It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

page: 19
88
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 

How could a manufactured item like an airplane or nuclear weapon maintain an identifiable form with out routine maintenance .
in a relatively short amount of time any alloys and human fabricated building materials would corrode and depending on location be absorbed by the earth jungles desert sands and bodies of water this is why i think the ancients chose to build there most marvelous features using stone because it is only sculpted not manufactured in fact the sphinx in egypt was buried up to its head until fairly recently we may never discover an ancient airplane or find an ancient ground zero but that is no reason to say such civilizations could not and did not exist and perhaps one day we might experience a nuclear war or global cataclysm and the primative tribes that live in the outskirts of our great civilizations will be the only ones left to try to explain our existence without fully understanding what happened and without people there to rebuild and maintain these citys and machines only our stone monuments will exist with inscriptions that will be in a language that might no longer exist and explanations will be made to quell public interest whether they are true or false dont matter as long as the people except it as fact there it will remain. i say if in the last 100 years we went from horse and carriage to space travel then there is enough room for at least ten advanced civilizations in human history.




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I am bumping this now ancient thread(pun intended) If anything just to say hello to everyone who made this thread possible, and to the people I could not talk with due to my long absence from ATS. It's been several years since I last posted here. I hope everyone is doing well.

An update on Ancient Advanced Indian civilisation. I still very much forcefuly believe that an ancient advanced Indian civilisation existed. In fact, if I be permited to say, I know it existed now. I am still fuzzy on the details though. Since this thread, I have acquired tons of new information, which has served only to further cement the 'proof' I will present a summary of my findings in a form of a narrative:

Before 10,000 years ago in pre-glacial times existed a civilisation based in the Indian subcontinent known as the Aryans. They were a highly spiritually and technologically advanced civilisation, who dominated the entire world with their culture and occupied vast parts of it. The main world language at that time was Sanskrit, but it was never used as a vernecular language, it was a language of intellectual discourse.

Post-glacial times, this civilisation split up into many factions, possibly due to widespread flooding and other global cataclysm. The destruction was significant enough to cause massive rupture in the structure of civilisation. It caused the Aryan civilisation to split into two distinct groups: Indo-Aryan and Indo-European i.e., the foundations of both Eastern and Western civilisations, India and Greece respectively, belong to the same stock.

After the split, civilisation was restablished by the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent and from there they migrated west into Europe, but this civilisation was notably far less advanced than the the pre-glacial one. It became even lesser advanced with the passage of time.

Then there was another rupture in the history of civilisation. The second rupture came approx around 3000BCE with the Mahabharata war. This was the first world war and brought about widespread destruction. So significant was the destruction it rendered the Indus Valley civilisation almost extinct. Almost all of the previous knowledge was lost, except fortunately a strong oral tradition remained which preserved some of that knowledge. The best preservation was in the Vedic oral tradition, but even that by the 1st century AD suffered considerably and people, even in India were baffled by what the Vedas really meant, causing corruption to set in. Only a very elite few still knew its real import.

In the modern ages, there was an even further decay in the knowledge of the Aryan civilisation. This was largely due to Muslim and European invasions into the subcontinent, and partly due to internal corruption. The Muslim and Europeans completely abhorred the beliefs and values of the Indians, mostly because they were liberal, diverse and scientific, posing a direct challenge to any kind of hegemony and totalitarianism. While, the Muslims dealt with the Indian knowledge by ransacking libraries and temples and exterminating learned Brahmins, the Europeans took a more insidious and intellectuall approach, by mistranslating Sanskrit texts and distoring its history. The major distortion was denying the hooary antiquity of the Vedas and introducing a false dichotomy between Aryans and Dravidians. They considerably condensed Vedic history to fit into a eurocentric timeframe, assinging arbitrary and early dates to all Sanskrit literature, in utter contempt of the indigenous records.

The Europeans also introduced an instituationaized racism against Indians, especially Hindus, ridiculing them openly and denying them any contribution to world history. This was opposed to the overwhelming volumes of evidence which clearled showed Indians played a very central role in the history of civilisation right up to 200 years ago.

The succesfull induced amnesia that the Europeans and the Muslims were able to inflict on the world is perhaps the greatest coverup and conspiracy of world history. We humans have indeed forgotten who we really were, and this is largely courtesy of the Abrahmic religious tradition, to whom a spiritually revived and transcedentally free human is anathema. Hence, the resentment towards the Eastern traditions, which promote just that.

But who is really behind this evil? Greedy and powerful meglomanics, satanic cults, repetillian aliens? I am still fuzzy on those details. All I can say, based on the years of research I've done, that there definitely does seem to exist some kind of dark and shadowy force that has consciously and skillfully kept us in ignorance of our true being.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Before 10,000 years ago in pre-glacial times existed a civilisation based in the Indian subcontinent known as the Aryans. They were a highly spiritually and technologically advanced civilisation, who dominated the entire world with their culture and occupied vast parts of it. The main world language at that time was Sanskrit, but it was never used as a vernecular language, it was a language of intellectual discourse.


You, surely, Seem to have got your ancient History all jumbled up.
The Aryans, came into the indian sub continent from areas around Iran/Europe.
The original civilization of the Indian Sub continent, mainly the Mohen Jo Dara and Harrapan civilization are Dravidian in nature. during waves of migration of aryans into the indian sub continent, the natives got pushed down towards south, to what is known as southern india (namely Tamil, telugu, kannada and Malayalam Speaking areas).

Well, all will accept that the Mohen Jo daro and Harrapan civilization were advanced for their age but not advanced when compared to ours.

I would suggest you go back study some real history.

