The Vara of Yima

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


If you want to see what an aryan looks like then look at the Tarim mummies they are aryans who moved into India. There is 100% proof that the Vedas did not come from India but was introduced from outside.

@LUXUS

There is 100% proof that the Vedas did not come from India but was introduced from outside.

If the Vedas were foriegn in origin, why does it glorify Indian rivers and praise gods that were exclusively worshipped in India? And if the Vedas were foriegn to India, what prevented their original authors from establishing a vedic culture and religion on their homeland?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


No those Gods were foreign to India including Indra, they traveled along that river and settled there so why should they not praise that river ?

@ LUXUS...

those Gods were foreign to India including Indra,

so what prevented the 'original' authors from establishing indra worship and vedic culture in their ''homeland''?

they traveled along that river and settled there so why should they not praise that river

The vedas refer to around 7 rivers, all within the boundaries of ancient India. There is no hint of the authors being from outside India. Its clear that the authors of the vedas and of vedic civilization were indigenous to India.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Nothing prevented them worshiping a sky God who throws thunderbolts down from the sky,sound familiar?

The early vedic Gods are all found among Celtic peoples including the God who would later evolve into Shiva



The Aryans mention those rivers but they do not say it was their original homeland anywhere

@ LUXUS...

The early vedic Gods are all found among Celtic peoples

back then everybody had gods with powers of thunders and fire and wind etc. So its a superficial similarity. Even then, it could also be argued that these mythologies and ''gods'' were spread FROM India into Europe.

The Aryans mention those rivers but they do not say it was their original homeland anywhere

neither does it say that their homeland was outside India. So we can consider their obsession with Indian rivers as proof that they were indeed indigenous to that land.

@ LUXUS... Also, the Vedas say that a person can attain or lose the title of ''Aryan'' depending on his actions. So according to the writers of the Vedas, ''aryan'' is NOT a race but a title.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

What (in your consideration) is the symbolism in these myths?

Let's look at the example; "Yima laid his knife against the ground and caused the Earth to expand."

Maybe what this is saying is that Yima pioneered mining, and the gems they mined allowed their territory to grow.

They became immortal, as, they became legends.

When we talk about ancient history, we are talking about clues put together. They are often interpreting dead languages, or languages as they were spoken thousands of years ago, so there is a great deal of guesswork.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


What most likely happened is that the religion brought in by the conquerors, slowly mixed with the local religions, and that is where Vedic came from.

The same situation for Zoroastrianism.

If ancient Europe was also conquered by the Aryans, then where are the common ties between the religions?

From my understanding, DNA shows this mixing of Aryans in these regions.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Most of the answers to the questions you are asking me are given in the short video I posted, along with the fact that Aryans spoke Sanskrit and that it was not a language native to India but was introduced by these Aryans.

LUXUS
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

If you want to see what an aryan looks like then look at the Tarim mummies they are aryans who moved into India. There is 100% proof that the Vedas did not come from India but was introduced from outside.

The oldest Sanskrit we know is the Rig Veda.

The Rig Veda concerns itself with the exploits of people referring to themselves as Aryans and their travels across northern India.

Hence, the Vedas come from India, but the language they're in likely does not.

The written Vedas, that is. It's possible that some vedas contain stories that existed elsewhere in some earlier form.

At any rate, it is unlikely that Sanskrit developed from the Indus Valley Civilization because the Rig Veda post dates this civilization by only a couple of hundred years and we would see definite signs at IVC sites of the development of the written language which we do not see.

Harte

@ LUXUS...

Most of the answers to the questions you are asking me are given in the short video I posted,

Im sorry, but there are videos speaking from my pov as well.

along with the fact that Aryans spoke Sanskrit and that it was not a language native to India but was introduced by these Aryans.

Oh, so sankrit wasn't native to India but yet went on to become the main language for all of Indias religous epics and is STILL in use.......while the ''aryans'' who spoke sanskrit completely forgot their own language and script in their homeland. Or maybe... Sanskrit is to India what Chinese is to China. And also, the ''aryan'' race does not exist. The idea comes from mistaken 19th century theories that the Vedic ''aryas'' were Europeans.

sk0rpi0n
@ LUXUS...

Most of the answers to the questions you are asking me are given in the short video I posted,

Im sorry, but there are videos speaking from my pov as well.

along with the fact that Aryans spoke Sanskrit and that it was not a language native to India but was introduced by these Aryans.

