India: Ancient Superpower - Part 2

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

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.



Many scholars actually agree that the civilization of Sumer could have sprung up prior to 9000B.C. and not 6000B.C. This places them right after the last Ice Age, meaning they would have been developing during the Neolithic period. This still doesn't mean that the people of India had no influence in the Mesopotamian region, but it does give support for the claims that Sumer developed independently over a longer period of time.

Just curious. Besides the lotus leaf, what other evidence do you see for the seeding of the Egyptian civilization from India and even Sumer?




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
These topics on Inda are really funny.


The first Indian script, developed in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C. is still undeciphered. Thus, it is still not possible to fully understand this civilization, as we have no readable records of their beliefs, history, rulers or literature.


source

That was a quick google.

The earliest egyptian writing was discovered in 1998 from the 33rd century BC.

Case closed, nice work of fiction though.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Indian colonization of the World: Indo-Europeans

Background

We have already covered Aryan invasion theory in Part 1. It is important you read that first part before you read on, as it will fill you in on a lot of background you need to understand this post.

In this post we will look at the most important group of India’s colonies in the past: Indo-Europeans. This is the most controversial, because it pitts the superpower of the ancient world India against the superpower of the modern world: Europe. The superpower of the modern world does not want to admit that they were colonized and civilised by Indians in ancient times. That India is not just the mother of Indians, but it is also the mother of Europeans. They seek their own distinctly white, European identity and fiercely resist any evidence that shows otherwise. It is because of this that Europeans always define civilisation in terms of the Greeks and Romans. This is why history books in modern times are focussed on the Greeks and the Romans.

The Europeans like to think of themselves as practical, rational and superior. Although it maybe slightly different today because of the more politically correct and multicultural world we live in, Europeans have always believed they were a superior race, much higher up in the gene-pool than any other “race“. A lot of this racialist philosophy emerged in 19th century discourses in Europe, particularly with the rise of Darwinain evolution. Many of the power-elite in Europe strongly believe in eugenics, even to this day. They believed that some people are genetically inferior, not just within races but even within a sub race. The notion of “blood lines“ which we hear about a lot at ATS connected to New World Order conspiracies is actually real. The power-elite strongly believe in preserving elite blood lines(Remember, the Price Charles and Dianna breeding?) In this hierarchy non-European bloodlines non-western bloodlines(African, Asiatic, American) are the most inferior. The proletariat is the second most inferior. In other words European power elite, definitely in the 19th century were incredibly racist. No different to what you would see on hate sites like Stormfront today(most of their favourite literature is from 19th century discourses) Psuedoscience like measuring the skull to determine intelligence was one of the methods proposed by Europeans to assert their superiority over other races.


The most powerful notion that emerged out of 19th century white superiority discourse was the notion of Aryans! A white skinned, blue eyed and blonde haired master race that was the common ancestor of Europeans(Celts, Lithuanians, Anglo-saxons etc etc) that subjugated Europe through war and conquest. They were the beginning of what would be the rational and practical civilisation of the Europeans and this was the justification for the right of Europeans to colonize and in most cases exterminate the non-white people of Africa, India, Australia, China, America. This idea was cultivated for a very long time and culminated in Nazism, which refined the white-category into an even more elite category.

BUT

There was a huge contradiction in the Aryan white supremist philosophy - India. The oldest, most developed strain of the Aryan-races were the Indo-Aryans who also had the oldest literature, the oldest languages, the oldest myths, the oldest traditions, the oldest philosophy. But India was the complete opposite of Western civilisation. It was dark skinned, it was mystical, philosophical and spiritual. It was frustrating to the racist elite at that time that India had anything to do with European civilisation. So they proposed:

Aryan Invasion Theory

To maintain their white superiority and supermacy they postulated that the fairer skinned Indians in India MUST have come from Europe. The Aryan races must have invaded the inferior darker-skinned people of India, conquered them and took over their civilisation. This became a sort of article of faith in European scholarship and it was never discarded, even to this date many European scholars refuse to part with it despite the overwhelming evidence against it. Stormfront members still often subscribe to Aryan theories.

