Infinite mentioned,


"There are countless fables about a man coming from the Holy Land, to India, as a teacher. Even stories of him surviving a crucifixion and residing in Kashmir. (Believe there is a reported tomb?)"

've never heard of thiuHi, Infinite - I'm really enjoying this thread - and have to admit I've never heard these rumours before. Could you eloborate a little?

Thanks!

John

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Millions]

Part 1) Aryan Invasion theory Cont.

Let us look at some of those powerful colonial scholars:

Lord Macaulay, who introduced English education in India revealed the Motives of the British East India Company - To convert and Conquer

Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General's Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India.
He wrote in his notorious 1835 Minute that Hinduism was based on

" a literature admitted to be of small intrinsic value ...(one) that inculcates the most serious errors on the most important subjects ... hardly reconcilable with reason, with morality...fruitful of monstrous superstitions. " Hindus had therefore been fed for millennia with a "false history, false astronomy, false medicine ...in company of a false religion."

I doubt whether the Sanskrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors."

Macaulay advised in 1835 the creation of an Indian elite through Western style education, making them
"Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals, in intellect.'

We will now look at the most important Christian scholar Max Mueller, who is responsible for the biggest distortion in Indian history: the Aryan Invasion theory.

Max Muller was a nobody and lived in poverty before he was employed by the British Empire to translate the most sacred of the Indians texts - Rig Veda - which Indian said was the source of their society - into English. Afterwards he became very rich, very famous and incredibly applauded. He is still widely respected today.

Max Muller proposed that the Indo-Europeans did not in fact originate in India, but they were White Europeans in Central Asia in the Russian Steeps who were nomadic, barbarian, war-mongering people and worshiped nature gods, the chief of whom was Indra. Around 1500BCE these militarily advanced white-skinned people(Aryans) invaded the dark-skinned people(Dasas/Dravidian) of the Indus valley civilisation and massacred them and drove them out of their cities to the South. They then imposed a caste-system based on discriminating against race and were brutal against the indigenous people. A few centuries later the Indo-Aryans, who were erstwhile barbarian, pagan, racist and brutal founded the philosophical tradition of India(The first evidence of this was the book 10 of the Rig Veda where explicit philosophical hymns appear) Almost as if overnight they became civilised, spiritual, monotheistic, democratic, scholarly and by 1000BCE India has already become a highly philosophical civilisation -by 700BCE it is performing sophisticated surgery and has scientific system of medicine(but based on metaphysical theory) By 500BCE highly intellectual religions like Buddhism and Jainism are appearing and language is standardized by Panini with a precise computer-like grammar.

This narrative that Max Muller proposed has been exploited for many political goals then and today. The British empire used it is a justification for colonial rule of India, claiming that Indians had already been invaded and civilised and Indians were actually a corrupt form of the white race(the seeds of inferiority) Racial remarks like this were common with British power elite, such as Winston Churchil:

Winston Churchill who opposed any policy giving independence to India, belligerently points out:

"We have as much right to be in India as anyone there, except perhaps for the depressed classes, who are the native stock."

The Nazi’s used it to establish the superiority of the white skinned, blue eyed and blonde haired race that they believed had civilised the world in the past. Corrupt Brahmins used it to justify their top status in the social order of India and South Indian nationalists used it to claim India and Hinduism belonged to them(which they claim was originally Shiva-worshipping) and North Indians were invaders and their gods false(Indra, Brahma etc). Thus Aryan Invasion theory has had a huge impact on the national ethos and psyche of the Indians and hence explaining why they are so self-loathing and divided and why its history is so underrepresented, even by Indians(This is changing today as Indians are becoming more confident due to their rising status in the world)

Max Muller Aryan Invasion theory was then furnished with linguistic theories which showed that most of the Indo-European language family was not found anywhere near India but in Central Asia. They proposed the theory of the linguistic centre of gravity which says that the origin of a language family has to be where we find the most members of the family.
Some interpretations in the Rig Veda of “Indra destroying forts of the Dasas” with his armies of "fair-skinned Maruts” were also used to furnish the AIT. The absence of the remains of horses which are described in the Vedas were also used as positive evidence for the foreign origins of the Indo-Aryans.


This narrative, which I am sure many of you who have studied history and who may have briefly encountered Indian history will be very familiar with. It is the one taught at universities(both Western and Indian) It is in most books and internet articles on Indian history. It is not taught as a theory, it is taught as absolute fact. What is left out is that this theory has been challenged from the very beginning as highly speculative, spurious, racist and completely unsubstantiated. These challenges have continued well up until the 21st century by various scholars, not only of Indian origin but internationally, but the theory has been still taken as fact(Today AIT is falling into disfavour in the academic community, but it is still maintained in softer forms with Aryan Migration Theory(AMT) by Harvard scholar Witzel and co.

Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859) was one of the first dissenters. He was aware of the kinship in language between Sanskrit and European tongues, but found the theory of their "spread from a central point...a gratuitous assumption." In his History of India, 1841, he observed, "Neither in the Vedas, nor in any book...is there any allusion to a prior residence ....out of India...There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their present one

British scholar F. E. Pargiter in his Ancient Indian Historical Tradition yet his inquiry into historical data from the Puranas led him, in 1972, to conclusions opposite to the accepted theories. With a rare commonsense, he first noted that
"there is a strong presumption in favor of (Indian) tradition; if anyone contests tradition, the burden lies on him to show that it is wrong."
He also observed, with dry humor: " Indian tradition knows nothing whatever of the Aryans' invasion of India through the north-west....All this copious tradition was falsely fabricated, and the truth has been absolutely lost, if the current theory is right; is that probable? If all this tradition is false, why, how, and in whose interests was it all fabricated.?"

Pargiter went even further, for he was convinced that Indian tradition clearly recorded "an outflow of people from India before the fifteenth century BC." and thought that the Iranians may have been an offshoot from India." He pertinently observed that in the famous nadi sukta, the Rig Veda lists rivers of the subcontinent from east to west, and remarked: "If the Aryans had entered India from the north-west, and had advanced eastward through the Punjab only as far as the Saraswati or Jumna when the Rigvedic hymns were composed, it is very surprising that the hymn arranges the rivers, not according to their progress, but reversaly from the Ganges which they had hardly reached.

There is no evidence to back AIT up whatsoever and the person who proposed it did not base his theory on any evidence either, but on a highly and interpretative and selective reading of the Rig Veda which contrasted widely with all other interpretations. Moreover, Max Muller was a Christian missionary, a scholar of the most dubious credentials who revealed in his published letters his actual mission in India:

To Chevalier Bunsen, 55 St. John Street, Oxford, August 25, 1856, he wrote:

"I should like to live for 10 years quite quietly and learn the language, try to make friends, and then see whether I was fit to take part in a work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching.Whatever finds root in India soon overshadows the whole of Asia."

It is due to Max Muller that the notion of an “Aryan race” even came about and Max Muller was not a scientist or a biologist, he was a nobody. Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975), British biologist brings this into light:

In 1848 the young German scholar Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) settled in Oxford. ...About 1853, he introduced into English usage the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a large group of languages. ...Moreover, Max Muller threw another apple of discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not only of a definite Aryan language and its descendants, but also of a corresponding 'Aryan race'. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany and in England."

I think it maybe becoming increasingly clear to most people that the Aryan invasion theory is at best dubious and at worst a complete fabrication by colonialists to push racist and missionary agendas and propaganda and to deny the evidence that India was the origin of civilisation.

In the next post we will directly contrast the chronology of the Aryan Invasion theory with Indian chronology to show why it is absolutely necessary to revise Indian history completely and world history and place India rightfully at the origins of civilisation.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is some evidence to show that the early Pagan in pre-islamic Arabia had many Indians living amongst them and may have actually worshipped Hindu gods along with indigenous arabian gods. The relationship between India and Persia is undeniably close. There is indication of both great affinity and love between the people and rivalry as well.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Except for that one nagging problem.

That Arabia and Persia are two distinct separate cultures and bloodlines. Arabs and Persians are not the same. Major differences. Asking one personally would reveal this immediately.

So are we talking about Persians or Arabs? I cannot really tell.

I believe every race of people on this planet has had a chance to rule the world. There is nothing wrong with studying the ancient history of the humans.

I think it's a great thing to give India it's acknowledgement as a ancient super power. I believe it essential to the well-being of everyone on this planet. I know all about ancient Rome and Greece, and other European greats. So any information that can complete the puzzle to our ancient past as human race is good.

Thanks.

India is a facinating topic. We don't have much history on it because because for the last couple of hundred years they have been dominated by the British, and because there is not that much interest here in India. We are stuck on ourselves and totally bored to death.
We are not even getting our own history any more because we are being dominated by the ptb who are trying to push our children into their little socialist molds.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by m khan]

Immediately after independance Indian scholars put together a history The History and Culture of the Indian People, The Vedic Age was volume one. Also immedicately after independance the above movie was produced, except it took a while to finish, Mugl-e-Azam. The purpose imo of Mugl-e-Azam was to protest the partition, reminding people that the Hindus and Moslems could get along if they wanted to.
If the Partition hadn't happened, who knows, we might not have gotten our CIA involved in Pakistan and we might not be fighting there now.
[edit on 26-12-2009 by m khan]

[edit on 26-12-2009 by m khan]

[edit on 26-12-2009 by m khan]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In fact the Muslim scholars did acknowledge their debt to the Indian science, philosophy, mathematics and medicine. And even called mathematics a Hindu science. There is some evidence to show that the early Pagan in pre-islamic Arabia

I live in the Middle East.

Everything you say is true.

Even the numbers we use (in Arabic) are fully acknowledged and attributed to Indian origin. Only for Mathematics then to be later refined by Arab figures like Khawarsm, and AlJabr.

I have known many Indian friends, and generally speaking, they have a very high level of intellect, which clearly reflect their race's history.

Best Regards,