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 - Part 2

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:12 PM
I am creating a second part to the previous thread because the last one is cluttered with too many off-topic posts and as Part 3 is the most interesting section I am posting, I don't want people to have to wade through so much empty content to get to the real juicy stuff.

Have no doubt about it. This is totally revisionist stuff. I AM rewriting world history. This is not history that is taught at schol. You are not allowed to know this stuff, because the power-elite don't want you to know.

Summary of the discussion so far

In the first part we looked at the Aryan invasion theory and the racist, political and religious discourse it emerged from. We looked at how this theory was arrived at and demonstrated how dubious it was and the ill credentials of its author.

In part 2 we looked at the chronology of India’s history using Aryan invasion theory and demonstrated that it ridiculously shrank its history. We then looked at the Indian chronology based on indigenous records and found that it was consistent with archaeological and astronomical evidence, establishing with almost certainty that the Indus valley civilisation was a post-Vedic civilisation. Its mature phase coincides with the Mahabharata and Krishna. It’s decline phase is the time of the historical Buddha in 1800BCE and the Mauraya empire in 1500 BCE, which adopted the religion of Buddhism. This means the bulk of India’s philosophical and scientific traditions appeared around 2000BCE and this is most probably the time Panini the codifier of Sanskrit lived.

This means in Indus valley times(mature phase) Indian civilisation was a naval power as the Maurayans were a naval power and even had a shipbuilding industry and a large navy. The Mahabharata time(3000BCE) were also a naval power as it records deep sea voyages around the world and gives accurate descriptions of various places in the world. In other words it was in a position to colonize the world.

In part 3 we will look at the various cultures and civilisations around the world that have had direct influence from the Indians and colonies of Indians around the world. Notably we will look at Indo-Europeans, Egyptians, Sumerians and South East Asia.

Part 3) The Indian colonization of the ancient world

I am going to begin with what everybody is waiting for: Egyptians

There is very strong reason to believe that the Egyptians were seeded by the Indians. They have common myths, religion, social order and geometry. Project even pointed out the commonalities in the esoteric systems such as Chakras. Most of us know that Egyptians had a mystery/esoteric school of spirituality.

I am going to make this post brief because I realise the previous posts were very long and they exhausted me because they took so long to research, compile and write.


Egyptians have a legend. Their legend is that they came from a land somewhere in the East . They describe this land as being the “land of the gods” Let us look at a description of this land

Adolf Erman (1854-1937) author of Life in ancient Egypt and A handbook of Egyptian religion, says that the persons who were responsible for a highly developed Egyptian civilization were from Punt, an Asiatic country, a description of which is unveiled by this scholar from the old legends - a distant country washed by the great seas, full of valleys, incense, balsum, precious metals and stones; rich in animals, cheetahs, panthers, dog-headed apes and long tailed monkeys, winged creatures with strange feathers to fly up to the boughs of wonderful trees, especially the incense tree and the coconut trees.

That sounds a lot like India, doesn’t it? Many early scholars indeed thought so:

Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), who worked in French India as a government official and was at one time President of the Court in Chandranagar, translated numerous Vedic hymns, the Manusmriti, and the Tamil work, Kural. This French savant and author of La Bible Dans L'Inde says:
"With such congruence before us, no one, I imagine, will appear to contest the purely Hindu origin of Egypt, unless to suggest that: "And who tells you that it was not Indian that copied Egypt? Any of you require that this affirmation shall be refuted by proofs leaving no room for even a shadow of doubt?
"To be quite logical, then deprive India of the Sanskrit, that language which formed all other; but show me in India a leaf of papyrus, a columnar inscription, a temple bas relief tending to prove Egyptian birth."

Heinrich Karl Brugsch agrees with this view and writes in his History of Egypt that,

"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who carried their arts and high civilization into what is now known as Egypt." The Egyptians came, according to their records, from a mysterious land (now known to lie on the shores of the Indian Ocean)."

However the India hypothesis was discarded by later scholars in favour of Somalia because India was too far and a nearer origin of Punt was sought. Of course if you have been following my posts you will know that India being a full fledged naval power as early as 3000BCE could indeed have had gone as far as Egypt.

But wait, there are ancient records by Greek historians explicitly stating that the Ethiopians of Africa and Egypt were Indian migrants:

It is testified by Herdotus, Plato, Salon, Pythagoras, and Philostratus that the religion of Egypt proceeded from India....It is testified by Neibuhr, Valentia, Champollian and Weddington that the temples of upper Egypt are of greater antiquity than those of lower Egypt...that consequently the religion of Egypt, according to the testimony of those monuments....came from India...The chronicles found in the temples of Abydos and Sais and which have been transmitted by Josephus, Julius Africanus, and Eusebius, all testify that the religious system of the Egyptians proceeded from India."

The extensive maritime activities of India in the remotest time led to her earliest contacts with Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Judea and many other countries. There are strong indications showing that Egypt in remote antiquity derived her civilization from India. Those who went from India must have mixed themselves with the natives of the land and the indigenous culture absorbed, rejected or modified the impulse from India. Eusebius and Philostratus believe that Indians first colonized Abyssinia and gradually descended to Egypt watering her civilization. The earliest Ethiopian tradition says that they came from a land situated near the mouth of the Indus. While there can be little doubt that trade occupied a central position in the relations between India and Egypt through the ages, it must be remembered that commercial transactions brought in their wake intellectual and cultural exchanges.
(source: The Soul of India - By Satyavrata R. Patel ASIN 0896844536 p. 1-4).

There is a very tremendous amount of convergence by early historians. Is there actually evidence showing the commonality between Indian and Egyptian people? Yes

The flower so prolific in the imagery of both India and Egypt, grows out of the waters and opens its petals to be warmed by the sun: to be fertilized. From the earliest imagery in stone at Sanchi, of the first century BC in India, the lotus is associated with Sri, the goddess of fertility, who is later invoked as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and abundance - being worshipped by Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus alike. The lotus is held in each hand by Surya, signifying the fertilizing powers of the sun as he travels through the universe.
In Egypt, the blue lotus appears in the earliest wall paintings of the VI Dynasty at the pyramids of Saqqara and in all funerary stelae. They are offered to the deceased, and held in the hand as thought they possess the power to revitalize them: to bring the deceased back to life. Carved out of blue lapis, along with the golden falcon and the sun that are the symbols of the god Horus, the lotus appears among the funerary treasures from the tomb of Tutankhamen.
The lotus then, becomes a leitmotiv, a symbol most apt since its links the waters with the sun, the earth to sky - signifying fertility and regeneration in both Egypt and India. For, it is the seed of the plant which spells out the cycle of birth-decay-death and rebirth that forms the essential pattern of belief in these two riverine and agricultural societies. In India and Egypt, the rivers Saraswati and Ganga and the Nile have brought sustenance to the land and nourished these civilizations which have survived five millennia. Both these rivers, the Ganga and the Nile, are personified and worshipped. They provide the dramatic backdrop against which myths and indeed created, to explain the topographic conditions of the land.

