It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


India: Ancient Superpower

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by Project2501


There is a thread in another forum discussing Islam vs Hindusm. I noticed Islam was not getting much defense, so I am posting a link to it for you. Besides it would be better discussing Hinduism vs Islam in the appropriate thread, than here where it is of-topic:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:47 AM
reply to post by Project2501

1,000 years is only 1 day to God The Noble Qur'an Sura 32: The Prostration Verse:5 He governs all that exists, from the celestial space to the earth; and in the end all shall ascend unto Him [for judgment] on a Day the length whereof will be [like] a thousand years of your reckoning. Yes, So your lack of measurements of time means what exactly?

I was not talking to you about creation and the measurement of it in human time. Once again you have taken my posts and twisted it so as to make yourself look better. All religions on this planet have certain truths mixed in with certain distorted teachings. The timeline was quoted to tell you that the Gita as well as the Upanishads were the first to bring out the word/teachings of God long before the quran. The basic required teachings without which one cannot know/understand God or proceed to understand any holy scripture which is meditation/contemplation/discrimination at every level of teaching/analysis was quoted first in the upanishads and then in the Gita, long long before the quran was written.
By your very posts I can come to the conclusion that apart from the deen/law of Islam which by the way has more to do with a way of life rather than the eternal everything else to do with philosophy/metaphysics/spiritualism was borrowed from else where or the same re iterated. Only thing is the muslims dont know it. You said you accepted the Gospel of the Buddha, where do you think the Buddha came from??? Buddha was from India and he perfected the teachings of India (Which was mostly distorted by the time he arrived) Which also incidentally is prior to Islam.

The Noble Qur'an Sura 13: The Thunder Verse:38 And, truly, We sent forth apostles before thee, and We appointed for them wives and offspring; and it was not given to any apostle to produce a miracle save at God's behest. Every age has had its revelation: How is or even was Mary Magdalene a test, For a Prophet such as Isa/Jesus that clearly has a right to marry if he had so chosen to do so? Who are you to meddle in his affairs?

So even the quran mentions revelations given to various ages prior to Muhammed. You have your answer rite there. Why do you keep coming back to me when my previous posts have clearly answered most of your posts including this one. The Law of consequences to action/law of cause and effect (i.e) the eternal law puts the deen of Islam to a shame.
I am not judging Isa (Pbuh). I am merely quoting an incident in the new testament and explaining it to you that it signifies that living the life of a proper ascetic is difficult and cannot be considered as a way of life, fortunately the devout christians do not follow the way of life of the messengers/teachers of God unlike the one claimed by devout muslims. Atleast some people have common sense to differentiate between a prophet/messenger/ascetic to a common man. Of course Isa (pbuh) as well as others have a rite to marry, who denies that one. The problem only arises when there is a compulsion to imitate the prophet so as to show outwardly that the person is devout or righteous in front of Allah. Remember 'its not important that you clean the outsides of a cup but the insides should mainly remain clean'.

Why is the christian bible shrouded in mystery and missing Jesus around the ages of 13 through 30? What do you mean his whole life? There is no documentation from your standpoint to back that claim? The text in which you are quoting is a tad corrupted with what you are stating. Your projected theory of the avatar you'd like to mask Jesus in will take more than persuasive rhetoric. - Note The Christian name was first established in Acts 11:26 And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

You are talking about history while I keep re iterating on the teachings. Verily the teachings are the ones that are important. Of course history of jesus will be shrouded owing to the fact that they are very old and obviously lost/corrupted. Why are you interested in the history???
You decide weather the below is true or not -

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL From Muhammad (S.A.W.) the Prophet of Allah to Negus, King of Ethiopia. Peace be on him who follows the guidance. I praise Allah Who alone is to be worshipped. He is the Master of the entire universe. He is Sublime. Only He is the haven of peace and security. I testify that Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary) is the spirit of Allah and His word, which He communed to Maryam (Mary), the pious and thus she became the mother of Allah's Prophet Isa (A.S.). Thus Allah created him from His spirit and infused it into Maryam just as He made Adam (A.S.) with His powerful hand. Now I invite you to accept the obedience, sympathy, and love of Allah Who is One and Who is without an associate. You should follow me and should believe in the message of Allah which I have brought. I call you and your army towards Allah Who is worthy of all respect and esteem. I have thus discharged my duty of conveying His message and advice. You should accept it, May peace be on the followers of the guidance. ---------------------------------------- Provided with kind permission of Dr Shuja. May Allah [SWT] place his blessings upon him and his family.

