"Aryan" race

]The terms Harappan and Indus Valley Civilization have been used interchangably, but are not interchangable with the term Aryan. There is no error in my use of the term Harappan, which is the name of a single city which has been branded upon that cities neighbors as well.

The true name of this civilization is Arya. Harappa and Mohenjadro are the names of the cities. It is a bit like future archeaologists finding Texas, and then finding Florida and arguing they were separate civilizations. As I told you, there is no proof that the Aryans were not from India. Again, it was a myth fabricated by Imperialists for political interests.

It was not my intention to grant unwarranted merit to my theory. I will re-term mine to be a "guess" if it please you. The fact remains that your thesis originates in a religious text.

Your theory is based on speculations of whether the Aryans were from the Indian subcontinent. It's as good as me theorizing whether humans are from Mars. There is no evidence at all to support it. Meanwhile, I don't have to argue whether the Aryans were from India or not, because as far as the facts dictate, they were always a part of India.

Cultural values are not quantifiable. There can be no empirical comparrison of cultures. The debate over "my forefathers can beat up your forefathers" is little better than the racist debate.

No, but what is quantifiable is the level of scientific and technological advancement, and if you read the proofs I have presented in the topics, you will see these are hard facts. India was heavily industralized and producing steel and zink, doctors were peforming brain surgery under anaesthetics and intellectuals were discussing particle physics, logic and space-time. This is why it is superior to the west. And I maintain, it is still superior, simply because of it's knowledge based society and interconnectedness.

All good science begs to differ, and again I remind you that your issue is not with me. There are plenty of people with plenty of letters after their names who are better suited to hear your arguements, but you'll need more than a religious story to get their attention. Tell me what you find when you begin those excavatio though. I'd be thrilled to see proof.

Ah, no, it is true that western civilization is largely based on the Roman-Christian empire. It was certainly not based on the greeks, because they were a scientific civilization and Romans suppressed that. Again, the modern age of science only happened a few centuries ago.

You said exactly what archaeologists have found and then you added that those things were nothing compared to what that civilization really accomplished, which seemed rather clear in light of previous threads you have posted regarding the Brahmastra weapon (spelling?)

And, that means nuclear weapons, therefore? This Arya civilization accomplished a lot and the records of their accomplishments still exists today. Again, read the proofs I presented.

Wrong. First of all, Sumerians spoke a language isolate bearing their own name. The Akkadians who conquered them later spoke a Semetic language related to Arabic which came later still. Semetic languages are from the Afro-Asiatic family of language, not the Indo-European. They are not related to Sanskrit.

Nope, the Arabic languages can indeed be traced to Sanskrit and they bear more resemblance to them, than other European languages do. In fact, prior to Mohammed, Arabia had a polytheistic culture very similar to the vedic one and they quite reveered the Vedic Aryans(which is actually monothestic and quasi-polytheistic) in fact it is said Mohammed is prophecised in the Purans.

And here is your proof:

Sanskrit:Arabic: English
Sagwan, Saj, Teakwood
Vish, Besh, Poison
Anusari, Ansari, Follower
Shishya, Sheikh, Disciple
Mrityu, Mout, Mortal
Pra-Ga-ambar, Paigambar, One from heaven
Maleen, Malaun, Dirty, soiled,MALevolent
Aapati, Aafat, Unfortunate
Karpas, Kaifas Cotton
Karpur, Kafur, Camphor
Pramukh, Barmak, Prominent Chief
Naranga, Aranja, Orange.

In fact, even the names of the gods of pre-Mohammed Arabia can be traced:

Arabic Sanskrit English
Al-Dsaizan, Shani,Saturn
Al-Ozi or Ozza,Oorja,Divine energy
Al-Sharak,Shukra,Venus
Auds,Uddhav
Bag,Bhagwan,God
Bajar,Vajra,Indra's thunderbolt
Kabar,Kuber, God of wealth
Dar,Indra,King of gods
Dua Shara,Deveshwar, Lord of the gods
Habal,Bahubali,Lord of strength
Madan,Madan,God of love
Manaph, Manu,First Man
Manat, Somnath, Lord Shiv
Razeah,Rajesh,King of kings
Sair,Shree,Goddess of wealth
Sakiah,Shakrah,Indra
Sawara,Shiva-Eshwar, God Shiva
Yauk, Yaksha, Divine being

Even further proof comes from Pre-Mohammed literature, that reveer Vedic Aryans:
The following poem was written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before the prophet Muhammed. It is in praise of India's great King Vikramaditya who had lived 500 years before Bintoi.
"Itrasshaphai Santul Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun Bihillahaya Samiminela Motakabbenaran Bihillaha Yubee qaid min howa Yaphakharu phajgal asari nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana baleykulle amarena Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon" - (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315)
"Fortunate are those who were born during King Vikram's reign, he was a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting & torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country.