It is curious to note that Thales of Greece, which is said to have arrived from Egypt stated that waters was the cradle of life. Hindus and Buddhists have long believed the same.

I was shocked when I first came to learn that Egyptians had a caste system that divided society into 4 divisions of Priests, kings, merchants and servants just like the Hindus did. It was codified by Manes. Hindu caste system was codified by Manu:

Louis Jacolliot has written:
“Egypt received from India, by Manes or Manu, its social institutions and laws, which resulted in division of the people into four castes, and placing the priest in the first rank; in the second, kings; then traders and artisans; and last in the social scale, the proletaire – the menial almost a slave.”
Manu – Manes – Minos – Moses
A philosopher gives political and religious institutions to India and named Manu. The Egyptian legislator receives the name of Manes.

That is definitely not a coincidence.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:24 PM
Part 3) Indian colonization of the Ancient world

Is there archaeological evidence showing the contact of the Egyptian and Indian people in prehistory? Yes

The dawn of human civilization finds the Hindus as captains of industry and entrepreneurs of commerce. They were in touch with the Pharaohs of Egypt. The mummies of the Egyptians were wrapped in muslin which was imported from India. Hindu trade gave to the land of the Nile ivory, gold, spices, tamarind-wood, sandal-wood, monkeys, and other characteristic Indian plants and animals. It is also believed that the textile craftsmen of Egypt dyed their cloth with Hindu indigo. Hindu ships brought the Indian commodities to the Arabian ports, or to the Land of Punt; and from there these were transported to Luxor, Karnak and Memphis.
Hindu commerce with the land of the Euphrates was more intimate and direct. As early as about 3000 B.C. the Hindus supplied the Chaldean city of Ur on the Euphrates with teak-wood. The Assyrians also, like the Egyptians, got their muslin from India. In fact, vegetable "wool", i.e. cotton, and wool producing plants have been some of the earliest gifts of Hindu merchants to the world. From the tenth to the sixth century B.C. the Assyro-Babylonian trade of the Hindus seems to have been very brisk. Hindus brought with them apes, elephants, cedar, teak, peacocks, tigers, rice, ivory, and other articles to Babylon, the Rome of Western Asia. It was through this Indo-Mesopotamian trade that the Athenians of the sixth century B.C. came to know of rice and peacocks.

This expansion of Hindu activity influenced the literature of the time, e.g. the Vedas and Jatakas. A cylinder seal of about 2,000 B.C. bearing cuneiform inscriptions and images of Chaldean deities have been unearthed in Central India. In Southern India has been found a Babylonian sarcophagus.
Hindu trade with the Hebrews also was considerable. Soloman (1015 B.C), King of Judaea, was a great internationalist. In order to promote the trade of his land he set up a port at the head of the right arm of the Red Sea. He made his race the medium of intercourse between Phoenicians and Hindus. The port of Ophir (in Southern India) is famous in Hebrew literature for its trade in gold under Soloman. The Books of Genesis, Kings and Ezekiel indicate the nature and amount of Hindu contact with Asia Minor. It is held by Biblical scholars that the stones in the breast plate of the high priest may have come from India. The Hindus supplied also the demand of Syria for ivory and ebony. The Hebrew word, tuki (peacock), is derived from Tamil (South Indian) tokei, and ahalin (aloe) from aghil.

According to Sergi, “the Egyptians and all other Hamitic peoples came out of Asia,” while according to Haddon, “at the beginning of history, some Asians came to Egypt, first from the south, eventually bringing with them bronze and probably also the plough and wheat.”
In the seventh century, St. Isidore made a summary in his Encyclopedia of knowledge derived from ancient Greek and Latin authors, many of whose works have now disappeared. He also speaks of “Ethiopians” in his Etymologiarium (IX.2.128): “They came in ancient times from the River Indus, established themselves in Egypt between the Nile and the sea, towards the south, in the equatorial regions. They became three nations: the Hesperians to the west, the Garamantes in Tripolitania, and the Indians in the east. (The Hesperians” are the ancient inhabitants of Spain; “Garamantes” can be connected to Karama “city in Dravidian); and “the Indians” refers to the inhabitants of Ethiopia, who were also mistaken in ancient literature for the inhabitants of India.”
Between the 6th and the first millennium B.C.E., relations between India and the Near East are evident. Precious stones – amazonite – coming from Nilgiri in southern India have been found at Ur prior to the Jemder Nasr period (3000 B.C.E). Indian seals have been found in Bahrain and in Mesopotamia in pre-Sargonic levels (2500 B.C.E). Traces of Indian cotton have been found, and there are archaeological indications of sea trade with India in the Larsa period (2170 to 1950 B.C.E). The beams of the Temple of the Moon, at Ur of the Chaldees, and those of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar (6th century B.C.E.) were of teak and cedarwood coming from Malabar in southern India.

Source for all above citations

The evidence is overwhelmingly suggesting that the Egyptians were indeed seeded by the Indians. They were either migrants from India, or the Indians migrated and established colonies there and civilised the natives and then built the pyramids. It is interesting to the note the geometry of the pyramids has been compared by some scholars to Vedic geometry.

I am kind of understanding now why Western scholarship suppresses Indian history. It is because the records and evidence recorded in Indian history is so overwhelming that it shows without a shadow of doubt that not only is the origins of civilisation Asiatic, but that ancient human civilisation was highly globalized, scientifically and technologically advanced which throws to wind the current narrative of history. We are seeing very clear proof that the Indians were an advanced civilisation. And in fact the more I look into it the more I am starting to believe the ancient nuclear holocaust stories.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:36 AM
Any comments on this groundbreaking revelation that Indians seeded the Egyptian civilsation and most probably built the Pyramids? That's a pretty amazing revelation

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
I thought the gods/aliens helped with those pyramids, hehe.

Oh and did you know putting so much weight on certain points of the earth may effect gravity?

I don't know if putting so much weight on cerain points is true, but it seems plausible.

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Its mature phase coincides with the Mahabharata and Krishna. It’s decline phase is the time of the historical Buddha in 1800BCE and the Mauraya empire in 1500 BCE, which adopted the religion of Buddhism. This means the bulk of India’s philosophical and scientific traditions appeared around 2000BCE and this is most probably the time Panini the codifier of Sanskrit lived.

This means in Indus valley times(mature phase) Indian civilisation was a naval power as the Maurayans were a naval power and even had a shipbuilding industry and a large navy. The Mahabharata time(3000BCE) were also a naval power as it records deep sea voyages around the world and gives accurate descriptions of various places in the world. In other words it was in a position to colonize the world.