Source -
The earliest forms of christianity were called Gnostics (Knowing ones self). The teachings of the Gita as well as the new testament are more or less the same. The father of hindu religion is Yagnavalkya.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by CuteAngel


The Sacrifice reminds us that life is sacred. By saying the name of God at the time of slaughter. Also it teaches us how to eat "Halal."

Cool. But also note that hindus consider denser foods to strengthen the physical body and pave way for materialistic development rather than evolution of the soul/self. Lighter foods are better suited for spiritual goals.

Islam is the straight path to spirituality. It has the tariqah and that is a hikmah indeed. The color of wisdom that being green, shines upon the entire earth. A truth of the supreme. And as far as "Dunya" goes, Well yes the temporal world can be most tempting.

Far from it. The deen of Islam has nothing to do with evolution of soul/self but merely a way of life (i.e) physical 3d world.
Similarly I quoted above that this 3d physical world remaining only a persistent illusion Jesus asked god not to tempt him lest he may be taken to sin.

And also, Muslims have a great method of meditation it's called "muraqaba" from gnosis to say shahood a person could activate a deep sense with in and all around. Once again it appears the Islamic system is far to advanced for you. But you would have to have knowledge of "Islamic philosophy" & "Islamic metaphysics"

The whole problem is Islam claiming the origins of anything and everything is flawed. It mite be advanced to you as well as many muslims but not to all especially to those who have a spiritual insight and have read their scriptures. For instance most of the earliest forms of science such as algebra, geometry, alchemy...etc. were mostly developed by the Egyptians, babylonians as well as greeks, the basic foundations of which were laid down by the Mesopotamians as well as Indians. Just cause Egypt, Iraq and Iran are muslim countries now it does not mean that Islam is the founder of those sciences. In fact if it was Islam that can be attributed to these then we should be seeing those very countries far ahead in terms of technology/science owing to the fact that many attribute the development to many sciences to muslims, but we can see the obvious and verily it is the west which is far advanced. Some mite even conclude that it is Islam/muslims that put an end to the development of sciences which was flourishing at earlier times in the middle east. People spend too much time following the deen/law you see

I still await to be shown this Sanatana, (born from the mind) which is in fact hermetic in nature. It's not like you're going to stumble upon a Samkhya guru any or everyday right? - Note Samkhya is one of the oldest philosophical systems in India, Taught by the four sons of Brahma, The Four Kumaras. But you never seem to find any hindus teaching this? As well as the hindu stories of the vimana. Once again telling a story of a supposed ancient superpower is one thing. But providing the real framework for it, Is simply not manifesting in truth. If you're going to deny via ignorance, Because you're afraid your system has lost any luster it may have once had? We can see india was a ancient story teller, That much has been ascertained.

The mind is ONLY attributed to a persisting ILLUSION, not everything. This world is made up of duality and the mind which is always wavering due to it causes the illusion to remain. The Upanishads and the Gita are more than enough no need to look at others. You laugh at re incarnation??? that itself shows you have no respect or connection to the eternal/divine. This is where you are flawed.
As far as India being an ancient super power, I dont know and dont care. That is Indigo's conclusion, not mine. My conclusion is that they were the first to expound religion, not Islam. Mite be it has lost luster as everything deteriorates with time and besides the hindus consider themselves living in the dark ages, so theres your answer. I have no intention to mix philosophy/metaphysics/spiritualism with that of civilization/architecture and also with science/technology. Clearly you are unable to differentiate them.
If your gonna call Islam advanced, you clearly have no idea of what advanced is, let alone of what the truth is. You mite be able to debate a hindu/christian who is not aware of what their religion is but against someone like me who is aware of what their scripture teaches you got no chance.

Edit to add info -
Incidentally Avatar/Incarnation/messenger/prophet/teacher of God are more or less the same (i.e) representative of God (or) the one sent by him and are not considered a God in the state that they are in (i.e) 3d physical state. Except the fact that each one mite have more or less power when compared to the other which is provided by god (i.e) an avatar mite have more power granted to him by god than his prophet or messenger.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by CuteAngel]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:05 PM

For instance most of the earliest forms of science such as algebra, geometry, alchemy...etc. were mostly developed by the Egyptians, babylonians as well as greeks, the basic foundations of which were laid down by the Mesopotamians as well as Indians.