So how did they approach the Indo-Aryans? With a sort of contempt. They contested that the Indo-Aryans were eventually taken in by the indigenous culture of the dark skinned Indians(Dravidian) had assimilated their gods(Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu) philosophies and rituals and interbred with them and corrupted their bloodlines. That the Aryan culture had become corrupted by the inferior indigenous culture and that it was the duty of their cousins(modern British) to re-civilise India. They initiated Indological studies to educate Indians on their Aryan past and show that their Vedas which Indians worshipped as sacred were in fact European religious text. They were the earliest texts documenting the pagan religions of Europe containing nothing more than spells, incantations, rituals for human and animal sacrifices and pantheons of European gods.

The later mystical and spiritual Hinduism texts had nothing to do with it.

The Vedas were thus not read as Hindu texts but as Indo-European texts. The Europeans sought to find in them the history of the white Aryan people, their early life, language, customs, religion, myths by comparing them with early European cultures. They would read them by comparing roots words in Vedic Sanskrit to the roots of European languages and then guess at what it meant. They had utter disdain for the indigenious tradition and scholarship. Indian dictionaries, the Indian systems of grammar, Indian histories, Indian commentaries were outright rejected because it was not consistent with the Aryan invasion theory. However, when it did suit the Aryan invasion theory agenda, they were consulted....


[edit on 1-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The background covered in the previous post was a further exposition of just how spurious and racist the Aryan invasion theory was and it also to put into context the Indo-Europeans which the racist European scholars did not want to concede were from India. Aryan Invasion theory could also be called the anything-but-India theory.

As we saw in part 1 there is absolutely no evidence that an Aryan invasion took place or the softer version of the theory - Aryan migration. On the contrary the archaeological evidence, the indigenous records of India, astronomical evidence, the descriptions in the Vedas all converge to form a consistent, comprehensive account of Indian history showing unequivocally the Indus valley civilisation to be post-Vedic and there being no schism between Indo-Aryans and so-called Dravidians. Showing Indian history to be continious and no foreign invasions to have taken place.

All this research has come into light in recent scholarship has actually had an impact on European scholarship. Aryan Invasion theory is no longer considered credible in the West today, like many racist 19th century theories. However, the West still do not want to let go of it and hang onto it in some form. Michael Witzel, the founder of “Aryan Migration theory” now contests that the Indo-Aryans actually originated in Persia and co-existed with the Indo-Iranians. Later, they broke of from the Indo-Iranians and migrated into India and peacefully commingled with the Indus people. This has become the dominant Western scholarship view and is supported by prestigious institutes like Harvard.

However, just like with the Aryan invasion there, there is once again no evidence this actually happened. It is once again based on speculation, again using dubious linguistic theories like AIT does. Aryan Migration proponents have been debating with Indigenous Indo-Aryan proponents and not been able to establish their theories and stand on far weaker ground when it comes to archeological evidence.

The main basis of AIT and AMT is based on the linguistic centre of gravity theory The theory states that the origin of a language family must be closer to where most of the family members can be found. In India you can only find one branch: Indo-Aryan and most of the branches are found in Central Asia which means the homeland is in Central Asia or nearer Europe.This is a bogus theory, because if we used it to trace the origins of where English originated, we would find the origins of English nowhere near England.

English spread around the world due to the colonial activities of the British‘s maritime empire. In the same way I contend that India’s Sanskrit language spread due to the colonial activities of India’s maritime empire in 3000BCE and prior.

Sir William Jones was the first to note that Sanskrit was the oldest, most complex and most developed language in the world:


Sir William Jones, speaking to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on February 2, 1786, said:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists
.

In order of complexity Vedic Sanskrit is the most complex, the next most complex is classical Sanskrit, the closest sister language Avestan of Iranian-Aryans is the next most complex. As you move into Central Asia the language begins to increasingly lose complexity.

Normally, language evolves in complexity and not devolves. If you compare Old English to Middle English to Modern English you will see complexity is evolving not devolving. In the case of Indo-European languages we have the reverse: Oldest(Vedic Sanskrit) and youngest(Greek and Latin) and the oldest and largest amount of literature we find in the Indo-European group is Sanskrit.

If we compare variants of English today we will find the most perfect form of English is Modern English(RP) spoken by the educated in England. The English we find spoken in countries outside of England are less-perfect. The largest and oldest amount of English literature is found in England. In other words we can clearly see that England is the origin of English. Therefore it follows that as Sanskrit being the oldest, most perfect Indo-European language and has the largest amount of literature that it is the origin of Indo-European. The linguistic stability of Sanskrit suggests it was developed by a stable culture in one place over thousands of years, completely contradicting the notion that Aryans were nomadic.