You are wrong about the date lines of Maurya empire, Chandragupta, the founder of Maurya empire was fighting against the Alexander's army and when Greeks left India he attacked Magadh and started the empire. Alexander was in India around 320BC, so the Mauryan empire was founded around 322BC. Your date line of 1500BC is wrong.

Also there was no historical evidences of Mahabharata, except the book of Mahabharata. I read the Mahabharata and even Ramayana and there are no evidences of any state as Naval power. In fact Ram in Ramayana decides to construct the bridge to go to SriLanka rather than using ships. There are no evidences of Muryan's using naval army, who should they use navy against?

Please explain how you come up with the date of 3000BC for Mahabharata?
Where is evidences of use of navy is any of the Indian battles?

I think you have made lot many claims but no evidences, I would appreciate less claims and more evidences to support those claims.

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:07 PM

You are wrong about the date lines of Maurya empire, Chandragupta, the founder of Maurya empire was fighting against the Alexander's army and when Greeks left India he attacked Magadh and started the empire. Alexander was in India around 320BC, so the Mauryan empire was founded around 322BC. Your date line of 1500BC is wrong.

Please look at Part 2: Revising Indian chronology and the dating of the historical Buddha, in the other thread: Here

I look at the sheet anchors western historians have used to date Indian history: Aryan invasion theory and dating Chandragupta and debunk them convincingly as well as showing the racist and spurious discourse they emerge from.

There were two Chandragupta's separated by 1200 years. There was Chandragupta Mauraya of the Mauraya empire and Chandragupta Gupta of the Gupta empire. Alexander the great was a contemporary of Chandragupt Gupta and not Mauraya.

Alexander failed in his invasion of India. He got nowhere near India and was repulsed at the border by a minor king known as Poros. The Greeks thought they had got into the heart of India because of their poor knowledge of the geography of India. Alexander was defeated by Poros, was forced to sign a treaty with him and cede his own territory to Poros which we know as the Indo-Greek kingdoms, and his men refused to march any further because they were terrified of the Indian empire(Gupta empire). Alexander was severely injured in this battle and shortly died.

From the Indian point of view this battle was insignificant and was not even recorded which indicates Greeks, ashamed of their defeat, told some porkies and brushed it under the carpet. I also want to correct you the Greeks did not even mention "Magadha" nor did they mention Ashoka's empire or Buddhism that was the state religion at the time nor did they mention Mauraya.

The edicts of Ahsoka that were foud that named Alexander the great and other contemporaries were by the grandson of Chandragupta Gupta of the Gupta empire and not the mighty emperor Ashoka of Magadha.

In other words Indian history has 1200 years missing gap due to these false sheet anchors. If you correct it the revised dates I have given are consistent.

Also there was no historical evidences of Mahabharata, except the book of Mahabharata. I read the Mahabharata and even Ramayana and there are no evidences of any state as Naval power. In fact Ram in Ramayana decides to construct the bridge to go to SriLanka rather than using ships. There are no evidences of Muryan's using naval army, who should they use navy against?

Please explain how you come up with the date of 3000BC for Mahabharata?
Where is evidences of use of navy is any of the Indian battles?

There IS plenty of historical evidence for the Mahabharata. Indian history is full of references to Krishna, Arjuna, king Yudhistra, Bhishma, Hastinapur(city) and records geneologies of kings and their dynasties, the duration of their rule and descriptions. This is found in the epic texts, in the Puranas, in the Buddhist Jattakas and in the secular texts as well. The descriptions of urban life in the Mahabharata is entirely consistent with the remains of the Indus valley. Moreover, Hindu history does in fact date the death of Krishna to precisely 00:00, 18 Feburary 3102BCE. This is the beginning of the Hindu calander.

We have more historical evidence for Krishna than we have for Jesus or Moses.

As regards to the powerful navy of the Maurayas. The famous court minister at the time Chanakya(aka Kautilaya) composed a massive treatise on civil administration called the Arthashastra, which was the standard text on Indian economics and polity at the ancient Indian university of Nalanda. I will cite the section dealing with the administration of ships:

THE Superintendent of Ships shall examine the accounts relating to navigation not only on oceans and mouths of rivers, but also on lakes natural or artificial, and rivers in the vicinity of stháníya and other fortified cities.

Villages on seashores or on the banks of rivers and lakes shall pay a fixed amount of tax (kliptam).

Fishermen shall give 1/6th of their haul as fees for fishing license (naukáhátakam).

Merchants shall pay the customary toll levied in port-towns.

Passengers arriving on board the king's ship shall pay the requisite amount of sailing fees (yátrávetanam).

Those (who make use of the king’s boats in) fishing out conch-shells and pearls shall pay the requisite amount of hire (Naukáhátakam), or they may make use of their own boats.

The duties of the superintendent of mines will explain those of the superintendent of conch-shells and pearls.

The superintendent of ships shall strictly observe the customs prevalent in commercial towns as well as the orders of the superintendent of towns (pattana, port town).

Whenever a weatherbeaten ship arrives at a port-town, he shall show fatherly kindness to it.

Vessels carrying on merchandise spoiled by water may either be exempted from toll or may have their toll reduced to half and let to sail when the time for setting sail approaches.

Ships that touch at harbours on their way may be requested the payment of toll.

Pirate ships (himsríká), vessels which are bound for the country of an enemy, as well as those which have violated the customs and rules in force in port towns shall be destroyed.

In those large rivers which cannot be forded even during the winter and summer seasons, there shall be launched large boats (mahánávah) provided with a captain (sásaka), a steersman (niyámaka), and servants to hold the sickle and the ropes and to pour out water.

Small boats shall be launched in those small rivers which overflow during the rainy season.

To learn more about ancient India and its naval power check this free online book out:

Some excerpts:

There were obvious risks attending sea-voyages.
Sanskrit and Pali literature contains innumerable
allusions to vessels wrecked on the high seas so much
so that we seem to hear across the ages the piteous
wailings of souls lost in the ocean. But nothing
could daunt the people into passivity. Love of
adventure and wealth stimulated them to defy death;
and in storm and tempest these early navigators and
their comrades learned the art and craft of the sea.
They established commercial relations not only with
Burma and the islands of the Indian Archipelago on
the east but also with Mesopotamia, Arabia, Phoenicia
and Egypt on the West. And the same volkerwanderund,
which had impelled the primitive Aryans to move out
of their original home, found expression in the
colonial empire which their descendants built up in
southern Asia. Ceylon was colonised before the 3rd
century B.C., and Burma and Siam not much later. The
colonial movement went on apace, and by the 2nd
century A.D. Hindu soverignty and Hindu culture
dominated almost all the lands and islands, which
constitute the Indian Archipelago.