I admire that you are more interested in the spirituality/philosophy of Indian civilisation than the science/technology, but I think you are commiting a grave error by favouring one and dismissing the other. Even the Vedas do not separate science/technology from spirituality. They contain hymns both extolling spiritual principles and also hymns desrious of material accomplishments.

Civilisation cannot be built on just the edifice of spirituality/philosophy, it also needs science and technology. You are denying Indian civilisation a major contribution it has made in science, by ignoring its scientific and technological achivements, even crediting them to others, while you can keep the spiritual stuff.

After reading this thread you cannot possibly contend that it was the Greeks, Babylonians or Egyptians that mostly developed them. I have provided more than ample proof that Indians were the most scientifically and technologically advanced.

Indians were navigating the oceans long before Colombus even lived.

India has planned cities, plumbing, multistories home, bathrooms with toilets, sewage waste and disposal systems long before they appeared in Europe in the 20th century.

Indians had a full fledged science of surgery and scientific medicine long before there was one of similar scope and scientific standard in the 19th century.

Indians had developed mathematics and logic up to modern levels long before they were rediscovered in Europe. They founded most of algerba, most of calculus, most of trignometry and the entire decimal and number system, and mathematical linguistics.

Indians had developed atomic models and accurate theories of thermodynamics and mechanics long before they were developed in Europe from the 17th century onwards. The existence of subatomic particles was not suspected until the 20th century.

Indians had developed advanced metallurgical techniques to produce steel, zinc and other metals long before they were developed in Europe in the 18th century.

Indians had discovered psychology and were giving psychiatric care to people, conducting hypnotic regression and analysing dreams scientifically long before the 20th century.

Indians were vastly ahead of the rest of the world right up to modern times. Give credit where it is due. The West today are certainly more technologically advanced than we have of verifiable evidence of Indian civilisation. For example we have no proof of ancient India having aeroplanes, nuclear weapons and computers, but we certainly have many interesting references to advanded technology. In any case, there is no doubt about it that Indian civilisation had reached an incredibly high level of scientific and technological development, nowhere to be seen in the ancient world until modern times.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:33 AM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

The whole point is if in fact they were technologically advanced they would'nt have fallen for soo many invasions, right from Alexander to the british that land has been raped and ravaged multiple times (including the people of course
). Or even if they were under invasion for 600 years, once they had been freed we would be able to see them easily re build their country owing to the fact that they have such a natural inclination towards science/technology??? They are not what you seem to think they are. Even if they had such an ancient civilization we would be able to see at least some amount of proof. Like for instance the pyramids of Egypt, no matter how many years have passed, no matter how much wars have been fought, all the natural calamities that have taken place they still stand. With all this ranting about them going to Egypt and building them you'd have thought that they would've built atleast a few in their own country. Or are you going to give excuse that some aliens carried out war against them??? or maybe the aliens used white phosphorous against them

Like someone said, I believe you are taking all the achievements of the human civilization as a whole over the ages and attributing it to the people of India!

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:52 AM

You clearly have not been following this thread and are making some rather ignorant and knee-jerk comments. I suggest you first read part 1, part 2 and part 3 and then make comments. I have amply supported each with considerable evidence. I have made no appeal to “aliens” or mythology or even descriptions of divine weapons and vimanas. All of the evidence is actual facts.

India did not fall to Alexander the Great. Read Part 2. Alexander was defeated by the minor Indian king Poros and was forced to retreat in fear. This account was exaggerated by later Greek historians who were ashamed to admit that he was defeated.

India did fall to the Arabs, but so did everybody else(Persians, Romans) that is because the Arabs were a highly organized and fanatical military force that nobody had witnessed before in the ancient world.
It had nothing to do with India being less scientific or technological.
When it fell to the British it was predominantly under Muslim rule.

I am surprised at how narrow your mind is on this subject. You are very quick to extol Indian as the founder of religion, spirituality and philosophy, but you are just as quick to reject India as making equal accomplishments in science and technology. I could equally argue that you are taking the achievements of humans as a whole in religion, philosophy and spirituality and attributing it to India. Ironic?

