with its great power to
elevate human consciousness to sublime heights, is often attributed
to a divine source, we can also hypothesize that its properties were
discoveries that took place as a result of human beings actively and
intensively engaging in the discovery of their own divine nature. The
most significant question that must have arisen to the ancients was
how to continue optimizing the human instrument, the body and mind,
as a vehicle for the expansion of awareness and happiness. Knowing
that the operation of the instrument depends entirely on the language
with which it is programmed, they worked on the refinement of
language software. They scrutinized and experimented with the vocal
instrument and the structure of the mouth and then selected only
those sounds which had the greatest clarity, purity and power of
resonance. They then organized these sounds in such a way that they
could mutually enhance and brighten one another, and build upon each
other's resonance. They explored the factor of breath in creating
sound, and discovered that by minimizing the breath with certain
sounds and maximizing it with others, the language would induce in
the instrument a state of relaxed alertness that could keep it
operating efficiently and tirelessly for long periods of time, while
expanding and building prana-energy. And as they did this, they
became happier.

Furthermore, by coordinating the factors of purity of sound, enhanced
resonance and breath, there also developed an awareness of the entire
body as a resonating chamber through which sound could be
transmitted. With increased vibratory power, the concept of the body
as solid matter gradually became replaced by one of the body as the
center of an energy field. In the process of transmitting sound
energy, they observed subtle changes in the field and found they
could expand it by following the sound waves. They had discovered
that language has the capacity to convert the body and mind into pure
energy. They began to feel joy.

It was further discovered that certain combinations of sounds would
enhance the expansion of the field more than others, and this was
experimented with, until sound combinations which could bring about
this effect universally were revealed. Their joy expanded. These
particular combinations became useful words for describing as well as
feeling the state of consciousness they induced. In this way the
breadth and depth of all that exists was explored. They looked and
listened and experienced changes in the energy field, to see how the
language could be further refined, what new distinctions could be
made. Eventually, they fathomed creation and found their own identity
at the very source of it all. Their bliss was boundless. When they
spoke with one another in this language they established love and
harmony.

Over millennia, Sanskrit was refined as an instrument of Yog. By 500
B.C. it had reached a point where it was perfected, and ready to be
laid down formally. The genius Panini was born for that purpose. So
masterful, concise and comprehensive was his great work, Ashtadhyayi
in formulating the Sanskrit language, that to this day, two and a
half millennia later, no one has been able to improve upon his
original work. For 25 centuries, the language has not only survived
intact, but thrived through the love of countless enlightened sages,
yogis and scholars, basically unmodified. Just imagine a language
thriving with little change for 2500 years. In each century there
have been spiritual geniuses, who immersed themselves in the blissful
and timeless joy of Sanskrit. Many have elaborated or commented on
Panini's original work, but none have changed it or replaced it. Yog
has thrived side by side with Sanskrit, but through all the practice,
experimentation and discovery that has taken place in that science,
there has been little need to develop new language or modify the old
language in order to measure or inspire progress. Sanskrit had been
perfected by 500 B.C. as a tool for defining the ultimate pinnacle of
human aspiration.

Questions tend to come up as to why Sanskrit has not been used more
as a popular language, or why we are not now utilizing it more
widely. The primary obstacle, as I see it, is that we have had
difficulty in accessing Sanskrit in the way that it is designed to be
used. Because of the strong belief we hold that we are our body/mind,
our primary concern is what is going to happen to us individually. We
see the possibility of change, being happy in the future. And we try
to choose and do those things which will most certainly secure our
future happiness or enlightenment. This equation is almost
universally interpreted as "getting more and getting better". The
approach never works for learning Sanskrit, or for being happy.

The motivation for learning Sanskrit is the enchantment, inspiration,
peace and deep sense of spiritual connection felt when listening to
it. Or it may have been a pure childlike enjoyment in duplicating
those sounds. Most people would have no difficulty learning Sanskrit,
if they simply remained in the mode of what motivated them in the
first place, their enjoyment. But something else usually happens. The
desire to learn Sanskrit starts to be perceived as a future goal,
which, when and if achieved, will represent the securing of the
happiness which generated the desire to learn it in the first place.
The goal is usually accompanied by an expectation of mastering a
certain amount of material within a certain period of time. The
problem here is the old conditioning, all past memories of happiness,
present or future, being thwarted by difficulties and interruptions.
Greatest among these memories is the loss of the simple joy of being
a child and the pure direct perception of life we all experienced in
our childhood.