116, 3; 117, 14-15; 119, 4; iv. 27, 4; vi, 62, 6).
The Mahabharata relates how the Pandavas, ingeniously
escaping from the 'house of lac' by a subterranean
passage, came upon the Ganges and got on board a
vessel, which 'was provided with machinery and all
kinds of weapons and was capable of defying storms
and waves': sarvavatasaham navam yantra-yuktam
patakinim (Adi Parva, ch. 15). Elsewhere in the same
work we read how Sahadeva, the youngest of the
Pandava brothers, continued his march of conquest
till he reached several islands in the sea (no doubt
with the help of ships) and subjugated the Mleccha
inhabitants thereof.(1) In the Santi Parva there is a
verse which specifically refers to the navy as one of
the angas of a complete army(2). In the Ramayana we
have a picture of the preparations made by a Nisada
chief for an impending naval encounter with Bharata.
Finding the huge folIowing of Bharata from a
distance, the tribal chieftain thus ordered his

The fact that Sanskrit literature is full of allusions to navigation, oceans, sea, ships, boats and deep-sea voyages, even gives accurate descriptions of other "countries" is clearly showing ancient India was a massive naval power. Archeaological evidence from Indus also shows ancient Indians were exemplary martime engineers and engaged in heavy commercial seafaring activity and trade with distant lands.

It is due to these dubious sheet achors AIT and dating of Chandragupt Mauraya(and consequently the historical Buddha) that they don't put the Indus Valley and Vedic phase together. The archealogical evidence is overwhelmingly showing the Indus Valley is a post-vedic civilisation coinciding with the times of the Mahabharata. Even the standard measurements prescribed in the Arthshastra for mud bricks are identical with the standard mud brick used in the Indus.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:37 PM
For the interests of those who want to read Part 1 and Part 2, without having to wade through pages and pages of off-topic content:

Part 1: Aryan Invasion Theory

Link 1

Link 2

Part 2: Revising the Indian chronology and dating the Historical Buddha

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Now come on I want more discussion on this. I have spent a lot of time and energy on this to present a scholarly presentation of my thesis that India was an ancient superpower. It is not fair that I hardly get any replies on the main subject matter, just because it is not completely about Egypt, Sumeria or Atlantis. What I am doing here is completely rewriting world history, accusing the academic community of a massive conspiracy against Indian civilisation and covering up world history based on racist and religious agendas and showing with ample evidence the existence of an advanced civilisation in 3000BCE that has a huge global empire, seeded the Egyptians and built the Pyramids, may have even colonised America. Where are the skeptics, critics, detractors? I want you to throw everything you've got at me. And where are the people to appraise the conclusions of my research?

Come on "believers" stop trying to find space-ships in Egypt and Sumeria and look at a real advanced proper urban civilisation with a huge global empire in 3000BE - who knows, maybe that had spaceships

More discussion please.

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Sunski

The argued superpower status and the dominant Indian influence on China i.e Buddhism which you referred to for instance, the question is isnt the spread of Buddhism to Korean peninsula and the Japanese islands etc were due to the Chinese rather than the Indian influence over these regions, despite the religon itself is of Indian origin?


Hence, if one is going to count the embrace of buddhism by the Chinese as an evidence to argue the superpower status of ancient India (which by the way is the title of this thread, correct me if i misunderstand the title),
,without taking any consideration of the detailed reasons and background of such cultural transfer, but nevertheless attribute India dominant status by default simply because its the originator of this particular religion and simply because India did not get something in return from nations embraced buddhism. Then the question again is why arent Korea and Japan etc included in such argument? Afterall Buddhism influenced them as well and afterall it is Indian invention.


As far as im concerned, the reality is the spread of buddhism to other East Asian cultures was because of Chinese rather than Indian influence

I think you undervalue the significance of Buddhism being "embraced" as you put it by China and then becoming the dominant religion of China and of South East Asia. It suggests Indian cultural domination. If China and South East India had a strong culture, then Buddhism would not have been embraced so strongly. China and South East Asian countries did in fact have their own culture and religions. China had Taoism. The fact this was supplanted by a foreign culture does not suggest an "embrace" but a domination by a stronger power.

Christianity did not spread through "embrace" It spead through domination by the Roman empire. Islam did not spread through "embrace" it spread through domination by the Islamic empire. Religions that did not have the support of an empire hardly spread beyond their locality: Sikhism, Paganism, Shintoism, Native American religion are good examples of this. Thus I have to strongly doubt that Buddhism's rapid spread through China and South East Asia was any diferent. It too must have had the support of a powerful empire. And I would be right:

The conversion of the Mauryan emperor, Ashoka to Buddhism marked the elevation of Buddhism from the position of a sect to that of a state religion. Ashoka's patronage of Buddhism was responsible for the propagation and spread of Buddhism beyond the Indian subcontinent.

The following chronology accepted on the spread of Buddhism

•3rd century BCE: Buddhism is brought into Sri Lanka by Mahendra, son of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka; it might have found its way into Thailand about the same time
•Early 1st centuries: Buddhism began to enter China via the Silk Road
•1153-86 CE: Sinhalese monks from Sri Lanka takes Buddhism to Burma
•4th century CE: Buddhism enters Korea from China
•6th century CE: Buddhism comes to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Indonesia; Buddhism enters Japan from Korea
•Tibet 7th -8th CE


This chronology is defective of course due to the defective sheet anchors. It does show us without a doubt that the spread of Buddhism was initiated by the the Mauraya empire. That I have now shown to be 1200 years earlier than the accepted dates in 1500BCE. The Mauraya empire had both the power and the means to propogate Buddhism across the Indian ocean because it was a martime empire. This is a much more logical explanation for why Buddhism spread so rapidly across South East Asia than the "embrace" hypothesis. It was enforced on these regions; they did not embrace it. No major religion has ever spread from continent to continent through "embrace"

Now lets look at the spread of Buddhism. You claim that Buddhism did not gain dominance in China until 300AD and then it was due to China it spread in South East Asia. The above chronology claims Buddhism enters China via the silk route in 1AD. I can show you conclusively that both Hinduism and Buddhism were present in South East Asia long before 1AD:

Very little is known about Southeast Asian religious beliefs and practices before the advent of Indian merchants and religious influences from the second century BCE onwards. Prior to the 13th century, Buddhism and Hinduism were the main religions in Southeast Asia.

The Jawa Dwipa Hindu kingdom in Java and Sumatra existed around 200 BCE. The history of the Malay-speaking world begins with the advent of Indian influence, which dates back to at least the 3rd century BC. Indian traders came to the archipelago both for its abundant forest and maritime products and to trade with merchants from China, who also discovered the Malay world at an early date. Both Hinduism and Buddhism were well established in the Malay Peninsula by the beginning of the 1st century CE, and from there spread across the archipelago.


The fact that Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms are found in places as far as Java, Bali and Indonesia before the common era is clear testimant to the power projection of ancient India's maritime empire and thus defeats your claim that China spread Buddhism in South East Asia.