Now, if you ask me, I am from India and have a solid interest in my country's/ sub continent's history..and what you have stated above is completely (sorry to say that, it essentially it is rubbish)



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
interesting reading

Brahmins
The pattern of J2a and R1a1 occurrence and age suggests different roles for these two lineages. J2a seems older, consistent with a larger effective population size, whereas R1a1 is found at a higher frequency and is not limited to Brahmins.
Perhaps, J2a formed the nucleus of the priestly caste, allowing it to diversify for some period of time, with a later founding of a succesful Brahmin lineage by a group of R1a1 males of different caste origin. Such conjectures will have to remain speculative for the time being.

source

again

More fascinating is the finding that the main haplogroup distinguishing the northern Indian brahmins from the lower castes is J2 (referred to as HG9). I have long argued that haplogroup J2, associated with the early Neolithic expansions was also the PIE lineage par excellence, and this certainly supports this theory. It may very well be that in early times, the Indo-Iranians emerged as J2-bearing Indo-Europeans diffused into the R1a1-bearing east, with the resulting J2/R1a1 then settling on the Iranian plateau and invading India from the north.

source

but...

Did haplogroup J2a1 originate in Greece?
Actually, the microsatellite variance is higher in Greece 0.487, Crete 0.457, the entire Balkans (incl. Greece) 0.478, and Romania 0.4075, all of which are higher than in Anatolia. This certainly does not seem to be the signature of colonization of the Balkans by pioneer groups of farmers from the east.

source



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
[QUOTE]You, surely, Seem to have got your ancient History all jumbled up.
The Aryans, came into the indian sub continent from areas around Iran/Europe.
The original civilization of the Indian Sub continent, mainly the Mohen Jo Dara and Harrapan civilization are Dravidian in nature. during waves of migration of aryans into the indian sub continent, the natives got pushed down towards south, to what is known as southern india (namely Tamil, telugu, kannada and Malayalam Speaking areas).

Well, all will accept that the Mohen Jo daro and Harrapan civilization were advanced for their age but not advanced when compared to ours.

I would suggest you go back study some real history.

Now, if you ask me, I am from India and have a solid interest in my country's/ sub continent's history..and what you have stated above is completely (sorry to say that, it essentially it is rubbish) [/QUOTE]

Thank you for your reply. I am glad you said that I got the ancient history 'jumbled up' that is exactly what I intended to do. I think it would be more accurate for you to say that I have got a particular, but popular historical narrative jumbled up. That is true, because I do not believe in the popular historical narrative, else I would not challenge it, yes?

I am offering an alternative historical narrative to the popular one. Actually, there isn't a single historical narrative which is permenant, they are constantly changing and being revised with new information. A particular one you mentioned was a variant of Aryan Invasion Theory, Aryan Migration Theory, proposed by Witzel. In fact, only since very recently has AIT been replaced by AMT. Prior to that it was the popular historical narrative, and some books still publish it as historical fact.

AIT was replaced because new research, mainly by Indian indologists, but certainly not limited to them, showed that the proposed invasion around 1500BCE could not have happened. None of the evidence found supported this account. Furthermore, it was found that the theory was racist and not founded on legitimate scientific grounds. Somewhat, similar to Social Darwinism. In fact 19th and early 20thcentury European scholarship was notoriously racist.

AMT is more toned down AIT. It still says a mass-migration took place, except it changes the location from Westerm Europe to Iran. Now the narrative is that the Indo-Aryans and the Iranian Aryans both lived together in Iran, and then around 1500BCE or earlier the Indo-Aryans split off from the Iranian-Aryans and migrated into India and joined the indigenious Dravidian population. Again, however, there is no evidence to show that this theory is correct. To its credit, however, it does away with the racism of AIT.

Another model, and this is the model I shared in my narrative, is called Out of India theory. This one is strongly supported by Indian scholars, but again not limited to them, notable proponents being Subhash Kak, professor of neuroscience at Louisiana University. In this model no mass invasions or migrations into India took place, but in fact migrations out of India into Europe took place. This theory is in fact not new, but was proposed by some European scholars in the 19th century.

AIT has been a much politicised issue over the centuries. Much of the controvesy is over the directionality of migrations and is tied in with complexes of ethnic inferiority and superiority. Indeed, it was originally invented by the Europeans for the purpose of projecting ethnic superiority, and hence why AIT is still vehemently guarded by neo-Nazi organizations.
Intestingly, it is also vehemently guarded by Dravidian(South Indian) Nationalists, who use this theory against North Indians to alienate them. Basically: "Were the real people of India, you guys are foreingers" There is even debate that Tamil is the original language, Saivism is the original religion of India, and Sanskrit and the Vedic gods are all foreign imports.

It is important to keep politics away from scientific research. What the real narrative is should be ascertained by evidence alone, and not just by belief. Now, I have of course adopted OIT in my narrative, I have done this because the evidence in favour of OIT is overwhelmingly in favour. I have reads so many books and articles on this subject, to come to an informed judgement on which model has more validity. I cannot really reproduce every article of evidence here, but I will present a brief summary of why OIT has more validity than AIT and AMT:

AIT and AMT:

There is linguistic evidence of migrations/invasions, pointed out by Sir Monier Williams, and even by earlier scholars. There is no debate that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language.

There is no record of any invasions and mass-migrations in the Vedic corpus. The closest record is the so-called battle of ten kings, which is based on an assumption-driven interpretation of the Rig Veda i.e., circular reasoning.

There is no archaeological evidence of any invasions or mass migrations.

There is no genetic evidence of Indo-Aryans and Dravidians beings different.

OIT

There are records of migrations into Europe, not only Indian records, but non-Indian ancient records.

The Indus Valley remains contains Vedic features, showing continuity between the IVC and the vedic period.