In fact you will finding this amazing, but the most holy muslim site of Mecca is actually a holy Vedic Aryan site. The ancient Vedic scripture Harihareswar Mahatmya mentions that Lord Vishnu's footprints are consecrated in Mecca. An important clue to this fact is that Muslims call this holy precint Haram which is a deviation of the Sanskrit term Hariyam, i.e. the precint of Lord Hari alias Lord Vishnu. The relevant stanza reads:

"Ekam Padam Gayayantu MAKKA-YAANTU Dwitiyakam Tritiyam Sthapitam Divyam Muktyai Shuklasya Sannidhau"

Further still the holy stone that is kept in Mecca is actually a Vedic Shiva Ling. The Black Stone which is the Shiv Emblem (also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone) still survives in the Kaba as the central object of Islamic worship.

In fact the names of the holiest of Muslim cities Mecca and Medina come from the Sanskrit words Makha-Medini which means the land of Fire-Worship. Even the most ancient names of these 2 cities were Mahcorava- which came from Mahadeva (Lord Shiva) and Yathrabn - which came from Yatra-Sthan (place of pilgrimage).

So, you see, Arabia was also from the Vedic Aryans and so was Europe. It is said that at one time there existed only one race - It was the Aryans. India is the cradle of civilization.

We've been through this in other threads. The so-called science you are constantly pointing out is vague at best and forced-translation benefiting from hindsight at the worst. Science is empirical, measurable, reproducable. The "science" of the Mahabharata can not be measured and reproduced for proof therefore it is not valid science. It MIGHT be termed alchemy at best.

You have not actually read "vedic physics" have you? There is nothing vague about it. Further still, did you not read about the solar-powered ion engine? Did you read anything at all?

That doesn't follow at all. For one thing, Indo-European languages are related to sanskrit but do not necessarily all stem from sanskrit, they could share common origin. Additionally, the sharing of language does not necessarily mean the sharing of all ideals. Suppose that my Mexican friend teaches me Spanish then my Irish friend tells me the legend of Finn McCool. Does this mean that my story of Finn McCool is derived from Spanish culture?

Well, then, let's do this then. Tell me, which known language, Sanskrit originates from and prove it, like I have proven how European and Arabian languages are from Sanskrit.


[edit on 28-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

I do not wish to engage you in a cyclic debate on the vast majority of your unfounded points and your "proofs" based on the unfounded declarations of Indian revisionists who stand alone in the face of the rest of the intellectual world.

I will only give my reply on a subject which can hopefully be settled, since we do have people of some linguistic/anthropological knowledge in this forum.
You base an arguement for familiar relationship betwen Arabic and Sanskrit on a handfull of similar sounding words. You don't go into the more meaningful discussion of syntax, conjugation, etc, things which are far less random, far harder to borrow, and far harder to change than simple similiarities in sound. On the basis of a few words you are not contradicting me, you're contradicting qualified linguists who classified Arabic as belonging to the Afro-Asiatic language family. Fine by me, I'm sure you've got as much formal education in that field as the people who classified that languages.

You also lean on the similiarities between the pagan gods of the area and vedic gods. This is ridiculous because the Persians (Iranians) who are a a related culture to the 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.
You still haven't directly attacked Sumer anyway, because Sumer spoke a non-semetic language isolate before the conquest by Akkad, and Sumerian beliefs to the best of my knowledge do not mirror Zoroastrian beliefs.


There you have it. With any luck at all one of our resident experts will be around to bear me out (and correct any mistakes I've made). Like I have been saying, you're not just arguing with me. I didn't dig these things up and write the textbooks. I just did a little reading of the sources which are not biased by religious loyalty to the Vedas and reported what they had to say.


Also, Indo-European languages stem from a lost language which has been theoretically reconstructed. It is called PIE or Proto Indo European. The transition from language to language is not strictly linear. It is not sanskrit begets Persian, begets Hittite. Several languages stem from PIE, they interact with eachother and other languages creating new dialects and entirely new languages.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

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 European.

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 otherwise...

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?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
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.

I want to concede? Not at all. I'd say that you've helped me to evolve- I'm no longer willing to make myself angry and argue with a wall. I address a subject, and if we are at an impasse then I propose that we continue on more fruitful aspects of the discussion. Once I've given my response the first time there is no reason I should not propose that we leave our disagreement at that (with neither of us offering concession). Why should I refute your revisionist lies each several times over?
If you think me weak for staying calm and not giving into the temptation to bicker "is to" "is not" it only serves as evidence against your claims of belonging to an inherently more intellectual culture. I'm sure I've been amusing in times past when you could watch me get all worked up fighting these circular battles, but those days are over if I can help it at all. Perhaps you'd prefer that I declare some kind of silly intellectual jihad and spend the rest of the week at each others throats?

You claim that I do not use evidence. Meanwhile you use mostly uncited or religious sources which are in agreement only with an intellectual fringe- namely revisionist scholars from India. We'll let the reader decide.