The evidence of India's colonization of South East Asia from very ancient times is very extensive and in many cases explicit:

Indonesia, Java and Bali:

The origins of the name 'Java' are not clear. One possibility is that an early traveller from India named the island after the jáwa-wut plant, which was said to be common in the island during the time, and that prior to Indianization the island had different names.[2] There are other possible sources: the word jaú and its variations mean "beyond" or "distant".[3] And, in Sanskrit yava means barley, a plant for which the island was famous.[3] Another source states that the "Java" word is derived from a Proto-Austronesian root word, meaning 'home'.[4]


The name Indonesia derives from the Latin Indus, meaning "India", and the Greek nesos, meaning "island".[6] The name dates to the 18th century, far predating the formation of independent Indonesia.[7] In 1850, George Earl, an English ethnologist, proposed the terms Indunesians — and, his preference, Malayunesians — for the inhabitants of the "Indian Archipelago or Malayan Archipelago".[8] In the same publication, a student of Earl's, James Richardson Logan, used Indonesia as a synonym for Indian Archipelago.[9]

Indonesia's strategic sea-lane position fostered inter-island and international trade. For example, trade links with both Indian kingdoms and China were established several centuries BCE.[18] Trade has since fundamentally shaped Indonesian history.[19]


The Indian empire was ruling Indonesia since ancient times. The earleist record we have of it is from 7AD from a Chinese scholar I-sing of the Srivijya empire.

There is no continuous knowledge of Srivijaya in Indonesian histories; its forgotten past has been recreated by foreign scholars. No modern Indonesians, not even those of the Palembang area around which the kingdom was based, had heard of Srivijaya until the 1920s, when French scholar George Coedès published his discoveries and interpretations in Dutch and Indonesian-language newspapers.[6] Coedès noted that the Chinese references to "Sanfoqi", previously read as "Sribhoja", and the inscriptions in Old Malay refer to the same empire.[7]

Srivijaya became a symbol of early Sumatran greatness, and a great empire to balance Java's Majapahit in the east. In the twentieth century, both empires were referred to by nationalist intellectuals to argue for an Indonesian identity within an Indonesian state prior to the Dutch colonial state.[6]


More evidence for India's domination of South East Asia:

A defining characteristic of the cultural link between South East Asia and Indian subcontinent is the spread of ancient Indian Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosophy into Myanmar, Thailand, Malaya, Laos and Cambodia. Indian scripts are also found in South East Asian islands ranging from Sumatra, Java, Bali, south Sulawesi and most of the the Philippines.[25] The impact of Indian culture is visible in the following notable examples:

Hinduism is practiced by majority of Bali's population.[26]
Hindu mythological figure Garuda features in the coat of arms of Indonesia, Thailand and Ulan Bator.
Hindu temple architecture-style features prominently on several ancient temples in South East Asia including Angkor Wat, which was dedicated to Hindu God Vishnu and features on the flag of Cambodia.
Many Indonesian names have an Indian flavour (eg. Megawati Sukarnoputri)
Batu Caves in Malaysia is the most popular Hindu shrine outside India.[27]
Erawan Shrine, dedicated to Brahma, in Thailand is one of the most popular religious shrines in the country.[28]
Kaharingan, an indigenous religion followed by Dayak people of Borneo, is categorized as a form of Hinduism in Indonesia


The clear picture that is emerging here and taken with the totality of what I have presented so far is that the ancient world was dominated by Indians and the Aryan religions of Hinduism and Buddhism.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
Actually, Egyptian myths say just the opposite of what you say: they claim that their first rulers/gods ('The Nedjuru of Zep-Tepi' i.e. the divine rulers of the First Times) came from the WEST not the east ('Amentet') whether you take that phrase 'the west' to mean something like 'Atlantis' (after all Plato learned of Atlantis from the Egyptians) or somwhere else (e.g. proto-Minoan Crete &tc.) but remember that one of the oldest creator gods of the Egyptians (Ptah) has the body of a fish, or of a man with fish-scales, indicating that the cult came to Egypt having arrived from somewhere else over water (like the half fish fgod Dagon the clan-god of the 'biblical' nonSemitic 'Philistines' who came from Mycene i.e. inported into Canaan 'over water').

Manetho says the First Kings of Egypt ruled not in Egypt but over a land which was located somewhere 'a foreign land located in the West' but does not state exactly where.

The Egyptians certainly in very early times did however have a thriving trade with their eastern trading partners especially with the civilisations of the Indus Valley cultures (e.g. Harappa) since ancient times, so some cross-fertilisation must have taken place with what we call India today via some very extensive trade routes in antiquity

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
Hare Bol (sing the names of God)

First I like to say thank you for your time invested in this.
After reading the Srimad Bhagavatam there is no doubt for me that India was the center of the World in Vedic times. I got a lot of spiritual insight that was not my means of reading that kind of literature. Originaly I wanted to search paleoseti insights in the Vedas but I became independent Vaishnava after reading Bhagavad Gita and SB.
I still belive there is evidence for the presense of the "Gods"
In Srimad Bhagavatam you can read:

SB 4.12.18: Because of his transcendental bliss, incessant tears flowed from his eyes, his heart melted, and there was shivering and standing of the hairs all over his body. Thus transformed, in a trance of devotional service, Dhruva Mahārāja completely forgot his bodily existence, and thus he immediately became liberated from material bondage.

SB 4.12.19: As soon as the symptoms of his liberation were manifest, he saw a very beautiful airplane coming down from the sky, as if the brilliant full moon were coming down, illuminating all the ten directions.

SB 4.12.20: Dhruva Mahārāja saw two very beautiful associates of Lord Viṣṇu in the plane. They had four hands and a blackish bodily luster, they were very youthful, and their eyes were just like reddish lotus flowers. They held clubs in their hands, and they were dressed in very attractive garments with helmets and were decorated with necklaces, bracelets and earrings.

SB 4.12.21: Dhruva Mahārāja, seeing that these uncommon personalities were direct servants of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, immediately stood up. But, being puzzled, in hastiness he forgot how to receive them in the proper way. Therefore he simply offered obeisances with folded hands and chanted and glorified the holy names of the Lord.

SB 4.12.22: Dhruva Mahārāja was always absorbed in thinking of the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa. His heart was full with Kṛṣṇa. When the two confidential servants of the Supreme Lord, who were named Nanda and Sunanda, approached him, smiling happily, Dhruva stood with folded hands, bowing humbly. They then addressed him as follows.

SB 4.12.23: Nanda and Sunanda, the two confidential associates of Lord Viṣṇu, said: Dear King, let there be all good fortune unto you. Please attentively hear what we shall say. When you were only five years old, you underwent severe austerities, and you thereby greatly satisfied the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 4.12.24: We are representatives of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the creator of the whole universe, who carries in His hand the bow named Śārńga. We have been specifically deputed to take you to the spiritual world.