Genetic evidence shows that Indo-Aryans and Dravidians are genetically the same. There is also significant evidence of exchange between the two, with some purported authors of the Vedas being of Dravidian origin.

The scientific dating of the Vedas corresponds to IVC times. The traditional date of 1500BCE was speculative, and this itself was admitted by the Mueller who proposed the date. More scientific dating methods yeilded an older date. The most scientific of these is astronomical dating which based on astronomical events mentioned in the Sanskrit corpus. This method was used by 19th century European astronomers and mathmaticians, but their discoveries were deemed 'too old' by academics in Europe. Another method used is satellite photography, which shows that a massive river once flowed throughout IVC(all the sites were built alongside it) which dried up in 1900BCE. However, the Aryans appeared in 1500BCE according to AIT, and yet the Rig Veda(their oldest text) contains dozens of references to this river as a living one.

Sanskrit geneologies trace back far into IVC. The list of kings given, the duration of their rule is all given, and goes back almost 10,000 years. There are even Greek records which record similar geneologies of Indian kings.

So on one hand we have AIT and AMT, with virtually no empirical evidence, and on the other we have OIT with tons of empirical evidence. Hence why I have adopted OIT as my model. In fact OIT is increasingly being adopted by many indologists today. AIT and AMT, for all practical purposes is now obsolete. They are too dubious. Many predict that they will be eschewed as strongly as Flat Earth theory was.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
lol. my sympathies with you.

Indus valley Civilzation is not Aryan. period.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
[QUOTE]Well, all will accept that the Mohen Jo daro and Harrapan civilization were advanced for their age but not advanced when compared to ours. [/QUOTE]

Yes, of course. That is why I said that while the Aryans were able to reestablish civilisation post-glacial times, it was notable less advanced than before and progressively became more primitive. There is clear evidence of this in the archaeological remains, which shows IVC to have sophisticated, well-planned urban cities with drainage systems, almost like modern day New York, giving the impression of a vibrant middle-class artistan society. This is of course ananchornistic, because nowhere else in the ancient world, even up to later medival Europe, were such cities created.

Even in India, post IVC, cities like those were not created again. So the IVC were considerably advanced, but certainly do not give an impression of modern technological advancement. That said there are some anamolies like the iron-pillar of Delhi, which seems to exhibit metallurgical technology which still baffles modern science. Recent studies have shown that they employ nanotechnology. Such anomolies can only be explained, I think, by knowledge which is pre-glacial.

As regards to your insistence that IVC was not Aryan, but Dravidian. I seem to sense a bit of emotion in that statement. Could you be by any chance South Indian? I hope you understand that the distinction between Aryans and Dravidians as an ethnicity is modern and a false one to boot. The idea was based purely on unscientific and racist generalizations went something like this: "North Indians are fair-skinned, therefore they are white" and "South Indians are dak-skinned, therefore they are black" and of course because the South Indians were blacks, they must have been dominated by the superior whites. This is pretty much what was said by 19th century theorists. That's the rationale behind AIT.

Then after making the white and black distinction, they proceeded to make cultural distinctions. All of the good stuff, like the high philosophy, Sanskrit grammar etc was white. All of the bad stuff, like tantra, mysticism, idol worshipping, occultism was black.

It is ironical that South Indians actually hold onto AIT, not realising that AIT disparages them ruthlessly. Now of course you being Indian should know that North India and South India do not have any clear cut differences. There are fair north Indians and fair south Indians; there are dark North Indians and there are dark South Indians. Brahmism is practiced both in the North and in the South. In fact, in the South Brahmanism is far more dominant. In North and South Indian languages, Sanskrit and Tamil, we find constant intercourse. Therefore there is no such thing as an Aryan/Dravidian dichotomy. It a totally modern and foreign concept.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Rather than post lengthy posts, give links to other sources that support your theory.



The Indus Valley remains contains Vedic features, showing continuity between the IVC and the vedic period.


what vedic features are those?
If its the Shiva pashupathy found in seals from the Indus valley Civilization, i would like to tell you that Shiva Pashupathy was a Indus Valley civilization God alone which was assimilated into the vedic Mythology and turns into Shiva, one of the trinity (Bhramha and Vishnu being the other).

As far as i have read and learned about IVC (as you call it) there are nothing that relates to vedic "features".



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am offering an alternative historical narrative to the popular one.


I'm afraid that it falls apart on a number of points, including some important geological ones. There weren't global catastrophes 10,000 years ago (for instance) and the world was coming OUT of the glacial age instead of going into one as you claimed.


Another model, and this is the model I shared in my narrative, is called Out of India theory. This one is strongly supported by Indian scholars, but again not limited to them, notable proponents being Subhash Kak, professor of neuroscience at Louisiana University. In this model no mass invasions or migrations into India took place, but in fact migrations out of India into Europe took place.


Alas, neuroscientists may not be the best judge of history and may (as some scientists do) have a bias for their own culture being the basis of everything. The linguistics research doesn't support this theory, and neither does the physical or genetic evidence.

While there's a lot of genetic mingling in the borders and cultural exchange along trade routes, you have to realize that by 10,000 BC, most of the world was already colonized. Had massive numbers of people invaded, we would see a situation like here in America, where you have a broad group of related languages with pockets of isolates and a type of technology that is shared among all the groups. We would see widespread barley and wheat farming (people aren't going anywhere without their favorite foods) and sheep and goats all derived from an original breed from India (specifically, the Mehrgarh) en.wikipedia.org... We would also expect to see their symbols used in related cultures, as happened with Northern Europe and the Germanic/Scandinavian tribes.

Yet this supposed migration of Indians (who had a bronze age culture) somehow failed to bring the Bronze Age to Northern Europe in spite of it being a perfect place for bronze: en.wikipedia.org...