The nature of a sacred language such as Sanskrit is the direct way
that it models life, or accesses through the purity of its sound and
rhythms, the perfection and beauty of life that we all experienced as
children. On our first exposure to Sanskrit, we reconnect with that
purity and joy, and then with the desire to secure that again in our
lives, decide that we must learn the language. On a very deep level,
it's a decision to nourish our spirit, and reestablish our oneness
with life. But it also at the same time brings us face to face with
our existential pain, the entire sum of our conditioning, all that
has kept us in a state of feeling alone and separate for the greater
part of a lifetime, as well as our repeated failure in attempting to
regain that happiness.

Once the task of learning the language is conceived, the criteria for
achievement are unconsciously measured. Success is determined by
comparing what one has managed to learn with what remains to be known
and how much others know. Success also depends on the mastery of a
certain quantity of information in a certain period of time. The
universal question asked at the beginning, is "How long will it take
me to learn it?" But the Sanskrit language is so vast and distinctly
different from other languages and other learning tasks, that from
the very outset, it becomes apparent that it is going to be very
difficult to achieve the expected success in the expected period of
time. In addition, there are many Indian speakers and scholars, one
could never even hope to catch up with. This inevitably brings the
conclusion "Proficiency is further away than I had believed." Along
with this assessment -- automatically arise the words "too
difficult". Sanskrit is too difficult.

But the problem is not really the perceived difficulty based on the
amount of information that exists in the Sanskrit language. The fact
that there is more information actually represents more enjoyment. If
one were offered a large collection of the greatest music of all time
accompanied by a continuous flow of increasingly majestic and
panoramic visions, one would not be disappointed because it would
take too long to listen to. In other words, discouragement about
being able to learn Sanskrit has absolutely nothing to do with
Sanskrit. Sanskrit is an enjoyable experience at all stages. Working
with Sanskrit increases and develops energy and clarity of mind.
There are seemingly an infinite variety of euphonic sound
combinations and rhythmic patterns to be enjoyed. Experiencing them
expands the capacity of the mind to operate as the cosmic computer it
is designed to be.

The only real problem that arises with regard to learning Sanskrit is
forgetting why one decided to learn it in the first place -- to feel
the joy and purity one felt as a child. When the real purpose is
forgotten, we automatically default to concerns about success and
failure based on past programming. It is only in regard to this that
the idea "too difficult" can arise. Once "too difficult" takes root,
the usual result is giving up, because one's image of oneself being
proficient, seems too difficult to attain within the time limitations
calculated as a factor in producing the necessary satisfaction.

Although such resignation is based on the fact of long-standing pain,
it is not the truth. The truth is the original inspiration, the joy,
the play, the heightened awareness. If Sanskrit seems too difficult,
it's doing its job perfectly. A sacred language must teach us to
discover where the energy of being flows, and it becomes easy.

The obvious solution is to have no expectations whatsoever with
regard to time or quantities of information. This is an approach
which serves our original purpose -- to enter into that timeless
dimension. If concerns come up or it seems to be getting difficult,
it's merely an indication that we've forgotten our real purpose. The
moment the idea of getting or adding "more" arises, we lose the
direct absorption, the enjoyment, the sense of play. This is direct
bio-feedback

Sanskrit is a play, a dance of energy in the eternal now. It,
modeling life, is perfectly designed to take us beyond our
expectations, our self images, our programming. But we must be ready
to be in the role of a perpetual learner, a student of life, of the
ancient, eternal wisdom, miraculously encoded in this sacred
language. If we believe that by learning a sacred language, we will
gain knowledge and power, then we look to a future goal which is by
definition opposed to our true nature. The power of a sacred language
is to immediately mirror this back, as if to say, NO ACCESS. A sacred
language, is one which guides us to our own true nature, and every
time we derail ourselves, reminds us in some way that we're missing
out on its real nourishment. If we are going to engage, it must be
with our total being, one pointed awareness, free from the
distraction of where it might bring us, or rather, we might take it
in the future.

Sanskrit is the living heritage of great rishis who walked this earth
thousands of years ago. It presents us with an awesome responsibility
and a lifelong challenge, while it inspires us to remain fully
engaged in exploring what's possible for a human being. Learning
Sanskrit is an opportunity to know directly for ourselves what the
rishis discovered long ago. Most important, when approached as a
sacred language, it makes us happy.