In other words there isn’t barely anything going for Aryan Invasion theory or Aryan migration theory. They contradict all the scientific evidence we have, whether that be linguistic and archaeological evidence, India’s own historical records, textual and astronomical evidence. Nothing at all supports them . The most obvious evidence against them is the Indians have absolutely no memory of a invasion or migration, so why even propose Indians came from elsewhere?

And the evidence we do have strongly supports Indigenous Indo-Aryan theories

A review of the evidence

Geneology:

India’s recorded genealogies go back 10,000 years. Every tradition of India records a huge tradition going back very far. India’s highly developed philosophical and scientific culture did not just materialise out of thin air.


Vedic and Puranic genealogies
The Vedic and Puranic genealogies indicate a great antiquity of Vedic culture.[52] The Puranas themselves state that these lists are incomplete.[53]

In Arrian's Indica, Megasthenes is quoted as stating that the Indians counted from Shiva (Dionysos) to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandracottus) "a hundred and fifty-three kings over six thousand and forty-three years."[54] The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (4.6.), ca. 8th century BC, mentions 57 links in the Guru-Parampara ("succession of teachers"). This would mean that this Guru-Parampara would go back about 1400 years, although the accuracy of this list is disputed.[55] as student-teacher generations do not correspond to normal father-son generations of 20/30 years. The list of kings in Kalhana's Rajatarangini goes back to the 31st century BC.[56]


Remember Part 2) Revising Indian chronology and dating the Historical Buddha? The Western records are out by 1200 years due to mistaking Chandragupta Gupta for Chandragupta Mauraya.

Archaeological:

The Indus valley civililsation already has most of the features that are ascribed to later or post-Vedic society. In other words it is already Vedic, in fact post-vedic.


The proposed destroyed cities of the Indus Valley have proved to be a myth, with no real evidence of any destruction by invaders. There is no evidence of Aryan ethnic types, Aryan horses, Aryan cows or anything Aryan leaving any trail into India in ancient times. There is no Aryan culture in ancient India apart from the indigenous culture of the region that exhibits fire altars, Brahma bulls, figures in meditation and Yoga postures, swastikas, chakras, pippal leafs and other symbols quite in harmony with later Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, traditions that called themselves Aryan.


Source

Astronomical:

The Indian texts record precise configurations of consetllations which date back 10,000 years: www.scribd.com...

Textual:

The Rig Veda describes the geography of India and rivers that had dried up and become mere canals by 4000BCE and stopped flowing by 2000BCE which we know for certain through satellite imagery. The Rig Veda describes sea-faring for commercial purposes just as we know the Indus people did.


We have already discussed the first major point of natural history relative to ancient India in the earlier sections of the book. The development of agriculture and urban civilization in ancient India was based upon the geology of the Sarasvati River, which arose as a mighty river towards the later period of the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago, and lost its perennial flow, owing to the later climate changes and the melting of the main glaciers in the 2200-1500 BCE era. This Vedic-Sarasvati culture, relative to its geology, lasted from around 10,000-2000 BCE, when the Sarasvati was the dominant river in North India. This perennial great Sarasvati defines the main period of the development of Vedic culture, Vedic kingdoms and the late Vedic era, when the Sarasvati began to decline. This is roughly the period from the older Rigvedic Hymns to the later four Vedas, Brahmanas and early Upanishads, though it is likely that the existent texts which we have were not entirely finalized until the end of this period


Source



[edit on 1-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Serbsta, I really like your avatar. It's stunning.

Is there more evidence for the India and Egypt connection. The strongest evidence so far is the identification of Punt with India. The next strongest is the records of Greek historians recording the migrations of Indian people into Egypt to find the Egyptian civilisation. Close behind is the fact that ancient Egypt had a caste system identical to the Hindu system, and the founder's name Manes being phonetically similar to Manu.