It is important to keep politics away from scientific research. What the real narrative is should be ascertained by evidence alone, and not just by belief.


I agree heartily -- but I think your sources are very very biased.


AIT and AMT:

There is linguistic evidence of migrations/invasions, pointed out by Sir Monier Williams, and even by earlier scholars. There is no debate that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language.


The science of linguistics was in its infancy back in the late 1800's, and we've come a lot farther in understanding it since then. You might like to read some of the newer works or cruise the sites recommended on Linglist: www.linguistlist.org...

Your analysis of no records of invasions and mass-migrations in the Vedic corpus is interesting and appears very thorough. However, it doesn't cover some other options like wandering herdsmen (think of the Mongolians who are constantly on the move with their herds and flocks) or the impact of regular trade where people gradually move into another city (as the Jews did into ancient Alexandria in Egypt.)


So on one hand we have AIT and AMT, with virtually no empirical evidence, and on the other we have OIT with tons of empirical evidence. Hence why I have adopted OIT as my model. In fact OIT is increasingly being adopted by many indologists today. AIT and AMT, for all practical purposes is now obsolete. They are too dubious. Many predict that they will be eschewed as strongly as Flat Earth theory was.


Your analysis that I chopped out was excellent (and quite impressive) -- however, there doesn't seem to be much supporting evidence for the OIT and I should point out that "Indologists" have somewhat of a strong nationalistic bias.

We can see strong linguistic correlations in the language groups of the area: www.dmoz.org...

But when we start getting further afield, the connections become fuzzy and the technological advances don't seem to indicate much (if any) contact with early Bronze Age India. At the very least, Indian artifacts would be showing up all over the place if there was trade or a mass movement of people into one area from another. People don't forget how to work copper and bronze just because they have to move... and they don't forget their trade partners and sources of raw materials.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by coredrill
Rather than post lengthy posts, give links to other sources that support your theory.



The Indus Valley remains contains Vedic features, showing continuity between the IVC and the vedic period.


what vedic features are those?
If its the Shiva pashupathy found in seals from the Indus valley Civilization, i would like to tell you that Shiva Pashupathy was a Indus Valley civilization God alone which was assimilated into the vedic Mythology and turns into Shiva, one of the trinity (Bhramha and Vishnu being the other).

As far as i have read and learned about IVC (as you call it) there are nothing that relates to vedic "features".


My point was not to argue a case, but simply to present and summarize a narrative, which is based on several years of research. If you want evidence, that is a very tall order and will take time to fully present. There are several books written on AIT. The best I can do is give you some evidence, without trying to be comprehensive. I shall do that over the next few days. I simply need that amount of time to look for citations.

At this moment, suffice it to say, there is no positive evidence for AIT, there is, however, positive evidence for OIT.

Some of the Vedic features found in the IVC are, and again I do not aim to be comprehensive, merely to give a few examples, which I will furnish with evidence later as promised:

1) Swastikas
2) Indus metrics correspond to Vedic metrics. The mud bricks have exactly the same ratio as ones in Vedic texts
3) Fire altars
4) Correspondence between description of urban life in Vedic literature and IVC remains
5) The Saraswati river
6) Yoga seal

There seems to be perfect continuity between Indus remains and the later period.

As regards to the Yoga seal. I am certainly aware that some scholars argue that the seal is a seal of Shiva, but this is by no means conclusive. This point is especially emphasised by a book I read on the origins of Tantra, which shows just how many different interpretations exist on the seal. The interpretation that this is proto-Shiva holds no water, because Shiva is never seen depicted like that again. The seal depicts an animal like man sitting in a very specific yoga-like posture wth a large headress. This is nowhere close to any classical image of Shiva.

There is more agreement that the seal is depicting a yoga posture. Although Yoga is not explcitly mentioned in the Rig Veda, there are implicit mentions of Yogic like elements like meditation and breath control, so Yoga's origins and development can be explained within the Vedic context alone.

As regards to Shiva and Shivaism/Tantra in general. The earliest mention of Shiva, Durga and Shakti, the elements of Tantra are found in the Rig Veda, there is nothing outside of that. So there really is no support for Tantra as an independent religion from the Vedas existing. In fact the vast corpus of Tantric literature is post-vedic, most being composed in the middle ages.

As I said to you before, the categories of Dravidian as an ethnic category is a modern concept. It did not exist until the British. Therefore either the IVC is vedic or it a complete mystery. To say it is Dravidian, when the concept did not exist until modern times, is ananchornistic.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
to put it short....as u stated in your post...its an alternative storyline...
it will always stay the same...

the correlations do not posit anything.

its your word for it.

sorry, cant buy that. where the proof for your so called theory?

you make a nice pseudo-history documentary maker for sure.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Hi there Byrd, long time no see! I hope you are doing well. Some of the points you made is what I am still fuzzy about. The best model I have found is OIT, but I am not making any claims that it is the true model.


I'm afraid that it falls apart on a number of points, including some important geological ones. There weren't global catastrophes 10,000 years ago (for instance) and the world was coming OUT of the glacial age instead of going into one as you claimed.


There is geological evidence that there was global flooding just as we were coming out of the ice age 10,000 years ago. To some extent this is quite logical, ice-sheets that covered the world in the ice age, upon melting - melt water- would have generated massive floods. This is pointed out by Cesare Emiliani, Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami, and John Shaw, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Alberta. Granham Hancock makes reference to them in his book, "Underworld" to support his theory.