My facts come from Wikipedia articles citing more mainstream sources. Normally I would qualify these links with a reminder that Wikipedia is not gospel, but since my opponent is using actual "gospel" (religious texts) I am inclined to assert that for the purpose of this discussion these are of relatively substantial weight. Here are many of them.

en.wikipedia.org... (proto indo european language)
en.wikipedia.org... (semetic languages, including arabic and akkadian)
en.wikipedia.org... (Sumer, which existed before Indus Valley Civ and Aryans)
en.wikipedia.org... (The Indus Valley Civilization, which was distinct from Aryan immigrants in several ways- also notes that your attempt to label this as Saraswati is lead by Hindu Nationalists- not objective scholars.)
en.wikipedia.org... (includes links on many civs)
en.wikipedia.org... (Mesopotamia)
en.wikipedia.org... (The post-Sumerian religion which you claim proves that Sumerians got their religion from Aryans, when it actually proves that Persia later controlled the same area Sumer had)
en.wikipedia.org... (Info on Aryans, including the mention that Sanskrit shares its status as an oldest member of IE with Avestan, which disputes your implication that Sanskrit is the parent of all other IE language and proves that there was most likely an older IE language, which has been reconstructed as Proto-IE.)

[edit on 28-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

As usual, there is no evidence, just some links to Wikipedia - the argument to authority fallacy and the same allegations of "religion" When, two of the sources I cited in the prior post were devout Christians. So, this is not about religion, but about history. You got nothing there Vagabond, that is why I said the difference between me and you, I substantiate what I say. If it's in wikipedia, or even Britannica(once in Britannica is called the Indians a rude, primitive and barbaric people - so that's the encylopedia's out of the window right away) it does not mean it's true. When you learn this lesson, come back. We here to discuss alternative history, not what they tell you in school, because it's wrong, or what historians have agreed on.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Aryan/vedic race is probably the root of the current civilization i.e. Indian sub-continent is the cradle of civilization.

specifically, the Aryans were a group of Europeans who conquered India and installed the caste system. i think they were nomadic.

That was debunked a long time ago in another topic. It was a myth created by Max Muller, a British agent to falisfy Indian culture, to spread Christianity and to corrupt the indigenous culture.

I've studied quite a lot of world history (99.99% outside of ATS!), and I don't remember ever reading anything about India being THE "cradle of civilization".

Frankly, that sounds just like the people that are always posting on ATS about India having the best air force, etc. India is just India, and not necessarily the source of everything significant in the world. OK?

I've studied quite a lot of world history (99.99% outside of ATS!), and I don't remember ever reading anything about India being THE "cradle of civilization".

Well, now you have, and you should research it and attempt to debunk it, because the evidence certainly suggests that the Aryans are a master race.

Frankly, that sounds just like the people that are always posting on ATS about India having the best air force, etc. India is just India, and not necessarily the source of everything significant in the world. OK?

Well, I for one don't think India has the best air force in the world, not even close. It is a very high rate of attrition, and the USAF and and French air force are far more better technologically and in terms of sheer fire power. And India as a country is very corrupt and lacks basic infrastructure. Then get it has it's positives too, like every country the world.

Now, I've told you this, because you've assumed that I am some Indian trying to make India seem like a paradise. No, I am a researcher, researching history and I have found it is taken me to Vedic India. That does not mean I favor India anymore than I favor my own country, which is Britain - I am a British male. I think it is very narrow minded to think a British male could not be interested in Vedic culture, without being an Indian, a Hindu or Sikh. Schrodinger, David Bhom were very interested in Vedic culture.

I am more interested in the global culture and know as much as other cultures, as I do vedic culture. The only reason I am putting emphasis on Vedic culture, because it's the only culture that has existing records of the advanced civilization that existed in this world. Which is the argument I am arguing for.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by flailer
Is there any truth to the notion that every major civilization had a "founding race" that eventually became diluted due to miscegenation and thus lost their vigor?

Short answer: no.

I am always reminded that Adolph Hitler was not a farm boy. Thus he could indulge fantasies such as 'diluted due to miscegenation'. Why fantasy?

Crossbred cows grow better, faster, bigger.

It's the inbred linebred snob-bred purebreed filth that doesn't cut it on a cattleranch. Every cowboy knows that.

And if you remember, the 'founding race' got stomped by cowpoke mongrels like me, in World War Two.

I don't beleive India is the cradle of life Armenia, now turkey would be more appropriate in my opinion

forum.armenianclub.com...

"There will be one race in 50 years"

Yeah you can create them give your white daughter to this black thug's down the street to create this new race. Then pass her though the arabs states and china and create your one true race.

You tell 'em proud "Aryan" brother^^^.

Originally posted by TheTruth123
"There will be one race in 50 years"

Yeah you can create them give your white daughter to this black thug's down the street to create this new race. Then pass her though the arabs states and china and create your one true race.

Black thugs? Feeling a little racistic today?