The other evidence I have found is that the discovery of the source of the river Nile was done by looking at ancient Indian descriptions of Egypt. You will find this interesting for sure:


Significant also is the fact that Lieutenant Speake, when planning his discovery of the source of the Nile, secured his best information from a map reconstructed out of Puranas. (Journal, pp. 27, 77, 216; Wilford, in Asiatic Researches, III).

It traced the course of the river, the "Great Krishna," through Cusha-dvipa, from a great lake in Chandristhan, "Country of the Moon," which it gave the correct position in relation to the Zanzibar islands. The name was from the native Unya-muezi, having the same meaning; and the map correctly mentioned another native name, Amara, applied to the district bordering Lake Victoria Nyanza.

"All our previous information," says Speake, "concerning the hydrography of these regions, originated with the ancient Hindus, who told it to the priests of the Nile; and all these busy Egyptian geographers, who disseminated their knowledge with a view to be famous for their long-sightedness, in solving the mystery which enshrouded the source of their holy river, were so many hypothetical humbugs. The Hindu traders had a firm basis to stand upon through their intercourse with the Abyssinians."

(source: Periplus of the Erythrean Sea - W.H. Schoff p. 229-230).

The Puranas have a remarkable connection with one of the most important discoveries of the 19th century. In 1858, John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) – Speke was commissioned in the British Indian Army in 1844 – made the discovery that Lake Victoria was the source of the River Nile in Africa. Speke wrote that to some Indian Pundits (Hindu scholars) the Nile was known as Nila, and also as Kaali. Nila means blue and Kaali means dark – both apt descriptions for the Nile near its source. These are mentioned in several Puranas including the Bhavishaya.

This went against the conventional wisdom, for Lake Victoria was unknown at the time. Sir Richard Burton, the leader of the Nile expedition, had identified Lake Tangyanika as the source. Speke, however, following upon the advice of a Benares (Varansi) Pundit, insisted that the real source was a much large lake that lay to the north. Following this advice Speke went on to discover Victoria. The Pundit had also told him that the real source were twin peaks as Somagiri, ‘Soma’ in Sanskrit stands for moon and ‘giri’ means peak, and Somagiri therefore are none other than the fabled Mountains of the Moon in Central Africa! The Pundit must have known all this. He published his book Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile in 1863.


There is more evidence, which I found recently and was surprised by: The fact that the Sphinx is an Indian icon:

www.swaveda.com...

How convincing do you find the evidence?



[edit on 1-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by UcantBserious
These topics on Inda are really funny.


The first Indian script, developed in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C. is still undeciphered. Thus, it is still not possible to fully understand this civilization, as we have no readable records of their beliefs, history, rulers or literature.


source

That was a quick google.

The earliest egyptian writing was discovered in 1998 from the 33rd century BC.

Case closed, nice work of fiction though.


It is inaccurate to say the Indus script has been undecyphered. There are several claims by authors who have decyphered it ranging from the script being Proto-Brahmi(Sanskrit script) to Proto-Dravidian(Tamil script) It may also be non-linguistic sign language. Most of the script has been found on seals and on pottery fragments, and it is found in the Arthshastra that the ancient Indians had a system of creating seals to mark mechandize.

The Indus people were multilingual, their main languages was Sanskrit and Tamil. The literature at the time which may have been written on palm leafs or in books has not survived because 5000+ years has passed since then. We have lost all written records. All we have is an oral tradition that survived from that time. This was only written down much later after 2000BCE.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Thank you for the answer Indigo Child
About Dr Childress also I will search for it.
And this "Proven fact out of Africa by DNA Thing" Is fact for those that try to cover up the past of our planet not for me. There is enough Evidence for a Vedic Age prior to the Deluge for those openminded. And eaven if some Gray take me to a trip to the past and shows me a gradual evolution of humanity in Afrika, later on bringing me home I would just say: Thanks for showing me the Holosuite Bro next time show me Avatar 3d!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


It's actually Menes rather than Manes. Although similar, they differ in their phonetical similarity to Manu. Then again, they are still possibly related. Further, although disputable, Manu is still regarded as a mythological figure who gave life to humans after the Great Deluge. In contrast, Menes is no abstract figure, and lived sometime around 3100B.C. Now maybe you were not saying that they were the same figure, but that they were only related through their name and what they did for each civilization; this would then cause a problem since the myth of Manu is much older than when the First Dynasty began with Menes.