Some geological research shows that there have been periods of massive flooding(super-floods) around 15,000 to 14,000 years ago; 12,000 to 11,000 years ago; and 8,000 to 7,000 years ago. These would have been powerful enough to surmerge vast areas of landmass. It is quite well known today that many land masses have been under water in the past and the sea level rising even gradually could submerge entire countries. Thus it is plausible that a developed human culture could be destroyed by such floods, especially if there was one in the Indian subcontient in pre-glacial times. There are certainly mytho-historical accounts of entire continents being submerged.


While there's a lot of genetic mingling in the borders and cultural exchange along trade routes, you have to realize that by 10,000 BC, most of the world was already colonized. .


This is why I propose two stages. The first stage is the coming out of the glacial age. The second stage is similar to how OIT describes it, but not necessarily large scale and sudden migration. I don't think that Indians colonized the world, that would be a rather arrogant assertion. It would mean the world was empty around 3000BCE, and then Indians left India and colonized the world and civilised the indigenous populations. Around 3000BCE, much of the world would have had their own languages and cultures, and if Indians did migrate in large numbers into Europe, they would have mixed in with those cultures. But the linguistic evidence does not show this. The linguistic evidence shows that there is a proto-language/PIE from which all Indo-European languages emerge and these languages would have been forming much earlier than 3000 BCE. I explain this by positing a pre-glacial date for PIE. This was a global language, and after the global floods when civilisation was emerging out of the glacial age, it caused the PIE language to fragment, and then each language in the family started to develop in its own context isolated from the others. Some languages lost certain sounds and cases, while some retained them.

The oldest of these languages was Vedic Sanskrit. The Rig Veda is fact the oldest known text of the PIE family. Vedic Sanskrit was even more inflected than Classicsal Sanskrit, it had more cases and more sounds. These were lost from the shift from Vedic Sanskrit to Classical Sanskrit.
The order of complexity seems to follow a delinear evolution: Vedic Sanskrit(Most complex) to Avestan to Classical Sanskrit, and then Classical Greek and Latin. By the time it reaches Classical Greek it has lost most of its cases and sounds.

Why should it be that Vedic Sanskrit retains much of its cases and sounds, and Classical Greek does not? I argue, this is because the oral tradition was stronger in the Indian subcontinent, possibly indicating that the Indian subcontinent was the base of the Aryans in pre-glacial times. So in post-glacial times it had greater access to the oral tradition. This is what enabled the second stage, Indians migrating out Westwards. This was a gradual migration, not a sudden one. Some Indians moved out of India into Persia, Middle East, Egypt and Western Europe. There is certainly very strong evidence for Indians being present in these places. This is how Aryan culture spread throughout the world in the second stage, mixing in with the indigenous cultures. The most notable example of this is the pre-socratic Greek Philosophers, who had contact with Indian culture through the proxy of Persia and derived their philosophy from them.

Indian culture remained strong around the world. In the East it had spread as far as South East Asia, and in the West it was spread throughout the Middle East and possibly as far as Western Europe. It was a dominant culture throughout the world.

Thus OIT is more of a cultural travelling out of India and mingling with the other culturess.

[quoteI agree heartily -- but I think your sources are very very biased.

There really is no neutral position, all sources will have some bias or agenda. The agenda of many Indian Indologists may well be nationalistic, but on the other hand the agenda of many Western indologists has traditionally been racist. What matters here, I'd say, is not the source, but the evidence they provide. On that count I seriously think AIT and AMT are chronically lacking.


We can see strong linguistic correlations in the language groups of the area: www.dmoz.org...


Yes definitely. There is no doubt in my mind that IE, II and IA belong to the same language family. I am in complete agreement with Monier Williams and his theory of PIE. It is the only way to account for the similarities. That said, some of the conclusions of his followers seem to be somewhat premature. We can ascertain quite reasonably that there was a PIE, and at some point a fragmentation occured in PIE, leading to the various branches of IE we know today. What we cannot ascertain with similar conviction is the home of PIE, and the meaning of root words in PIE. However, early linguisits did tend to do just that, leading to premature conclusions: the theory of linguistic centre of gravity to base PIE in Western Europe, and speculative Comparative Linguistics to analyse the meaning of PIE languages. This then lead to very distorted readings of the Vedic texts.

I agree with you that linguistics has become a lot more stronger today than in the late 1800. Sauserre did not like Comparative Linguistics, and tried to make linguistics more scientific with a structuralist paradigm, analysing language as a code. This kind of approach, not surprisingly, as Sauserre was a teacher of Sanskrit, lead to a form of linguistics closer to Sanskrit methods of analysing language. The meaning of a text can only be understood using the code of its originating culture. The Vedic exegesis schools had indeed developed such methods of reading the Vedas, and these methods yielded very different readings.

Intersingly, the Vedic exgesis methods produce a more consistent and coherent reading than comparative linguistics, which is consistent with the Upanishadic and Shastra literature. They also reveal the Vedas to be a text of far developed philosophical and ethical thought than comparative linguistics reads. This changes things considerably. The AIT model of primitive, nomadic and pastoral Aryans, gives way to the OIT model of sophisticated, urban and philosophical Aryans. It is highly doubtful that the Aryans would be migrating and developing high philosophy at the same time. High philosophy develops within urban environments, thus suggesting that the Vedas would have been developed in urban centres and not rural centres. Again supporting that the Vedas developed within the Indian subcontinent and not outside of it.

For me there is a perfect correspondence between IVC and the Vedas. All evidence considered, the model that is consistent with all of the empirical and logical evidence is OIT. The way I see it: The Vedas are the written text and IVC is its corresponding physical text. They are the same thing.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Ok, so what happened to civilization after this time? I mean we sure did go though a recorded time in history where we didn't have any kind of modern technology.