SB 4.12.25: To achieve Viṣṇuloka is very difficult, but by your austerity you have conquered. Even the great ṛṣis and demigods cannot achieve this position. Simply to see the supreme abode [the Viṣṇu planet], the sun and moon and all the other planets, stars, lunar mansions and solar systems are circumambulating it. Now please come; you are welcome to go there.

SB 4.12.26: Dear King Dhruva, neither your forefathers nor anyone else before you ever achieved such a transcendental planet. The planet known as Viṣṇuloka, where Lord Viṣṇu personally resides, is the highest of all. It is worshipable by the inhabitants of all other planets within the universe. Please come with us and live there eternally.

SB 4.12.27: O immortal one, this unique airplane has been sent by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is worshiped by selected prayers and who is the chief of all living entities. You are quite worthy to board such a plane.

They can say well this is only evidence for a fantastic imagination but this is not the only section where you heare about vimanas there is plenty of this.

I dont belive in the Evolution Theory, instead in Cosmic Devolution bringing life from the higher realms to the lover by the Gods!

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
Ancient India NOT China dominated Asia

There is this tendency in Western history to completely omit India from world history. Most of what I have revealed so far about India's vast naval empires, its 10,000 year old history, the defeat of Alexander the Great by a minor Indian king, Indian colonies in Africa and South East Asia(and possibly Americas) will probably be new to most people reading this thread. They don't teach this in school.

I will come right out and and say it: Western history is jealous of Indian history. They are jealous that India had already reached industrial staus in ancient times. It already had an enlightenment. It had already colonized the world. It had already developed science, philosophy and technology to very high levels. It already developed religions, society. It makes Sumeria, Greeks and Pre-Industrial Europe look very primitive.

They are so jealous that they don't even want to place India as number two in the heirarchy of civilisations of the ancient world after the western world(Sumeria, Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs) they place Persia before it and then China before it. It is actually amusing seeing the anxiety of the Western elite academics.

There is another reason for the jealousy. Western civilisation wants to seek the origin of human civilisation in the West because of the biblical creation accounts. Thus Africa and Sumeria are considered the cradle of humans and civilisation respectively. Anything that indicates the contrary is dismissed or suppressed. Asia and America is considered the "New World" which barely existed before they found it and civilised it. Why don't more people, especially Asians challenge this racist narrative of world history?

Fortunately, there are many Western intellectuals that are not afraid to admit it:

Will Durant (1885-1981) American historian:

He has observed:

Indian art had accompanied Indian religion across straits and frontiers into Sri Lanka, Java, Cambodia, Siam, Burma, Tibet, Khotan, Turkestan, Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan;

“in Asia all roads lead from India.”

(source: Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage - By Will Durant MJF Books. 1935. p. 605)

Reginald Le May, author of "The culture of South-East Asia;: The heritage of India" observes:

“Indian art and culture seem naturally to have exercised an extraordinary art fascination over the indigenous peoples of all these territories, no doubt, owing to the attractions offered by Buddhism and Hinduism, while Chinese art, not bearing any particular religious message, apparently made but little impression inspite of the fact that they Chinese, too sailed the southern seas in search of trade from very early time.”

He wrote:

“The beginnings of Indian colonization overseas eastward go back a very long way in time and it is almost certain that the results seen today were, in the main, not achieved by military expeditions, but by peaceful trading and religious teaching – and thereby all the more permanent.”

Sir Marc Aurel Stein (1862-1943) a Hungarian and author of several books including Ra`jatarangini: a chronicle of the kings of Kashmir and Innermost Asia : detailed report of explorations in Central Asia, Kan-su, and Eastern Iran carried out and described under the orders of H.M. Indian Government, whose valuable researches have added greatly to our knowledge of Greater India.

He remarks:

"The vast extent of Indian cultural influences, from Central Asia in the North to tropical Indonesia in the South, and from the Borderlands of Persia to China and Japan, has shown that ancient India was a radiating center of a civilization, which by its religious thought, its art and literature, was destined to leave its deep mark on the races wholly diverse and scattered over the greater part of Asia."

(source: The Vision of India - By Sisir Kumar Mitra p. 178 and Main Currents of Indian Culture - By S. Natarajan p. 50).

Sir Charles Norton Edgcumbe Eliot (1862-1931) British diplomat and colonial administrator, in his book, Hinduism and Buddhism, vol. I, p.12. says:

"In Eastern Asia the influence of India has been notable in extent, strength, and duration."

"Scant justice is done to India's position in the world by those European histories which recount the exploits of her invaders and leave the impression that her own people were a feeble dreamy folk, surrendered from the rest of mankind by their seas and mountain frontiers. Such a picture takes no account of the intellectual conquests of the Hindus."

Even their political conquests were not contemptible, and are remarkable for the distance, if not the extent, of the territories occupied...But such military or commercial invasions are insignificant compared with the spread of Indian thought." The south-eastern region of Asia both mainland and Archipelago - owed its civilization almost entirely to India. In Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Cambodia, Champa, and Java, religion, art, the alphabet, literature, as well as whatever science and political organization existed, were the direct gift of Hindus, whether Brahmin or Buddhists, and much the same may be said of Tibet, whence the wilder Mongols took as much Indian civilization as they could stomach."

Give India her due. A movement needs to be initiated on a global platform to revise all history books. This academic conspiracy needs to be exposed and world history restored.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Yet, Punt remains a mystery to us even today, for we do not precisely know its actual location.

If Punt was in the West it could be identified easily, but because the description does not match any region in the West, identification cannot be made. However, the description does match India:

The people of Punt, at first are depicted with dark-reddish complexions and fin features wearing long hair......

We know of trading missions sent to Punt by the Egyptians dating from at least Egypt's 5th Dynasty, while our latest definite record of a Punt expedition comes from the 20th Dynasty reign of Ramesses III.

Punt indeed seems to have been a commercial center for goods not only from within its own borders, but from elsewhere in Africa. Here, the Egyptians sought and found many items that did not exist within the Two Lands. From Punt, the received the incense known as antyu which was produced in considerable quantities near Punt in the region of Utjenet (God's Land), as well as ivory, ebony (hebny) and gum (Kemy). From this mystical place they also imported the skins of giraffes, panthers and cheetahs which were worn by temple priests, and sometimes the live animals themselves for their own amusement or religious purposes. For example, the sacred Cynocephalus baboons were imported from Punt. Because of the goods from Punt used by priests and to adorn temples, it was known as a region of God's Land, and considered a personal pleasure garden of the god, Amun.