You're information in regards to the Nile is interesting and one would need to do a lot of research on this alone in order to judge the theory.

In regards to the Sphinx, you're referring to the purushamriga, the 'man-beast'. I've read very briefly on the subject and simply put I've yet to find any sculptural depiction of a Sphinx that can date as far back as the Egyptian one, which could easily be in excess of 7000 years old. For example, the Sphinx's at the Varadharaja Perumal Temple are only 1000 years old, while any mythological depictions (such as the nara-virala) of it through literature are impossible to date and therefore cannot be used to gauge the possible infleunce they may or may not have had over Egypt.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by serbsta]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Manu basically means first-man. In the Egyptian legend, the first-man or founder of Egypt's social system is Menes and it cannot be dismissed that the social system is identicial to the caste system of India whose first-man or founder is Manu.

The word Manu is also used for the first-man of each manvantara.

Regaring the Nile. I think you will find on further research confirmation that the Nile as indeed discovered by using descriptions in ancient Puranas. Although the Puranas are very difficult to date because they were written down much later, but there are references to them in older texts and there is a lot of reason to believe they are very old.

Regarding the Sphinx. My point was not to show an Indian Sphinx that predates the Egyptian one, but to show that the Sphinx forms a part of Indian mythology. Thus to illustrate the commonality.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by serbsta
 


Regarding the Sphinx. My point was not to show an Indian Sphinx that predates the Egyptian one, but to show that the Sphinx forms a part of Indian mythology. Thus to illustrate the commonality.



Aha, I see. Well I don't suppose we could conclude that they both somehow independently developed the same myth? I can see how depictions of the Sphinx throughout the Akkad and even in Greece could be related due to geographical proximity, but India may be out of range to be able to trace a route of development.

[edit on 3/1/2010 by serbsta]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Aha, I see. Well I don't suppose we could conclude that they both somehow independently developed the same myth? I can see how depictions of the Sphinx throughout the Akkad and even in Greece could be related due to geographical proximity, but India may be out of range to be able to trace a route of development.

[edit on 3/1/2010 by serbsta]


It is possible that they independently developed the mythology of the Sphinx. You know a sort of collective unconsciousness explanation for how two different cultures could have near identical myths. However, I often find such explanations are often not necessary and there are actual rational explanations for why cultures have commonalities, most often because of physical cultural exchange.

Geography is not a problem for Indian contact with ancient Egypt owing to its maritime empire. The evidence for this maritime empire are predominatly textual, but we also have physical evidence such as the docks at Lothal in the Indus valley and the fact that India and ancient Egypt were in contact as we can prove through the Indian goods found in Egypt such as Indian Muslin used to wrap the Mummies.

By the way what do you make of the Greek records stating the Egyptians are migrants from India and the identification of Punt with India?

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously? You claim to be an Indigo child. You believe that you are somehow not a human being and yet we are supposed to critically digest what you're stating about India's history? How does that work?

"Western civilization is jealous of Indian history" ? Is this a joke? You're entire premise is built upon your inferiority complex; which in turn explains why you believe that you're an alien being.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Do you really believe this is a valid argument?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Absolutely. I read all of what you present. Some of it is interesting, but the fact is that more people would be inclined to take you more seriously if you didn't proclaim to be an alien. Just pointing that out. I didn't mean to interrupt your thread. I will go now. Best of luck



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


You should concentrate on the information, rather than the author. If hitler said "the sky was blue" would it become any less true than if anybody else said it? Not to say I am compatable to Hitler, I am merely illustrating a point.

You should not the take names people adopt too literally. If you did, then I should take it literally you are a spinal remain? There are various reasons people have to choose a name. I like the Indigo child concept, as a spiritually aware person. It has nothing to do with aliens.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
No, but what you could do is deduce that I have back problems (which I do).

Look, your whole premise is basically the race card on steroids. You're saying that western historians are jealous of India's history. That is silly. Are Western historians less inclined to be racist toward the Chinese? What are you trying to say? That Western society in trying to bury the rich, superior Indian legacy? Where is it?