Was it all hidden somehow? I find that very hard to believe considering how us humans are. We are very hard at keeping secrets for very long and a civilization as advanced as this could not have been lost that easily.

I mean the Romans ruled for centuries and they progressed very little compared to modern man.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I am just curious as hell as to how we lost it all for such a long time?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Well yes, and I never claimed otherwise. It is an alternative historical narrative to the popular one. In the same vain, the popular one is an alternative narrative to the one I proposed. Some narratives however are more consistent than others. This is the whole crux of why new theories are developed. Einsteis's General relativity arose out of inconsistencies in Newtonian Mechanics, and Quantum Mechanics arose out of inconsistencies in GR. It is the same in every field, be it philosophy, sociology, mathematics and finally history. Old models are replaced by new models to account for the inconsistencies in the old one.

As it stands today AIT is widely considered an old and dead model today. Today there are competing models, AMT is admittedly the most powerful because of its academic authority, but ultimately authority will give way to the model which explains all the evidence the best. So far that is OIT, and hence why a growing number of academics all around the world are starting to take it more seriously. There is a large amount of reading and media available on OIT today, it is no longer on the fringe. The problem AMT faces is the overwhelming empirical evidence which supports OIT. The best it has done so far is just pretend the evidence does not exist


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
Ok, so what happened to civilization after this time? I mean we sure did go though a recorded time in history where we didn't have any kind of modern technology.

Was it all hidden somehow? I find that very hard to believe considering how us humans are. We are very hard at keeping secrets for very long and a civilization as advanced as this could not have been lost that easily.

I mean the Romans ruled for centuries and they progressed very little compared to modern man.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I am just curious as hell as to how we lost it all for such a long time?


These are all good questions, and on these finer details I am very fuzzy. All I can conclude is that this civilisation existed in pre-glacial times, but I have no idea just how far back in pre-glacial times it existed. The other part I am fuzzy on is how just how advanced was the IVC. There seems to be conflicting evidence showing high and low technology existing side by side even up to the times of Alexanders invasion of India. His records report him and his army witnessing advanced technology.

How can I know that an advanced pre-glacial civilisation existed. There are just far too many anomolies. The biggest anamoly are the Vedas itself. The extent of development evinced by the Vedic writing is too advanced for its time, but its not just the actual content of the texts, it's the structure of the text. The structure is very precise and very complex, so complex it baffles modern Sanskritists. It's almost like machine code.
The grammars on the Vedas are no longer extant, but the only one we have is of Classical Sanskrit by Panini, which incorporates modern concepts like formal language processing, transformative and generative grammar. It has been compared to a turing machine.

It is really hard to overlook that a treatise containing so many advanced computing concepts would be written in 500BCE(this is only the traditional date, most of these dates are pure guess work, they seem to be considerably older) Another text of similar antiquity uses binary logic and hashing algorithms to denote musical notes in the Vedas. This is hardcore computer science, and it is almost 3000 years old, now if that is not an anamolie, what is?

There is another text called the Samkhya Karika, this text is considered to be oldest of the philosophical schools because it still uses Vedic Sanskrit. It tries to analyse the evolution of the cosmos. The concepts it employs are so uber-modern, it makes QM look contemporary with it. Some examples are observer paradoxes, elemental forces and supersymmetry. It inspired Schrodinger's paradox. It talks about vast universal cycles, beginning from expanding and contracting universes.

Then we have the Yoga Sutra which talks of the mind like an information processing system, and even considers all of matter to be waves within a universal field.

Not behind is the Vaiseshikla school, which talks of particle physics. It basically says the entire universe is made out of atoms, and gives a set of the kind of atoms that form: pairs, triples. It talks of subatomic atoms and also hints at notions of electron valencies. The knowledge of light being formed of light atoms, or photons is taken for granted.

The medical texts contain descriptions of microorganisms, actual visual descriptions. They also have very extensive maps of the human body and they seem to be aware of the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, muscular and skeletal system.

All of this knowledge is anamolus. It does does not at all concide with the physical remains of the Indian or any civilisation. Not with the classical age or the IVC age. When looked at more closely, it turns out the masses in India never participated in this knowledge tradition. The Sanskrit tradition remained an elite tradition since its very dawn. If you read about the luminaries in that tradition they all talk of a very ancient history.

Another anamolie is the appearance of well planned cities with modern-ish drainage systems very early on into the history of civilisation, almost suggesting that the knowledge of how to plan cities existed priorly.

Then of course we have the Indian mytho-historical records mentioning amazing technology like human cloning, aeroplanes, intelligent missiles, weapons of mass destruction. . All of this is heavily cloaked in mythology, hence why I call it mytho-historical.

So basically there are too many anamolies, which is why I am convinced it is pre-glacial. Of course you might not be convinced. For me it is enough evidence, you might want more.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Bibliotecapleyades.net has compiled a number of sources regarding the use of ancient nuclear weapons, perhaps some of you may find this of interest (and apologies if this has already been posted).



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The medical texts contain descriptions of microorganisms, actual visual descriptions. They also have very extensive maps of the human body and they seem to be aware of the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, muscular and skeletal system.

What we have here is a huge overstatement of the facts.

Please link to any Vedic work that describes the actual, visual appearance of any microorganism.

I've seen the claim that the Atharvaveda has such descriptions. This work is a collection of hymns, mostly to exorcise demons.
I've been partially through it and found no such descriptions.

Someone else can pick this up from here. I'm not going through thousands of verses again (ala the Mahabharata) just to find out I've been lied to.
There is one amusing charm in the Atharvaveda that would come in handy. It's for invisibility.

Try it for the girl's locker room.

Now that's some advanced civilization there!