From the perspective of Yog, all life ultimately merges into
samadhi. It could be said that samadhi is the essence of yog, In the
Yog Sutras, samadhi is defined, "tad evaathamaatraanirbhaasam-
svaruupa-shuunyam iva samaadhih" that (consciousness, engaged in
sustained focus upon a single object), reflecting the object alone,
as if empty of its own nature, is samadhi. Everyone has had the
experience of samadhi, whether in childhood, or some deeply absorbing
experience, such as listening to music. It's a period when our usual
identity disappears because our habitual use of language has been
discontinued.

Many teachers used to say "the body is a prison only when you cannot
come and go as you please". The experience of samadhi is the freedom
to come and go. Without samadhi we live in a prison of language,
whose walls consist of words, whose bars and locked doors are the
meanings and significance we unknowingly give to those words.
Unknowingly, because the meanings were never consciously selected.
They were programmed into us by prior generations. For example, when
people make a mistake, they tend to feel stupid or embarrassed. But
whoever (aside from lexicographers) really defined for themselves
what a "mistake" is? The great sage Shankar (in the famous
Bhajagovindam) wrote:

satsangatve nissangatvam nissangatve nirmohatvam |
nirmohatve nishchalatatvam nishchalatattvam jiivanmuktiH ||

In a state of satsanga, good company, (comes) non-attachment; in non-
attachment, a state beyond confusion; in truth beyond confusion,
motionlessness; in motionlessness, living freedom.

The verse could be used as a model of the necessary conditions for
making the shift from being at the effect of language to being at the
source of it. It all begins with satsanga, good company. The best
example of this that I know of is a group of people who have come
together to learn Sanskrit. It seems that on some level, perhaps
unconsciously, a person who has decided to learn Sanskrit, has
decided in some way to use this sacred language for that which it was
designed -- to be free. It is remarkably easy for such a group of
people to change their relation to language, to put themselves at the
source of language and then select and use language in a way that
gives them access to Sanskrit, with ease and enjoyment. Without the
mutual agreement of the group, satsanga, good company, it would be
highly unlikely that the shift could ever take place. We grew up in a
world where a mistake was a bad thing, enough so that most people
would not risk making one. This led to massive withdrawal. Though
people remained in a group, they were not really part of the group.
In truth, fear dominated nearly all groups. Natural unity was
shattered. The satsanga was lost. Groups were ineffective. Alone,
individuals were powerless. Everyone was hopelessly at the effect of
the language of right/wrong and smart/stupid. In effect, a "group"
could have been defined as a "body of people which has come together
to determine who is worthy and who is unworthy."

Fortunately, the Sanskrit language has given us the word "satsanga",
which could be defined as "a body of people who have come together
(sanga) to ascertain reality (sat)." The fundamental agreement of
such a group, such as the one which has come together to learn
Sanskrit, is that "I" am prior to language. I use language to direct
my attention to a full appreciation of the beautiful sounds of the
Sanskrit language, their harmonies and their organization, as well as
the truths expressed through the language. The language that makes
this possible is the language of yog, another gift of Sanskrit. The
satsanga agrees upon abhyaasa the selecting and sustained attention
upon a single focal point, for example, listening to the sounds of
the Sanskrit language. It's also agreed that there's nothing "wrong"
with being off the point. Becoming aware that I am off point, without
satsanga -- I might worry about what I missed that others got, I
might worry about being left behind -- "others are succeeding where I
fail." But in satsanga where the language of yog has been agreed
upon, there is vairaagya or non-attachment, "the full awareness of my
own mastery to not-attach myself to habitual experience and simply
return to the point, and even acknowledge 'I missed something --
could it be repeated?'". For the satsanga, if anyone missed anything,
it's an opportunity for it to be reviewed and clarified and enjoyed
again by everyone. It sounds too good to be true. Yet it happens
exactly this way by shifting our relationship to language. This would
not be possible without satsanga.

In the state of satsang (satsangatve) comes non-attachment
(nissangatvam). There is no more attachment to being right, and
concurrently the fear of being wrong. The real satisfaction derived
from the wholeness of group unity, the much greater capacity of the
group to focus together, enjoy sound together, appreciate the beauty
of Sanskrit together, all make the prior condition of being at the
effect of words such as right/wrong or smart /stupid or
success/failure seem totally irrelevant. Through satsang, there's a
complete shift in our relation to language -- we see through the
prison walls.