If Hitler told me the sky was blue I would look up. Hitler was a madman, but he also didn't openly claim to be more than human. If he did, he never would have been elected Chancellor under Hindenburg. He would have been labeled a kook. That's all I'm saying. I don't think I'm looking too much into your name. You either think you are an Indigo being or you are giving respect to so called Indigo beings in your name. Either way it shows that you have a belief in beings that look like us, but aren't human. You are much better off having a name which doesn't imply a new age fantasy.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I do not wish to argue with you. I apologize if I came off like that. I recognize how much effort, thought, research and work went into your thread, but it is because of that, that i wanted to point out that you would get more positive feedback in your quest if you had a different name. I can guarantee you that many a reader saw the name, and instantly thought (next). I realize this is ATS, but your thread is of a serious nature which needs factual input to be explored, yet your name is based on New Age fantasy.

I really do wish you the best of luck in your quest for the truth. I just wanted to give my constructive criticism. You seem to want to be taken seriously. I think not being Indigo will help. That's all.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


If you read part 1, "Aryan Invasion Theory" it will become clear to you Western elite scholars were indeed very jealous of Indian civilisation. This was because in the 19th century Western elite were indeed very racist and believed in white supermacy over all other races. They could not digest that in ancient times the Indians had done everything they were proud of(industralizion, colonization and enlightenment) thousands of years before them. Nor could they digest that India had seeded Western civilisation in the past by civilising white-natives.

This is not at all playing the race card. It is actually true that this is what they thought and it is well known how racist the Western elite were. Have you forgotten the measuring skulls of different races to determine intelligence? White superiority was rampant in Western scholarship to only a few decades ago.

I am not trying to denigrate the West. I am Western myself. But come on we have to admit it, until only a few decades ago, the West was openly racist to all other civilisations and asserted their superiority over them.
What the West needs to humble itself to is that historically speaking the West is a very young civilisation. It has realistically only been in power for a few centuries, whereas India and China have been in power for thousands of years and achieived much more than them in religion, philosophy culture, art and science.

We cannot take Asia out of the equation when it comes to world history, but this is exactly what Western scholarship does. It is either obsessed with what the Greeks or Romans did or what Sumer did, and conveniantly omits India out of the equation and distorts its history which is basically a crime against world history. As it is very blatant to anybody who studies Indian history just how important they were in shaping world civilisation.

P.S Indigos are human

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
How does pointing out a very global racist culture which ended probably only in the last 4 decades(and is still not completley eradicated) make you racist? That's like calling the accuser of the OP as a racist, a racist just because he accused. Just a vicious cycle which makes no sense.

Anyways this question is for the OP. Ive seen you say that the Ramayana could be placed just a few thousand years before the Mahabharata, something like 8000 B.C.? But isnt it written in the Mahabharata that the Ramayana took place eons and eons before itself. Also isnt it true that each one of the Dasavatar comes either at the end of a yuga or beggining of a yuga, basically once in a yuga?

Most of the calculations ive seen of yugas says that the according to the Vedas Kali Yuga is 432000 years with the yuga ending on 3102 B.C. Using the same calculations it is said the Dwapara Yuga comes to around 864000 years. You can see this calculation done by Stephen Knapp in an article called Timing of the four Yugas. Even the characters such as monkeys and apes sound a little too early for something like 8000 B.C. The point im trying to make is the Dasavatar come very rarely, that's why there are only 10, and there is still a long way to go before the Kali Yuga ends, 425000 years, and the time between the birth of Rama and Krishna being just 5000 years in the presence of such huge yugas just seems a little off.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Karmaverick]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Karmaverick
 


I am aware that the Yuga calculations place the Ramayana period millions of years ago. I suspect that this maybe true, but unfortunately the evidence does not support the existence of modern humans millions of years ago and thus it becomes difficult to maintain as actual history. It is also entirely possible that the Yuga cycle in the Puranas is measuring something much larger like astronomical cycles that would correspond to the large cycles, and that there was another Yuga cycle system to measure human time frames, but this has been lost to antiquity. It is interesting to note the Puranas do mention human yugas and deva yugas.

The 8000BCE timeframe has been arrived at by looking at the astronomical configurations recorded in the Ramayana for the time of birth of Lord Rama and other key events. However, this astronomical configuration can repeat again after hundreds of thousands of years. But to be consistent with the current evidence, we have to accept the earliest date until more evidence is forthcoming that can support the later date. If we do not do this and advocate the later date, we cannot scientifically be taken as credible.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]





top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join