Harte



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The medical texts contain descriptions of microorganisms, actual visual descriptions. They also have very extensive maps of the human body and they seem to be aware of the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, muscular and skeletal system.

What we have here is a huge overstatement of the facts.

Please link to any Vedic work that describes the actual, visual appearance of any microorganism.

I've seen the claim that the Atharvaveda has such descriptions. This work is a collection of hymns, mostly to exorcise demons.
I've been partially through it and found no such descriptions.

Someone else can pick this up from here. I'm not going through thousands of verses again (ala the Mahabharata) just to find out I've been lied to.
There is one amusing charm in the Atharvaveda that would come in handy. It's for invisibility.

Try it for the girl's locker room.

Now that's some advanced civilization there!

Harte



Harte, I have somewhat touched on the issue of reading above. The Vedic texts have been translated by two methods: one is using a structuralist linguistic analysis of words using Sanskrit grammar. The other is using Comparative Linguistics. The latter method was used by 19th century Sanskritists in Europe. They both yeild a completely different reading.

The texts you have read of the Atharveda have been translated using the Comparative linguistics method. This is a highly flawed and speculative method, and was being used in the late 1800's. This was replaced by structuralist form of linguistic analysis. That is analysing language like a code consisting of morphenes and phonemes, which were already a part of the Sanskrit linguistic tradition.

The Vedic writings demand a very thorough analysis, as word meanings are based on complex word structures. Methods for reading them are given by the Sanskrit Grammarian Panini. Another key-text is a Sanskrit Etymology text, the Nirukta by Yaksha. This was the method which was used traditionally in the Vedic exegisis for thousands of years. This method is still used by Indian Pundits today.

Comparative Linguistics methods in the 1800 were highly speculative. It was based on reconstructing proto-Indo-European(PIE) This was basically studying the main language groups, stydying the meaning of roots, positing certain laws of sound shifts between languages, and then generalizing this to the IE languages. So for example the PIE root Deiwos, is the Sanskrit root Diva, Avestan root Daeva, Lithuinian root Dievas, Latin root Dues and German root Tiwaz. The PIE root is reconstructed by analysing all of the various IE roots, comparing them, and then combining them in some way. There is no actual evidence for it, it is all based on speculation.

The Vedas were translated using this method. The roots of the words were not translated as per their meaning in Sanskrit lexicons, but as per the speculated roots of PIE. So suppose reading of a word like 'atman' using PIE is breath, but reading of the word by Sanskrit lexicons is Self. That is a huge difference in meaning. Another word like Aditi. using PIE is mother goddess, sky goddess and even cow. Using the Sanskrit lexicon, it is the infinite and boundless one(a(no) + diti(bounds) Again a very radical difference in meaning.


So you could probably see just how radically different the readings would differ using either method. You would be perhaps surprised that the Vedas, when read in their original Sanskrit, do not actually mention any gods. Instead they mention principles: Vayu(va:yu = the one that moves), Varuna (Vr: na =the one who discriminates) Ultimately, the main teaching of the Veda is Brahman(the forever expanding and all encompassing). I own a great book which uses this method to translate the Veda: The Rig Veda for the Layman by Sujoy Ghosh. There is absolutely no resemblance between it and Mueller and Griffith.

If you are really interested in comparing the translations of Vedas, try and acquire a recent translation done using the Sanskrit method. You'll have a ball sitting there with the European translations comparing every single verse between them. It will seem like you reading two different books.

In any case the mention of the microorganisms I mentioned is not within the Atharva Veda, but it is mentioned in the Classical Sanskrit text Charak Samhita. This is a massive and seminal medical encylopedia of the Vedic medical tradition. It consists of 120 chapters(!) divided into 8 sections:

1. 30 Chapters on food, diet, physicians and quacks, philosophy and pharmacology.
2. 8 chapters on diagnosis of disease
3. 8 chapters on specific determination of taste, nourishment, general pathology and medical studies
4. 8 chapters on Physiology and anatomy, including embroyology
5. 12 chapters on the prognosis of disease
6. 30 chapters on the treatment of disease
7. 12 chapters on pharmaceutics
8. 12 chapters on general therapy

As per the accepted dates, the Charka Samita was composed in 300BCE, redacted from an even older text from 800BCE, which in turn mentioned a long linage of researchers in the field.

Now the verses on microgranisms and germs from the text:

Germ theory

Charaka describes 20 disease causing germs, which thrive in the body under certain conditions. He said that in the absence of conditions which allow their growth they do not grow. Interesingly, Charaka was refuting some of his peers, who outlined germs as the major causitive factor in disease.

Epidemics

Charaka defined an epidemic similar to how it is defined in modern medicine: it is a disease affecting, and which destroys a locality(Vimansthan, 3) He lists four contributing factors which can cause epidemics: corrupt air, water, locale. He was aware of water-born disease and prescribed boiled water during the monsoon(this is when germs are more rife)

He gives a description of parasites and microbes, called Krumis. He gives a particular vivid and fantastic description of krumis in the blood, "They are very minute and can be observed using a yantra(mechnical instrument) They are round in shape, without feet. Some are so minute that they are invisible and are copper coloured. The symptoms they cause include "raising ones hairs, itching, neede-like piercing pain and a current life effect(Vimansthan, 7/9)

The Charak Samhita also has a section on genetics(i kid you not) It's section on Embrology is so precise it mirrors the modern account. I recently read a paper on this published in some Microbiology journal.
Another key text of the Vedic medical tradition is the Sushrath Samhita, a medical treatise on sugery. It mentions plastic surgery, brain surgery, eye surgery among many things. In fact modern surgical techniques were adopted from it.