In non-attachment (nissangatve), there comes a state beyond confusion
(nirmohatvam). I'm no longer holding myself back because of the fear
of consequences. I am feeling my oneness with the group. It's safe to
put myself into it. There is no conflict over wanting acceptance,
while fearing rejection. My confusion over whether to participate or
not - will I be rejected if I do it wrong or isolated if I do it
right -- is gone. The illusion, and the confusion (moha) of being
separate from others dissolves. The truth that we are one emerges.
When we move as one, we go beyond success and failure and access our
natural ability to perfectly reflect whatever we perceive -- samadhi.

In the state beyond confusion (nirmohatve), is motionlessness
(nishcalitatvam). This happens in the Sanskrit satsanga. In the
absence of striving to be better, fearing getting worse, the old
language that raced through our mind stops. The mind becomes still,
sensitive. A state of listening is present, samadhi, in which we feel
the nuances of Sanskrit, its power, and the subtle way it resonates
in the heart of our being, like ancient and eternal music. There's no
more struggle to learn, to gain and accumulate knowledge. The words
of Sanskrit, through their sound vibration are like waves of pure
energy, which we enjoy as if watching a performance taking place
inside us -- while their meanings describe our own fathomless
perfection, as the seer of all, ancient, eternal.

In motionlessness (nishcalitatve), living freedom (jiivanmukti), The
prison walls, even the memory that they were ever there, has
dissolved. From beginning to end, from the first attempt to learn
Sanskrit to the direct experience of the meaning of its ancient words
of truth and power, Sanskrit generates and establishes an entirely
different relationship with language. It's the proper relationship,
the true one, establishing our real unity, freedom from the bondage
of the past illusions. It keeps us savoring the timeless enjoyment of
the universe of sound, and a perfect creation.

By studying this sacred language only, the soul of India can be
understood and a good example among foreigners, we can say, is Max
Muller a German Scholar.

More at:
http://forums.joeuser.com/8866

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://preview.tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 10:12:49 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:12 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 9:10:10 AM UTC+11, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> > > > > It looks like the key to a lot of Hindutva theorizing is the
> > > > > notion that Sanskrit (as the equivalent of PIE) and Dravidian
> > > > > are versions of the same language. I suppose there are
> > > > > publications purporting to demonstrate that idea. But I am
> > > > > sure none of them have been convincing/

> > > > Is PIE post or pre Sanskrit?

> > > PIE is the name given to the common ancestor of Sanskrit and all other
> > > IndoEuropean languages.

> > > > If Sanskrit is the language of the gods/aliens
> > > > then post is likely.

> > > IF (and only IF) Sanskrit is the origin of all IndoEuropean languages,
> > > then PIE IS Sanskrit and not pre-Sanskrit or post-Sanskrit.
> >
> > No, PIE could be like Pali or Dravidian - post Sanskrit (including the
> > original Vedic texts).
>
> That suggests you don't know what "Proto-Indo-European" means.

Proto-Romance would mean a post-Latin vulgar tongue (now called vulgar
Latin) from which Romance languages came. AFAIK, Romance didn't come
directly from Cicero's and Seneaca's Latin. The comparative method when
applied to Romance languages yielded a vulgar Latin, not those orators'
Latin.

Likewise, it's conceptually possible for there to have been a post-Sanskrit
proto-language. Dravidian doesn't fit at all into a post-Sanskrit
description but Pali does, if 'Sanskrit' refers to an Old Indic continuum
including, but not necessarily limited to, Vedic.

The music would start once you try to show that European, or even Iranian,
languages came from paraPali (something like Pali). You'd get stuck and
have to back off from that hypothesis somewhere along the line and try a
hypothesis other than paraPali being PIE.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Both Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote entertaining stories about life
in a hollow Earth. Probably others as well.

[RH Draney]

Dr Frank C Baxter gave a nice little lecture on the subject and the
various myths about it down through history...it's at the beginning of
the film "The Mole People", which I can heartily recommend for that and
other reasons....r

[David Kleinecke]

I think Nicholas Klem was the first.

[Arindam Banerjee]

If there was let us say a steel tube going to the centre, with heat insulation
on the inside, we could go straight to the core and float there just as
they did.

In the film they went through a crater of a volcano. The idea was that the
lava would not come out from that particular crater as there would be a
natural sealing from the heat. The heat from the pressure would be convected
out making progress possible.

As the idea of continental drift (implying that the continents float on a
globe spanning ocean of lava) was not there those days, the idea of going
through the lava layer as a necessity could not be there in the movie.

Today, we know that going through the lava layer would be impossible. There
is no way we horrid humans can disturb the inner layers of the Earth directly,
below the lava layers. At worst we can put electric currents as Tesla tried,
with some say extraordinary results.