Incense, ivory cheetas, giraffes, distant oceanic land accessed through the sea, highly commercial and religious, people have dark-reddish skin, elsewhere from Africa. This is a description of India and these are all Indian goods(Ivory was a significant industy of the India people)

Here is what seals it. The Egyptian record the journey of Queen Hatsheput to Punt. The voyage was undertaken in the summer of Hatshepsut's eighth year as queen. She sent Senenmet (Senmut), her Chancellor, with a fleet of five ships that included thirty rowers each. They departed Quseir on the Red Sea for what was primarily a trading mission, seeking myrrh, frankincense and fragrant unguents used for cosmetics and in religious ceremonies. However, they also bought back exotic animals and plants that had no apparent economic value. We are told that the:

"...loading of the ships very heavily with marvels of the country of Punt; all goodly fragrant woods of God's-Land, heaps of myrrh resin, with fresh myrrh trees, with ebony and pure ivory, with green gold of Emu, with cinnamon wood, khesyt wood, with two kinds of incense, eye-cosmetics, with apes, monkeys, dogs, and with skins of the southern panther, with natives and their children. Never was brought the like of this for any king who has been since the beginning"

Cinnamon, fragrant woods(sandlewood), myrrh resin, ebony, ivory, cinnamon, incense are all fauna that grows and is cultivated in India. Here is the proof:

All citations from Wiki:

Cinnamon: Cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum, synonym C. zeylanicum) is a small evergreen tree belonging to the family Lauraceae, native to Sri Lanka,[1] or the spice obtained from the tree's bark.

Sandlewood:The genuine sandalwoods are medium-sized hemiparasitic trees of the genus Santalum. The most notable members of this group are Indian sandalwood (Santalum album) and Australian sandalwood (Santalum spicatum). Several other members of the genus species also have fragrant wood and are found across India, Australia, Indonesia, and the Pacific Islands

Ivory: The word "ivory" was traditionally applied to the tusks of elephants

Ebony: Ebony is a general name for very dense black wood. In the strict sense it is yielded by several species in the genus Diospyros, but other heavy, black (or dark colored) woods (from completely unrelated trees) are sometimes also called ebony. Some well-known species of ebony include Diospyros ebenum (Ceylon ebony), native to southern India and Sri Lanka, and Diospyros crassiflora (Gaboon ebony), native to western Africa.

Incense: Incense has been with mankind since the beginning of time. It is a part of Indian heritage. One of the oldest sources we have regarding the use of incense in the Indian Vedas. It is found with reference to Ayurveda. Incense sticks have, for ages, been associated with spirituality and transmit purity in life through enchanted fragrances.


Ebony, Ivory(elephants), incense, sandlewood, cinnamon
Oceanic land bordered by the sea
Dark and reddish skin
Highly commercial and religious
Distant land, accessed through the sea
Elephants, Cheetas, Panthers, monkeys, dogs

This description matches India to the T.

If Queen Hatshepst indeed did lead a huge naval expedetion to India, does India have a record of this? Yes:

Klaus K. Klostermaier, in his book A Survey of Hinduism p. 18 says:

"For several centuries a lively commerce developed between the ancient Mediterranean world and India, particularly the ports on the Western coast. The most famous of these ports was Sopara, not far from modern Bombay, which was recently renamed Mumbai. Present day Cranganore in Kerala, identified with the ancient Muziris, claims to have had trade contacts with Ancient Egypt under Queen Hatsheput, who sent five ships to obtain spices, as well as with ancient Israel during King Soloman's reign. Apparently, the contact did not break off after Egypt was conquered by Greece and later by Rome.

The evidence is once again, to use my tired phrase, overwhelmingly indicating that Punt is India. If Egyptians indeed came from Punt, then they came from India. The Greeks learned much history from the Egyptians and they too record the Egyptians were from India.

It is a sealed deal.

but remember that one of the oldest creator gods of the Egyptians (Ptah) has the body of a fish, or of a man with fish-scales, indicating that the cult came to Egypt having arrived from somewhere else over water (like the half fish fgod Dagon the clan-god of the 'biblical' nonSemitic 'Philistines' who came from Mycene i.e. inported into Canaan 'over water').

That is very interesting. Thanks for that. Are you going to be surprised now that the Hindus have an avatar of their god Vishnu appearing in the body of a fish to instruct Manu to build an ark to survive a great flood?

The Matsya Avatar or the Fish Incarnation is the first of the ten incarnations of Vishnu. The Matsya avatar never made it into independent status for worship. It has no temples and no significant independent representations in art and literature. Yet it remains significant for many reasons. It is the very first incarnation and establishes a prototype for all the various incarnations of god that follow. Secondly, it shares with the rest of the world a generic belief that at one time the planet was threatened with a great flood and a savior in a boat preserved all life forms. Thirdly it establishes the concept of Manus for each Great Age as defined in Hindu Mythology. The Manu is a proto-Adam, responsible for overseeing the first hesitant stages of all life forms in the new cycle of creation and he lives for the entire cycle as some sort of cosmic warden. The Manu and his wife become the First Parents for each cycle. In the Fish Incarnation Vishnu chose a great and pious king named Satyavrata to become the next Manu. And finally the task of this avatar was the most important of all, nothing less than the recovery of the lost Vedas. Taken all together then, the Matsya Avatar is not as inconspicuous an event as is mistakenly presumed.

Read more at Suite101: Matsya Avatar - The Fish Incarnation |

Yes definitely there was extensive trade between Egypt and India, because their home was India. The egyptians record extensive trade with Punt. Punt is none other than the Egyptian name for India. Egypt was seeded by the Indians. Its religion, myths, legends come from India.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:02 PM
Hello again.

This indish exudus you are talking about is documented in the Vedas. But in this case there was Parushoram a incarnation of Vishnu who destroied the Ksatrya Caste 21 times the survivors had to leave India. So I agree with this theory of yours that India built colonies around the globe.

But I would like to share another story that is for bronce age primitieves not very common.

I translated it from my father language German to inglish. It is from Armin Risis Book Gott und Die Goetter. Where he takes an example from the Linga Purana a epic Star Wars:

Once the demigods, helped by Shivas son called Skanda, defeated
cosmic-imperialistic Asura ruler Taraka, with his spaceships already
numerous planets had subjected. When this happened, were his three sons
so dismays, that they of full desires for revenge began ascetic, magic rituals to mobilize a maximum of spiritual energy.
Because the power of their asceticism Brahma give to them a favour, and
reached thus the possession of a never before seen fleet of arial citys with base on earth.
Three Daitya brothers [Tarakas sons] spoke to Brahma: " By your mercy
It will be possible for us to take the earth in possession and with the help of the Tripuras (three flying fortresses Puras)
to move unhindered in space.
Once every 1000 years we will assemble, and then these should the three
Fortresses melt in one. Only if the big ruler, Shiva,us exactly in that moment where three fortresses are united attacks and with one
only arrow hits where the Puras meet, we should be able to be defeated. " With the words " is So Brahma disappeared from their sight.
On it constructed the valiant Maya by virtue of his concentration three
Puras. These Asura fortresses took the following positions: The golden one
Fortress floated in the heavenly regions; silver in the firmament, and
the iron fortress was on the earth. Each of these fortresses was 1200
km long and broadly. Tarakaksa took over the command about the golden fortress, Kamalaksa the command about the silver fortress, and Vidyunmali took over
the command about the earthly fortress of iron.
In these fortresses revered Daitya-and Daanava demons Daanava-
Magician Maya, to itself in each of these three fortresses a special one
worship place had been established in which he lived. In this manner, o blesses
God-consecrated, there originated the three un penetrateable fortresses. They were in such a way equipped like own planets. The Daityas of the three worlds gathered
itself in these fortresses and won with their help out of hand in the three
planetary systems.... In these fortresses there was countless smaller aerial ships
(Vimanas) which resembled the solar disc and had on every side windows.
(Linga Purana 1.71.11-26)
These fortresses were built so well that nobody could penetrate, not
once with mental forces, because Mayas magic forces were
unsurpassably.... However, among them there were also dumb beings without own
Movement [beings biosimilar to robot]; they were like dwarfs and had
unnatural body proportions; her bodies had a bluish tone and hair was dark and frizzy. (Linga Purana 1.71.31-3

