Vagabond, the difference between me and you, is that I actually substantiate what I say with facts. And this perturbs you, because whenever you engage
in discussion, just as quickly you want to concede. You say the Persian Gods are not similar to the Vedas. I have produced an entire list of them and
shown their root. It is not just a few words, but thousands of words that can be traced. Further more, prior to Mohammed, the culture that flourised
in Persia was a polytheistic culture and even Islamists concede that prior there were more than 360 idols of deities in the Mecca and Mohammed uncles
and grandfathers were idol worshipers. Now, this many gods and idol worship is an Vedic Aryan trait.
There was a lot of trade between the Arabs and the Vedic Indians, and it is very natural, considering that they are neighbors. It may well be that
they were part of an Aryan empire.
Also, Indo-European languages stem from a lost language which has been theoretically reconstructed. It is called PIE or Proto Indo
Do not unnecessarily muliply quantities - Occams Razor
Why, do we need to create a theoretical lost language, when all the evidence suggests that the Indo-European and the Persian language, even the
semetic family of languages originates from Sanskrit, which is the most sophisticated language in existence today - not my words - but according to
scientists. As far as records show, Sanskrit is the root of most languages and it cannot be traced beyond that. Of course, if you can show me
Aryans (Aryan commonly meaning proto indo-iranian in modern usage) and as such their proto-zoroastrian religion would share elements with the
proto-vedic religion- in fact they may directly stem from the same protoreligion for all we know.
The word that is wrong here is "proto" What has basically happened here, historians are trying to reconcilate the cultural and linguistic
similarities, but by ruling out global culture because it will uproot their history.
Furthermore, and this is where religion and politics come in, accepting a single Aryan masterace of pagan origin, is too hard for our historians to
swallow. So, what they do, is work around accepting the obvious, create all these imaginary proto cultures and languages - unnecessarily mulitply
quanitiies, because they are too intellectually shallow, dishonest and spineless to face the truth. You see all of this "proto" business started
from British Historians and their fabrications of Aryans invasions and distortions of vedic history, and I have proven(and I indeed have) this was
nothing more than imperialist politics and racism. There is no proto vedic culture in India. The Indus civilization only knows of one culture and that
is the Vedic culture and it goes back millenias .
So, I am going to use Occams razor, because here it is appropriate and call the historians bluff.
Further still, there are religious similiarties between Vedic Aryans and the Sumerian civilization. We can begin with the stories of Jesus Christ,
Krishna/Buddha, the crucifix, the stories of Manu being the first man(which is where man originates from) heaven and hell, the interbreeding with the
"gods", nohas ark. Except, these are corruptions of the original Vedic stories. Reincarnation and the laws of karma were omitted, as was science and
meditation. That is because religion was meant to control, not to empower. I mean come on, the origins of Christianity are dubious, it is based on
anecdotal accounts of a small group of men many decades later. Before then, existed a different religion which became the old testament and it
contradicts the new testament. It's a mess, and it is only a mess because it is not based on the original history.
The truth is all religions have evolved from the original Vedic Aryans. The Aryans are the master race. The vedas are the master knowledge. Now, some
prominent Christian scholars have been honest enough to admit this. They did not jump on the imperialist bandwagon.
In this way, practically speaking, what we find in the Bible regarding Jesus’ birth is a description of the appearance of Lord Krishna, but only the
names have been changed. Of course, there are different theories about how this happened. One theory is that when the Christians went to India, they
found out that this story was there in the Bhagavat-Purana; so, they immediately had to change the date of when the Bhagavat-Purana was supposed to
have been written. So now the historians generally say that it was written about 1400 years ago. Otherwise, how could they explain the story of
Krishna’s birth being so similar to the story of Christ’s birth? They thought that the Vedic pundits must have heard about the story of Jesus and
adapted the story to their own incarnation, as if the Vedic scholars would demean themselves by putting a story into their scripture that was heard
from people who were considered low-born foreigners. Actually, what happened was just the opposite.