Yes, there is no pressure at the core of any planet, star, etc. which is why
they are so cold that they can carry a permanently circulating current that
creates the magnetic field we measure.

When thugs, mediocrities, liars, etc. are kicked out of positions of importance
in the arts and sciences, we can expect a real renaissance to take place again.

As things are they rule, and that explains the pig-plane F35. A classic case
of brilliant engineers being directed by bootlicking mediocrities sucking up
to the moneybags squeezing the public purse. Cowardice and conformity for
jobs and honours!

Failures in science are kicked up the management ladder, where they create
havoc. The corruption of the public mind by the e=mcc pseudoscience is now
complete. But life is cyclic, so change is inevitable. In the case for physics,
it can only be for the better.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Sanskrit is our cultural heritage: President APJ Abdul Kalam

Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

[ Thu, Feb 1, 2007

Sanskrit is our cultural heritage: President APJ Abdul Kalam

Kalam on why Sanskrit is important

By Syed Amin Jafri in Hyderabad
Thursday, February 1, 2007

President A P J Abdul Kalam on Thursday termed Guru
Raghavendraswamy of Mantralayam as a 'divine soul' and
recalled the rich cultural heritage of Sanskrit in Indian
history.

Dr Kalam interacted with the students of Sree Guru
Sarvabhouma Sanskrit Vidyapeetam at Mantralayam in Kurnool
district. Reciting the *Moola Mantram*of
Raghavendraswamigal, he said "We worship Guru
Raghavendraswamy, the divine soul who practiced and taught
truth and *dharma* (the right conduct). We chant his name
as *Kalpavrisha* (the giver of limitless material wealth)
and bow before him as *Kamadenu* (the giver of spiritual
knowledge)."

"Though I am not an expert in Sanskrit, I have many friends
who are proficient in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a beautiful
language. It has enriched our society from time immemorial.
Today many nations are trying to research Sanskrit writings
which are there in our ancient scriptures. I understand
that there is a wealth of knowledge available in Sanskrit
which scientists and technologists are finding today," he
said.

"There is a need to carry out research on our Vedas,
particularly Atharvana Veda, for eliciting valuable
information in science and technology relating to medicine,
flight sciences, material sciences and many other related
fields. Cryptology is another area where Sanskrit language
is liberally used," he added.

He suggested that the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam, apart from
their academic activity, should take up the task of
locating missing literature in Sanskrit available on palm
leaves spread in different parts of the country so that
these could be documented and preserved. He suggested that
they should avail the help of digital technology for
documenting those scriptures both in audio and video form
which can be preserved as long term wealth for use by many
generations?

He asked the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam to should go into details
of lives of great scholars, poets, epic creators like
Valmiki, Veda Vyas, Kalidas and Panini. He wanted the
Vidyapeetam to invite well-known Sanskrit scholars so that
they can stay and interact with the students for a certain
period.

"This will provide an opportunity for students to interact
and get enriched in Sanskrit and Vedas," he noted.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/01kalam1.htm

*INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS OF SREE GURU SARVABHOUMA SANSKRIT
VIDYAPEETAM, MANTRALAYAM*

*Speech In: *[PDF Format]
http://presidentofindia.nic.in/presentation/splangnewPDF%20Format961.pdf

01-02-2007 : Mantralayam

Sanskrit is our Cultural Heritage

"Learning gives creativity"

I am indeed delighted to interact with the students of Sree
Guru Sarvabhouma Sanskrit Vidyapeetam in the serene
environment of Mantralayam. After you complete your eight
year course, twelve year course or seven your course, what
you will be? You will be a great teacher. You have to
acquire the qualities of teaching and carry the tradition
of Raghavendraswamy. Wherever you are and whatever task you
perform the devotees will treat you as Gurus and the
foundation for a such a Guru comes from this institution. I
congratulate the teachers who are constantly shaping you
towards a noble profession which you will be following in
your later years. When I am with you, I would like to
recite the Moola mantram of Raghavendraswamigal.

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/contimages/20070201142155.JPG

We worship Guru Raghavendraswamy, the divine soul who
practiced and taught truth and dharma (the right conduct).
We chant his name as Kalpavrisha (the giver of limitless
material wealth) and bow before him as Kamadenu (the giver
of spiritual knowledge).