Of course civilizations and empires rise and fall. I can’t believe you are holding it against Indian civilisation that it eventually fell. It was bound to happen. Get realistic. It left a legacy of almost 9000 years of domination on this planet. It remained the largest and most powerful force on this planet all that time.

The Indian accomplishments in science, technology, engineering etc are not articles of faith, they are facts. Indians may not have left monuments but they left something better. A huge amount of literature on religion, philosophy and science. And left impressive technology


By 2800 BCE private bathrooms, located on the ground floor, were found in many houses of the Indus civilization.[10] Pottery pipes in walls allowed drainage of water and there was, in some case, provision of a crib for sitting in toilets.[10] 'Western-style' toilets were also made from bricks and used wooden toilet seats on top.[10] The waste was then transmitted to drainage systems.[10] Large scale sanitary sewer systems were in place by 2700 BCE.[10] The drains were 7–10 feet wide and 2 feet below ground level.[10] The sewage was then led into cesspools, built at the intersection of two drains, which had stairs leading to them for periodic cleaning.[10] Plumbing using earthenware plumbing pipes with broad flanges for easy joining with asphalt to stop leaks was in place by 2700 BCE.[10]

The Arthashastra of Kautilya mentions the construction of dams and bridges.[46]
The use of suspension bridges using plaited bamboo and iron chain was visible by about the 4th century.[47]

Evidence of the earliest production of high carbon steel in the Indian Subcontinent was found in Samanalawewa area in Sri Lanka.[24] Wootz steel was produced in India by about 300 BC.[25

Which other ancient world civilisation in the ancient world has comparable contributions to engineering science?


The first textual mention of astronomical concepts comes from the Vedas—religious literature of India.[1] According to Sarma (2008): "One finds in the Rigveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from nonexistence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self-supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month."[1] More on Indian astronomy with relation to religion is given in the section below.
The cardinal directions are found in the Śulbasūtra (1st millennium BCE), a treatise containing mathematical applications used for altar construction.[2] Mathematics and astronomical instruments were employed to calculate time after sunlight, daylight periods, computation of sunrise, computation of sunset, and general measurement of time. Ōhashi (1993) states that Jyotiṣa Vedānga astronomy gained a foothold between the 6th and the 4th centuries BCE.The common era saw the presence of numerous Siddhāntas, out of which the Surya-siddhānta was particularly notable.[3] Both the Yavanajataka and Romaka Siddhānta confirm that Indian and western astronomical sciences had been a part of a global scientific discourse (given in the section below).
The Pañcasiddhāntikā (Varahimira, 505 CE) approximates the method for determination of the meridian direction from any three positions of the shadow using Gnomon.[2] By the time of Aryabhata I the motion of planets was treated to be elliptical rather than circular.[4] Other topics included definitions of different units of time, eccentric models of planetary motion, epicyclic models of planetary motion, and planetary longitude corrections for various terrestrial locations.[4]

Which other civilisation in the ancient world has comparable contributions to astronomical science?


Some of the areas of mathematics studied in ancient and medieval India include the following:
Arithmetic: Decimal system, Negative numbers (see Brahmagupta), Zero (see Hindu-Arabic numeral system), the modern positional notation numeral system, Floating point numbers (see Kerala School), Number theory, Infinity (see Yajur Veda), Transfinite numbers, Irrational numbers (see Shulba Sutras)
Geometry: Square roots (see Bakhshali approximation), Cube roots (see Mahavira), Pythagorean triples (see Sulba Sutras; Baudhayana and Apastamba state the Pythagorean theorem without proof), Transformation (see Panini), Pascal's triangle (see Pingala)
Algebra: Quadratic equations (see Sulba Sutras, Aryabhata, and Brahmagupta), Cubic equations and Quartic equations (biquadratic equations) (see Mahavira and Bhāskara II)
Mathematical logic: Formal grammars, formal language theory, the Panini-Backus form (see Panini), Recursion (see Panini)
General mathematics: Fibonacci numbers (see Pingala), Earliest forms of Morse code (see Pingala), Logarithms, indices (see Jaina mathematics), Algorithms, Algorism (see Aryabhata and Brahmagupta)
Trigonometry: Trigonometric functions (see Surya Siddhanta and Aryabhata), Trigonometric series (see Madhava and Kerala School)

Which other tradition in the ancient world has a comparable contrirbutions to mathematical science?