I am not sure about you, but to me this is a HUGE anamolie. Reading about brain surgery, microbiology and genetics in a text which has been conservatively dated close to 1000BCE is madness! It just doesn't fit. This is why I insist all of this knowledge is pre-glacial. The internal records in all these Sanskrit traditions all mention a huge linage of researchers going far back into the IVC, and possibly beyond.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I just wanted to corroborate further the Charaka Samhita I mentioned above, just to prove that is not some obscure text kept hidden in some monestary available only to elite researchers. It is a widely available text and forms the key texts of standard Indian medicine degree programs(BAMS) around the world.

You can acquire English translations of the Charaka Sahmita, Sushratha Samhita and other books related to the field of Indian medicine at this site(This site is specifically dedicated to vedic literature)

Charaka and Sushratha Samhita


It is interesting how there is little interest in the Sanskrit tradition to learn about ancient history. It is the only ancient tradition that has survived fully intact from thousands of years ago to this date. There is no doubt at all how advanced it is. Even if we accept the conservative dates of 10000 BCE for the vast corpus of Vedic literature, we still have an impossibly advanced tradition. Unless one thinks microbiology and particle physics is normal for such a timeframe. So I would advise those trying to prove the ancients had advanced knowledge and technology, to shift their focus from the Pyramids and Atlantis, and focus on the Sanskrit tradition, because it is the only ancient tradition where empirical evidence exists to support such claims.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I reviewed this entire thread today. It brought back so many memories of my debates with Vagabond, Nydgan and Byrd, good memories in retrospect. At the time I was probably frustrated with what I saw as blind skepticism, but over the years I have matured somewhat, to embrace all kinds of skepticism. At the end of the day, it's all about beliefs in end, competing narratives, and everybody has a right to believe in what they want and should not be imposed upon. There is always a logic behind what one believes, supporting by particular evidence. Newton did not believe in action-at-distance, his logic was that the world is like a mechnical clock, everything exists as an individual cog in the machine and only turns when a force acts. It's very logical from Newton's standpoint, but illogical by QM's standpoint. Likewise, advanced ancient civilisations may seem illogical to many, because they believe in modernism, the idea that the present is always a development on the past. The whole notion of ancient advanced civilisations is so illogical to that point of view. But to me, modernism is illogical, because it has brought about an irrational world intent on destroying itself. So something is lacking in the modern world, which was present in the ancient world, nullifying the foundational premise of modernism.

There really is no logical reason to exclude the possibility of advanced ancient civilisations, even within our current framework. The discussion should not be about the possibility of ancient civilisations, but the likeliness of there having been one. I have attempted to show in this thread, that the likeliness of one existing is very high. For myself it is almost certain.


There have been many posts made to this thread since my hiatus from ATS, and I wanted to respond to some of the issues they brought up. I hope the people are still about.

5 elemental theory: The 5 elemental theory is known as pancha mahabhuttas in Classical Sanskrit. It means, "The 5 foundational elements" The foundational elements of what however? We know that fire, earth, air and water are not foundational elements, they are compounds. They are not the Mahabhutas, they are the pancha bhutas, "The five gross elements" The Vedic elemental theory gives a sliding scale theory of the 5 elements. The Mahabhootas are the absolute most basic forms of each element and they are fundamentally immaterial. They are in fact connected to senses.

So it goes a bit like this: Fire is the gross element, seeing is its foundational element; water is the gross element, tasting is its foundational element and so on. The mahabhutas are also known as tanmatras in Vedic Sanskrit, which means 'measuring out extension' The tanmatras are sometimes called virtual particles, that is they do not have manifest existence, but it is them that give rise to all particles. They are not particles at all though. They are what in philosophy is called qualia. They are basic building blocks of conscious reality.

It would not be incorrect to say that all reality is just sensory data, and the human beings reality is composed of 5 basic blocks of sensory datum: seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. There is no other empirical sensory data. In other words we come to a very similar concept of the pancha mahabhutas. These really are the five elements.

Vedic metaphysics divides reality into four parts: gross, subtle, causal and absolute. They in turn correspond to states of consciousness: waking, subconscious, unconscious and superconscious. What we see as matter has four parts, each of which only become visible when we enter intro a certain state of consciousness. The objects in front of us in the world thus are on a sliding-scale or continuum of existence. Take for example, what is fire? Fire, according to the Vedic model is a gross form of mahabhuta tejas, meaning energy. Its subtle form is quanta, it's causal form is seeing and its absolute form is pure consciousness. Now what is quite interesting here, every object in the universe has duality only until the last stage of the absolute, where everything just collapses into one. In other words everything at the last stage is pure consciousness.

This conception of reality is known in philosophy as monistic idealism and in Sanskrit this metaphysics is called Advaita Vedanta. It is basically saying that all of reality occurs within consciousness. So it's almost like a great dream. It is not our dream(crude idealism), but the dream of that abolute one, within which we are just participants.

Notice how in the Vedic theory there is no compartmentalization at all. All of reality is treated as a single thing, as opposed to many things. We are not separate things observing a world of individual things. We have no reality without things, and things have no reality without us. In other words we are one and the same thing, existing interdepedently. Our biggest blunder is to separate things with our rational minds. In religion this separation is called god, and in science this separation is called matter. Basically everything that exists has two components: matter and consciousness(known as Prakriti and Purush in the Vedas) and neither can exist without the other.

We are finding out in material science today in the form of QM that the Vedanta model is true, consciousness and matter cannot be separated; one indicates the other. In other words there is an implicit suggestion here that Vedanta is more advanced than the best of our physical theories. Again such models cannot be created by a primitive people. Again, I present, this is the work of a pre-glacial advanced civilisation, who had developed in science-technology well beyond us. I think soon even we will be explaining reality EXACTLY as the Vedic Aryans described it.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join