My Experience with Sanskrit Scholars

I have come across two great teachers, one in the primary
school and another in the St. Joseph's College. My primary
school teacher Sri Sivasubramanya Iyer was a great Sanskrit
scholar apart from being my science teacher. Everyday he
used to perform Sandhya Vandanam three times a day and
Bhagavatam. My college teacher Prof Thothathri Iyengar who
taught me complex numbers and number theory was also a
Sanskrit scholar.

While the base of these two great teachers was science and
mathematics, their life was shaped by the ancient wisdom of
Sanskrit scholarship. Recently, I have come across a great
scholar Dr MA Lakshmi Tathachar of Sanskrit Academy,
Melkote, Karnataka who has been carrying out intensive
research in Sanskrit including the agriculture using
organic farming. Such is the richness of Sanskrit and I am
happy that Sanskrit Vidyapeetam is preserving and nurturing
this great language.

Richness of Sanskrit

Though I am not an expert in Sanskrit, I have many friends
who are proficient in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a beautiful
language. It has enriched our society from time immemorial.
Today many nations are trying to research on the Sanskrit
writings which are there in our ancient scriptures. I
understand that there is a wealth of knowledge available in
Sanskrit which the scientists and technologists are finding
today. There is a need to carry out research on our Vedas
particularly Atharvana Veda for eliciting many valuable
information in Science and Technology relating to medicine,
flight sciences, material sciences and many other related
fields. Cryptology is another area where Sanskrit language
is liberally used.

Tasks for Sanskrit Vidyapeetam

I would suggest the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam apart from their
academic activity can take up the location of the missing
literature in Sanskrit available in palm leaves spread in
different parts of the country so that they can be
documented and preserved. For this I would suggest that
they can avail the help of technology available in digital
library for documenting those scriptures both in audio and
video form which can be preserved as long term wealth for
use by many generations. For this purpose, the Academy can
get in touch with Prof N. Balakrishnan of the Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore who is piloting a digital
library project for India.

In the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam you should go into details of
lives of great scholars, poets, epic creators like Valmiki,
Veda Vyasa, Kalidasa and Panini. I would suggest that the
Vidyapeetam may invite a few scholars who have been awarded
Certificate of Honour in Sanskrit and Maharishi Badrayan
Vyas Samman for young scholars by the Government of India
so that these scholars can stay and interact with the
students for a certain period.

This will provide an opportunity for the students to
interact and get enriched in Sanskrit and Vedas.

Knowledge acquisition and retention

Now, I would like to play an audio CD which highlights the
importance of the Vedas and also how the Vedas nourish our
mind, memory and intellect.

This has been rendered by Tatwamasi Dixit, founder Ojas
Foundation, Chennai. I would like to play the song first:

A. O Lord Soorya! Augment my direct perception, my ability
to infer, and help me to retain the Vedic teachings for
posterity.

B. I invite Medha Devi (retention power) and Maneesha Devi
(absorbing power) into my mind to expand the past and
future knowledge even whilst the present knowledge is being
thoroughly assimilated. (Track 11 - A &B)

A Prayer to Medha (power of retention) and Maneesha (power
of assimilation). They should come together and help the
devotee to assimilate the present knowledge in relation to
the past and the future. In other words, while the power of
retention will help the devotee to understand the past and
the present, the power of assimilation will help him to
learn the lessons for the future from the past and present
experiences.

My best wishes to all the students and Acharyas of Sree
Guru Sarvabhouma Sanskrit Vidyapeetam for success in their
preservation and promotion of Sanskrit.

May God bless you.

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventslatest1.jsp?id=1431

- - -

Mark Twain's tribute to Bharatam: "India is, the cradle of
the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother
of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand
mother of tradition. our most valuable and most instructive
materials in the history of man are treasured up in India
only."

End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://is.gd/jyotishi

[Dingbat]

On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> There is no pressure at the core of any planet, star, etc. which is why

> they are so cold that they can carry a permanently circulating current
> that creates the magnetic field we measure.
>
> When thugs, mediocrities, liars, etc. are kicked out of positions of
> importance in the arts and sciences, we can expect a real renaissance
> to take place again.

OTOH, if crackpots were kicked out of the pulpits from which they claim
that there's no pressure or heat at the core of stars, what would
scientists do for entertainment?

Hint: Where do you think the heat comes from to keep the Sun's surface at
6000 degrees K? The heat travels from the interior, so the interior is
obviously hotter; heat wouldn't travel from a cold place to a hot place.

P.S. Scientists claim the interior is at something like a million degrees
K; I have no idea how they figured that, but if you hope to prove them
wrong, you'd have to get acquainted with how they figured it, in order
to show up their errors.