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
I d like to know what you can share about Kushastali and the citys of the seven rishis and ofcours Dvarka. Have you some up on date info on this you could share with us?

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:19 PM
Too bad mitochondrial DNA proves India was seeded by Africa.

India is not the center of the universe or earthly civilization. This stuff doesn't belong in the same forum as for example ancient Egyptian archeology.

Since Mitochondrial DNA proves migration out of Africa, Egypt came first, then the Sumarians, then the civilization of India.

You propose that peoples wandered out of Africa creating no civilizations at all and once they reached India civilization arose and then backwards migration occured through Sumaria and then onto Egypt. This is the only thing you can be proposing because mitochondrial DNA proves Africa first.

Then we are to believe these bedtime stories of India being more technologically advanced than today having starships and whatnot. Why bother going back to Egypt to start a bronzeage colony?

Are we starting bronzeage colonies anywhere else in modern times?

Has any Ironage civilization ever started a bronzeage colony? Or has a bronzeage civilization ever thrown away their understanding to opt for starting a stoneage colony?

Back to the mitochondrial DNA map of the world (google it yourself), the Americas were not colonized by spaceship flying superhumans from India.

This is just some nationalist supremacy history revisionist stuff on the same page as Nazi Germany was when they made their stand on the world stage. Remember arian supremacy? When is India gonna start wrapping cloth measuring tapes around peoples skulls to prove their infuriority?

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

This proves Egypt was the more advanced civilization. They were the ones sending fleets for luxury items. They were the ones providing economic gain to "Punt" by trading for items that could only be used by the rich elite back in Egypt.

And since when did Africa not have cheetas, baboons or ivory or giraffes? Your listing items out of Egypt's backyard. The incense and spices are what India has always had to offer. This was true down to the day of Columbas, which was his reason for sailing the ocean blue. Even till his day there were no huge fleets from India sailing the world to provide the falsely represented here (lower civilizations) with their trade goods. Greater civilizations always came to India because India always lacked the cultural advancement to travel the world over.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by UcantBserious

This proves Egypt was the more advanced civilization. They were the ones sending fleets for luxury items. They were the ones providing economic gain to "Punt" by trading for items that could only be used by the rich elite back in Egypt.

I did not know buying goods from somebody meant that the supplier becomes inferior. The biggest supplier of goods to the world today is China and USA, does this make them inferior? Nope. In that case India being a commercial hub in the ancient world, exporting goods to the world does not make it inferior in any way. On the contrary it suggests it had a dominant economic and production position.

India/Punt was also sending fleets all around the world that is how they first colonized Egypt and South East Asia. They had a thriving shipbuilding industry. However, an interesting revelation has been made by revealing Egypt could go as far as Indias in ancient times, it suggests it as capable of deep sea voyage. As it was basically a colony of the Indians, sea-faring technology must have been exchanged between them.

I am sorry but I do not consider out of Africa theory proven. I am a proponent of multi-region hypothesis. I think man has been on this planet much older than the current history accepts.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by Karmayogi11

Many of these revelations come from Dr Childress who coined the term, "Rama Empire" and "7 Rishi cities" His research is to prove the existence of a super spaceage civilisation 10,000 years ago, but he includes some rather unreliable and bad information in his research. Nonetheless his account is plausible.

In my revised model we find a modern like world in 3000BCE and prior and a globalized world. It is not a stretch to imagine this world was as technological as our own. There are plenty of anomolies in ancient times which suggests our ancients had advanced technology. There is also much stronger reason to suspect now that the weapons and technology described in the epic texts is real, because we can see that it is actually describing real things. It gives for example the geography of India, mentions the geography of distant lands like China, Africa and South East Asia and we do indeed find evidence there that India had colonies there in ancient times.

India was the superpower of ancient times, but we have left that time behind now I am afraid. Most records have been lost. I think we have great reason to believe that civilisations have come and gone like the Indian one several times on this planet. The Indian one fragmented around 3000BCE and has been in decline since. The new power of this world is undoubtably the West. However, that too is on the brink of falling, maybe in the same way Indians appears to have fell: nuclear war.

I think the greatest lessons we can learn from our Indian forefathers is not how great their steel was, their cities were, their technology in general was but the metaphysics and religion they discovered, their models of reality, their noble cultre and seekers/yogi like you and me should take that from them. The others are basically in amensia of the once advanced spiritual and scientific culture that flourished on this planet, and will come around eventually in their own time.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

Thanks for the information.
This will be a great read. S & F.
I'll post later after I've read through both Part 1 and this one.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by UcantBserious

You are seeing things which are not there

Too bad mitochondrial DNA proves India was seeded by Africa.

India is not the center of the universe or earthly civilization. This stuff doesn't belong in the same forum as for example ancient Egyptian archeology.

Since Mitochondrial DNA proves migration out of Africa, Egypt came first, then the Sumarians, then the civilization of India.

You propose that peoples wandered out of Africa creating no civilizations at all and once they reached India civilization arose and then backwards migration occured through Sumaria and then onto Egypt. This is the only thing you can be proposing because mitochondrial DNA proves Africa first.

Why is it not possible that civilisation appeared independently in Sumer and India? It is already known that human settlers were India as early as 11,000 years ago. This is long before the early settlements appeared in Sumer in 6000BCE. It is more likely then that India seeded Sumer than vis versa.

Then we are to believe these bedtime stories of India being more technologically advanced than today having starships and whatnot. Why bother going back to Egypt to start a bronzeage colony?

I never made the claim that the Indians 11,000 years ago were space age.
By the way are you forgetting the technological achivement called the Pyramids?

This is just some nationalist supremacy history revisionist stuff on the same page as Nazi Germany was when they made their stand on the world stage. Remember arian supremacy? When is India gonna start wrapping cloth measuring tapes around peoples skulls to prove their infuriority?

Do not make baseless and slanderous allegations. If I have made comments about Indian racial superiority then cite me, else keep silent.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in