According to the compendium of Charaka, the Charakasamhitā, health and disease are not predetermined and life may be prolonged by human effort. The compendium of Suśruta, the Suśrutasamhitā defines the purpose of medicine to cure the diseases of the sick, protect the healthy, and to prolong life. Both these ancient compendia include details of the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous ailments. The Suśrutasamhitā is notable for describing procedures on various forms of surgery, including rhinoplasty, the repair of torn ear lobes, perineal lithotomy, cataract surgery, and several other excisions and other surgical procedures.
The āyurvedic classics spoke of eight branches of medicine: kāyācikitsā (internal medicine), śalyacikitsā (surgery including anatomy), śālākyacikitsā (eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases), kaumārabhṛtya (pediatrics), bhūtavidyā (spirit medicine), and agada tantra (toxicology), rasāyana (science of rejuvenation), and vājīkaraṇa (aphrodesiacs, mainly for men). Apart from learning these, the student of Āyurveda was expected to know ten arts that were indispensable in the preparation and application of his medicines: distillation, operative skills, cooking, horticulture, metallurgy, sugar manufacture, pharmacy, analysis and separation of minerals, compounding of metals, and preparation of alkalis. The teaching of various subjects was done during the instruction of relevant clinical subjects. For example, teaching of anatomy was a part of the teaching of surgery, embryology was a part of training in pediatrics and obstetrics, and the knowledge of physiology and pathology was interwoven in the teaching of all the clinical disciplines.

Evidence of inoculation and variolation for smallpox is found in the 8th century, when Madhav wrote the Nidāna, a 79-chapter book which lists diseases along with their causes, symptoms, and complications.[92] He included a special chapter on smallpox (masūrikā) and described the method of inoculation to protect against smallpox.[92]

Which other civilisation in the ancient world had a comparable contributions to medical science?

If you cannot find anything comparable then what I have been saying is true that Indians did indeed develop most of science and technology.
You keep mentining how Sumer and Egypt developed this and that, but I am willing to wager you've no even read anything on what they contributed, you are just making knee-jerk comments.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by CuteAngel
For instance most of the earliest forms of science such as algebra, geometry, alchemy...etc. were mostly developed by the Egyptians, babylonians as well as greeks, the basic foundations of which were laid down by the Mesopotamians as well as Indians.

Idris is the inventor of astronomy, writing, and arithmetic & bestowed this technology on egypt. Idris is also known as Enoch and Metatron. This is why egypt had such rich language patterns in hieroglyphs. A scribe only had to know 1500 hieroglyphs out of around 25,000 to become a master scribe. The transmission of knowledge that Idris bestowed upon egypt allowed it to grow into a mighty nation. Without the mathematical knowledge from Idris the pyramids could of not been built as they were, Aligned to the stars.

As far as india's inventions I'd be more out to take note why more people aren't with the knowledge of the 3 hidden Bhagavad Gitas? Inside the 1 Bhagavad Gita they read. Each one promoting 3 different doctrines that being Bhagavatha, Dharmas-Brahmanism & Upanishadism. The Bhagavad Gita is the Trishula! Was the Buddhist Dhammapada the repair of the Bhagavad Gita? This is of course before you had to strap on the Pali Canon to your back to support the more popular Mahayana Buddhist version verses the Ancient Theravada Buddhist Tradition the source code of buddhism.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by Project2501

As far as india's inventions I'd be more out to take note why more people aren't with the knowledge of the 3 hidden Bhagavad Gitas? Inside the 1 Bhagavad Gita they read. Each one promoting 3 different doctrines that being Bhagavatha, Dharmas-Brahmanism & Upanishadism. The Bhagavad Gita is the Trishula! Was the Buddhist Dhammapada the repair of the Bhagavad Gita? This is of course before you had to strap on the Pali Canon to your back to support the more popular Mahayana Buddhist version verses the Ancient Theravada Buddhist Tradition the source code of buddhism.

I dont understand what your talking about here or from where your mixing up things. Trying to make stuff up seeing that you are unable to comprehend the light that originated in India, I am not surprised

And this is'nt even what you would call advanced, theres much more! But I dont have patience/time to teach you more. There is only 1 Gita and many things I have explained it to you. As I said the more ancient the teaching the more distorted they are, I guess you are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. Well, God willing atleast in the future or in other births you may be shown/taught a small glimpse of the truth!