Reverend J. B. S. Carwithen, known as one of the “Brampton Lecturers,” who says, as quoted in Reverend J. P. Lundy’s Monumental Christianity
(pp. 151-2), “Both the name Crishna and the general outline of his story are long anterior to the birth of our Savior [Jesus Christ]; and this we
know, not on the presumed antiquity of the Hindoo records alone. Both Arrian and Strabo assert that the God Crishna was anciently worshiped at
Mathura, on the river Jumna, where he is worshiped at this day. But the emblems and attributes essential to this deity are also transplanted into the
mythology of the West.”
Monier Williams, one of the accepted early Western authorities on Hinduism, Professor at Oxford in London and a devout Christian, also focused on this
issue when writing for the “Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” in his book, Indian Wisdom. Therein he states:
“To any one who has followed me in tracing the outline of this remarkable philosophical dialogue, and has noted the numerous parallels it offers to
passages in our Sacred Scriptures, it may seem strange that I hesitate to concur to any theory which explains these coincidences by supposing the
author [of such Vedic books as the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-Bhagavatam] had access to the New Testament, or that he derived some of his ideas from
the first propagators of Christianity. Surely it will be conceded that the probability of contact and interaction between Gentile systems and the
Christian religion of the first two centuries of our era must have been greater in Italy than in India. Yet, if we take the writings and sayings of
those great Roman philosophers, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, we shall find them full of resemblances to passages in our Scriptures, while
there appears to be no ground whatever for supposing that these eminent Pagan writers and thinkers derived any of their ideas from either Jewish or
Christian sources. In fact, the Reverend F. W. Farrar, in his interesting and valuable work, Seekers After God, has clearly shown that ‘to say that
Pagan morality kindled its faded taper at the Gospel light, whether furtively or unconsciously, that it dissembled the obligation and made a boast of
the splendor, as if it were originally her own, is to make an assertion wholly untenable.’ He points out that the attempts of the Christian Fathers
to make out Pythagoras a debtor to Hebraic wisdom, Plato an ‘Atticizing Moses,’ Aristotle a picker-up of ethics from a Jew, Seneca a correspondent
of St. Paul, were due in some cases to ignorance, in some to a want of perfect honesty in controversial dealing. . . It must indeed be admitted that
the flames of true light which emerge from the mists of pantheism in the writings of the Indian philosophers, must spring from the same source of
light as the Gospel itself; but it may reasonably be questioned whether there could have been any actual contact of the Hindoo systems with
Christianity without a more satisfying result in the modification of pantheistic and anti-Christian ideas.”
“It should not be forgotten that although the nations of Europe have changed their religions during the past eighteen centuries, the Hindu has not
done so, except very partially. Islam converted a certain number by force of arms in the eighth and following centuries, and Christian truth is at
last slowly creeping onwards and winning its way by its own inherent energy in the nineteenth; but the religious creeds, rites, customs, and habits of
thought of the Hindus generally have altered little since the days of Manu. . .”
In fact, there is far more [I]evidence[/I] to suggest that the Aryans came from India and spread across Europe and Africa. However, this was the truth
that the Imperialists could not digest, so they fabricated myths, distorted history, just so they could mould it to the Christian framework. In fact
orignally they said the Aryans invaded India around 1500BC or so. Now, it is a proven fact that the Aryans were in India before 3000BC.
It's distortions and fabrications from an imperialist empire vs hard facts. The truth, and it does not matter if you accept it, that once there was a
global civilization of the Aryans, and they were originally from India and after a global cataclysm, seperate civilizations formed and then devolved
from the original master Vedic Aryan race, and all they had was a remenant of knowledge of the previous global culture and this was diluted through
the ages and distorted. However, the difference is, the Vedic knowledge was not distorted and is still existing today in it's original form. Suppose,
that we form a one world culture tomorrow, and then an apolcalyptic cataclysm occurs, that world culture will not longer be united, but be separated
into several parts. This is what has happened.
Hitler had realized this and this is why he tried to recreate the Aryan superace, unfortunately he was misguided and foolish and further distorted the
true heritage of the Vedic Aryans.
Even today there are so many from every walk of life, nationalist and religion that look back at India and it's culture with adoration. Like a child
beckoning his mother.
Now, are you man enough to actually have a conversation with me, or are you going to put me on ignore again and hide?