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:24 PM
OP, thanks for all this wonderful information about india. I find it fascinating, and eye-opening. Please continue, and ignore people arguing semantics. Looking for the star/flag..

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

Thank you for this post. I will definately be doing more research on this. It would be wise for many of us out there to do a little more investigation into history and to match up significant historical dates; especially when history can be bias,changed, mamed, and stripped of it's original content over time by those who see it differently(A good example would be the inquisition). just look at how language evolved. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this article; but as human beings we have the ability to make up our own mind and look into it ourselves.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:03 AM
Thank you for your compliments truthnotlies and ratqueen.

I agree Ratqueen, nothing should ever be accepted without investigation. I wish you good luck on your further research.

If I do say so myself this thread "India: Ancient superpower" has been one of the most well presented and backed up threads I have started on ATS. It is a vast improvement on my previous thread, "Proof: Advanced Indian civilisation existed" a few years ago, as that thread was highly speculative in content and thus justifiably attracted a lot of criticism from skeptics.

This thread, because it is so heavily backed up by hard evidence is keeping the skeptics miles away

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Let's review real history, not some new age revisionist fiction.

Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Assyria, Greece, Rome those are the civilizations that dominated the world. At no time in your previously proclaimed 9000 year period did India dominate anything other than India, never the known world as a whole, and even then they were ruled by others during varying periods. Then in more recent times there were the Ottoman empire, English Empire even the French for a brief period dominated more than India ever did. Even the Phonecians and the Mongol hordes had more influence on world history.

Oh btw, mitochondrial DNA is not something you can have an opinion on, it is a fact we all came out of Africa. India did not seed the earth, lol.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by UcantBserious
Let's review real history, not some new age revisionist fiction.

Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Assyria, Greece, Rome those are the civilizations that dominated the world. At no time in your previously proclaimed 9000 year period did India dominate anything other than India, never the known world as a whole, and even then they were ruled by others during varying periods. Then in more recent times there were the Ottoman empire, English Empire even the French for a brief period dominated more than India ever did. Even the Phonecians and the Mongol hordes had more influence on world history.

Oh btw, mitochondrial DNA is not something you can have an opinion on, it is a fact we all came out of Africa. India did not seed the earth, lol.

Ucantbeserious, as I have said several times before to other people. You can't prove something by assertion. You have to back up your claims, provide arguments and give evidence. This is the standard in the academic world.

I invite you to refute the claims, arguments and evidences I have presented with your counter-claims, arguments and evidence. I am very open to an academic debate. I like academic debates. I don't like debating with children though, who assert their points and think that is enough.

You claim Egypt and Babylon dominated the world. The Indian civilisation was twice as large as Egypt and Babylon put together. It was also far more technologically advanced. I don't think you appreciate how vastly developed the engineering skills of the Indus people were and how high their living standards were. It is widely acknowledged the Indus people were very technologically sophisticated and had an advanced lifestyle and civil administration. These are easy facts to verify. Google is your friend.

In contrast Egypt and Babylon were slave-owning socieites. Almost everybody was a slave and lived in depravity. While, the elite priestly and kingly castes lived in luxury. If you had a choice to live in the Indus or in Egypt or Babylon, you could either live the life of a slave in Egypt or Babylon and be whipped for the rest of your life, or you could live the life of a merchant or artistan in the Indus in your own multistory home, with private backroom, courtyard and indoor plumbing and public baths.

Haha, there really is no comparison.

You claim that India was under rule at various periods. Wrong, India has only been under rule by Muslims(from 10th century onwards) who were only able to gain power in the North, not the South. And the British, who were able to rule all of India. The Greeks and the Persians were only able to conquer minor tribes on the outskirts of Indian terriory and only hold onto them for a short while, they certainly did not rule India. Alexander the great, the great Greek emperor was repulsed at the border and even ended up losing his early territories.

Greeks, Romans, Persians, Britons and Muslims have been under occupation by foreign empires various times. It is certainly not unique to India to have been under foreign rule at some point.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

Good thread. I'm in agreement. However, how do Marxist historians get linked with history in India?

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:47 PM
India was just a bunch of tribal lords at the time of the Egytian Pharoes, and they later were easily dominated by the horselord people of the northern steppes at will.
I don't have to prove real history that is academically accepted and backed by historical records of the eras. India does not even have a decipherable script from the earliest times when Sumeria Babylon and the others kept meticullous records. THAT is what opens the door for these kinds of wildeyed foolish rewriting of history tales.
Egypt having a nationwide slave system demonstrates their power and organization, India was just a bunch of localized leaders in comparison at the same time.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by really

I love how the OP comes out with hoardes and hoardes of really GOOD information on the Indian civilization, vastly researched and with almost no parallel in depth, accuracy and patience in dealing with critics in this site and almost every 5 posts, someone says this civilization has barely offered anything.

I mean if you really get down to it and if you look really carefully, do the Sumerian or Egyptian civilizations make even a quarter of sense of what the Vedic does? If it does, are there any posts on the behalf of these cultures which match the knowledge and the amount of this one or even a SINGLE post?From what ive heard most of the scripts of these cultures is still a mystery. Im not trying to put down any of the cultures, because their achievements are obvious.

Seriously, this is just an example which the OP has pointed out on numerous occasions but have any scientists from the early 1900s or even now used any quotations from Egyptian or Sumerian scriptures in a speech, as a source of reference or even a lecture?I really think it's the lack of knowledge or mysticism of these 2 (Egyptian and Sumerian)cutlures which causes such a great deal of interest, which is funny cause the indian culture is considered mystic but it's knowledge has been stored and provided till today in heaps.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by UcantBserious

As I said in the previous post. I like debating with adults, not children. Have a nice day

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by Karmaverick

Thank you for your vote of confidence karmaverick.

Unfortunately, that is the eurocentric bias you are talking about. If this was a well researched, well presented and critically argued thread on the Sumer and Egyptians it would have 100+ flags, 150+ stars, and a lot more discussion on the subject matter. The fact it is on India, and the fact it is so obvious that India trumped the West in the past, is something to be overlooked. It is going to take a few decades to get rid of this eurocentric bias on history.

I mean seriously what is so great about Sumer and Egypt? On one hand you have very oppressive slave-owning civilisations where religion is used to oppress the masses and promote the power of the elite. And on the other you have a very technically and scientifically impressive democratic society that is twice as larger Sumer and Egypt put together, and where the masses live in modern-like houses with modern-like amentities and modern-like living standards. There really is no contest as to who was the dominant civilisation in ancient times.

India was vastly ahead of Sumer and Egypt. It is very clear to see. Facts do not lie.

If we introduce India into the equation on ancient world history everything clears up, because it has managed to preserve a vast amount of literature and history going back more than 10,000 years, which gives us a consistent picture of not only India, but also Sumer, Egypt, Asia in ancient times.

From my researh so far it is clear Sumer and Egypt were a break-off faction of the Indians, that rejected India's enlightened and democratic ideology and went off to start elitest socieites. It is no coincidence, for example, that the Assiryans are called "Asur" which is a Sanskrit word meaning demons in post-vedic texts.

Civilisation began in Asia, at the end of the ice-age, people moved out from South East Asia into the Indian subcontinent, and then at separate times moved out and colonized the West. There is clear historical and scientific evidence to show this and clear records as well. Most esoteric schools around the world in every tradition know this as well. The masses are not being told this in order to make them forget about ancient history.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:58 PM
and somewhere in between the eurocentrists and the indiacentrists lies the truth

European Journal of Human Genetics 17, 1260–1273 (1 October 2009) | doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.6

Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia

Sheyla Mirabal , Maria Regueiro , Alicia M Cadenas , L Luca Cavalli-Sforza , Peter A Underhill , Dmitry A Verbenko , Svetlana A Limborska & Rene J Herrera

Our results suggest that although most genetic relationships throughout Eurasia are dependent on geographic proximity, members of the Uralic and Slavic linguistic families and subfamilies, yield significant correlations at both levels of comparison making it difficult to denote either linguistics or geographic proximity as the basis for their genetic substrata. Expansion times for haplogroup R1a1 date approximately to 18000 YBP, and age estimates along with Network topology of populations found at opposite poles of its range (Eastern Europe and South Asia) indicate that two separate haplotypic foci exist within this haplogroup.

your ooit theory doesn't say anything like this 18ka date for Europe does it? 10ka is the date you all say...


Ann Hum Biol. 2009 Jan–Feb; 36(1): 46–59.
doi: 10.1080/03014460802558522.

Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes

Zhongming Zhao,1,2,3 Faisal Khan,4 Minal Borkar,4 Rene Herrera,4 and Suraksha Agrawal4
1Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA / 2Department of Human Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA / 3Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA / 4Department of Medical Genetics, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, (UP) 226014, India

Three distinct lineages were revealed based upon 13 haplogroups. The first was a Central Asian lineage harbouring haplogroups R1 and R2. The second lineage was of Middle-Eastern origin represented by haplogroups J2*, Shia-specific E1b1b1, and to some extent G* and L*. The third was the indigenous Indian Y-lineage represented by haplogroups H1*, F*, C* and O*. Haplogroup E1b1b1 was observed in Shias only.

The results revealed that a substantial part of today’s North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants.
The presence of haplogroup E in Shias, first reported in this study, suggests a genetic distinction between the two Indo Muslim sects. The findings of the present study provide insights into prehistoric and early historic patterns of migration into India and the evolution of Indian populations in recent history.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:07 PM
I can cite 6 genetic studies which say the absolute opposite(original source article cites 9)

Kivislid, T(1999)

The first such study dates back to 1999 and was conducted by the Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field, with fourteen co-authors from various nationalities (including M. J. Bamshad).9 It relied on 550 samples of mtDNA and identified a haplogroup called "U" as indicating a deep connection between Indian and Western-Eurasian populations. However, the authors opted for a very remote separation of the two branches, rather than a recent population movement towards India; in fact, "the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of modern humans" from Africa, some 40,000 years ago:

"We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe."

Disotell, R.T(1999)

The second study was published just a month later. Authored by U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell,11 it dealt with the first migration of modern man from Africa towards Asia, and found that migrations into India "did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations." Disotell made observations very similar to those of the preceding paper:

"The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid' features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid' - that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago."

Roychoudhury, S(2000)

Indian scientists led by Susanta Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of mtDNA from some ten Indian ethnic groups, especially from the East and South.12 They found "a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity," pointing to "a relatively small founding group of females in India." Significantly, "most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation." That is a crucial observation, which later studies will endorse: on the maternal side at least, there is no such thing as a "Hindu" or "Muslim" genetic identity, nor even a high- or low-caste one, a North- or South-Indian one - hence the expressive title of the study: "Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA."

The authors also noted that haplogroup "U," already noted by Kivisild et al. as being common to North Indian and "Caucasoid" populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans.

Kivislid, T(2000)

in 2000, twenty authors headed by Kivisild contributed a chapter to a book on the "archaeogenetics" of Europe.13 They first stressed the importance of the mtDNA haplogroup "M" common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is "inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness' of Indians." This shows, once again, that "the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene." The authors then studied the "U" haplogroup, finding its frequency to be 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia; but, in their opinion, "Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits." In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.

Sengupta, S(2006)

Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta and involved fourteen other co-authors, including L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill.17 Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a "Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists," i.e. of the mythical Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an "Indo-European expansion," an identification they called "convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic." To them, the subcontinent's genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: "The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages." This is also highly suggestive (the R1a lineages being a different way to denote the haplogroup M17).

Sahoo, S(2006)

Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, headed eleven colleagues, including T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap, for a study of the Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them tribes.18 The authors left no room for doubt:

"The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward." Genetics and the Aryan Debate / p. 9

So the southward gene flow that had been imprinted on our minds for two centuries was wrong, after all: the flow was out of, not into, India. The authors continue:

"The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family."


Secondly, they account for India's considerable genetic diversity by using a time-scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000 years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20 Vincent Macaulay,21 Stephen Oppenheimer,22 Michael Petraglia,23 and their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: "indeed, nearly all Europeans - and by extension, many Americans - can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia." 24


The genetic studies seem to suggest exactly what the archaeological, textual and historical evidence sugest: There was a migration, but it was out of India into Europe and not vis versa.

It seems like Aryan invasion theory is basically the modern equivalent of flat eath theory. Everybody wants to clilng onto it, despite all the evidence from every scientific field showing it to be false.

Accept it. Indians colonized the West in ancient times. Move on.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in