Oh, so sankrit wasn't native to India but yet went on to become the main language for all of Indias religous epics and is STILL in use.......while the ''aryans'' who spoke sanskrit completely forgot their own language and script in their homeland.

Now you're being ridiculous, a descriptor I often apply to Luxus.

Sanskrit is the root of practically every language in Europe.

So no, it's not likely that it was forgotten in their "homeland," which was probably Paklistan.

Actually, Sanskrit is no longer in use in exactly the same way that Latin is no longer in use.

sk0rpi0n And also, the ''aryan'' race does not exist. The idea comes from mistaken 19th century theories that the Vedic ''aryas'' were Europeans.

There was no Aryan race. The people in the Rig Veda described themselves as Aryan, meaning, as the vid implied, civilized.

Later it came to refer to nobility.

Harte

Harte

poet1b
reply to post by Harte

 

I suggest you look up the definition of "mythos"

Most of what we think we know is based mainly on myth.

That may be true for you personally, but most things I know are not based on any mythology whatsoever.

And you are a fool to suggest to someone you don't know that they may lack a grounding in world mythology and the principles behind the study thereof.

Harte

Well, despite how hard we may try all things come back to this. Why, because we are talking about time before there was the written word. What we have are stories and myths passed down through generations. What we can do is trace back many myths and stories through time and archeology.

In the end more and more we are finding most myths and handed down stories have their beginnings in reality. Sure if you passed down a story from your great, great, grandfather there will be a certain embellishment or modernization with each consecutive generation.

Often these stories can even be lost for generation as things change. Some we will never know what if any of the myth or story was based on reality.

For me this is the exciting thing about these stories, myths, whatever you choose to call them, that we get to choose what we believe was real or not.

Be thankful for the past that may have been, for they make us who we are today.

The Bot

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The Aryans had horses and chariots whilst the Indians did not. The archeological evidence of aryans outside India has been found as you would see if you watch the vid. Languages develop over time and our languages do show a common origin.

Maya danava the one responsible for introducing temple architecture, astronomical knowledge to south India is not native to India and this is even stated in the ancient text.

dlbott

Harte

poet1b
reply to post by Harte

 

I suggest you look up the definition of "mythos"

Most of what we think we know is based mainly on myth.

That may be true for you personally, but most things I know are not based on any mythology whatsoever.

And you are a fool to suggest to someone you don't know that they may lack a grounding in world mythology and the principles behind the study thereof.

Harte

Well, despite how hard we may try all things come back to this. Why, because we are talking about time before there was the written word. What we have are stories and myths passed down through generations. What we can do is trace back many myths and stories through time and archeology.

In the end more and more we are finding most myths and handed down stories have their beginnings in reality. Sure if you passed down a story from your great, great, grandfather there will be a certain embellishment or modernization with each consecutive generation.

What you say here is true only in the most basic sense.
For example, the myth of Paul Bunyan has its roots in reality only in that lumberjacks were (and are) real.

Similarly with Pecos Bill and John Henry, who was likely an actual person, though not as described, certainly.

Another actual person with a mythos built up around him was Davey Crockett. Among a great many other wild claims made about him, he was said to have been able to "grin a coon out of a tree," his smile was so persuasive.

In fact, there is a story of him coming across a coon in a tree at night. He commenced to grinnin' it out of the tree but it wouldn't budge. He grinned all night at that coon but it never came down. Eventually, at sunrise, he realized it was a knot on the tree trunk, not a coon. But when he climbed up there and looked at it, he noticed that his grin had peeled some of the bark off the tree at the knot.

This can be taken, I suppose, as a metaphor for the power of persuasion over that of simple might, if you are so inclined.

Myself, I take it as an exaggeration caused by admiration of the man.

The Yima myth is an exaggeration caused by admiration of humanity and the gods that made us. Is the Yima myth rooted in reality? Of course - knives exist, for example, and people need food, there might be some racial memory of the end of the Ice age, etc.

But was Yima real? Certainly not. Has the Earth expanded? That's absurd. Is a particularly bad winter (as described in the myth) an analogy for the Ice age? Not the way it is described. Is it an analogy for so-called "worldwide flood myths?" No, not as it is described.

Who can locate any real root of the story itself? Anyone that's willing to cherry pick parts of it they 'feel" like could be true without any evidence of such truth.

Harte

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Harte

 

Uh oh Chamberf=6, looks like you ran up against someone that thinks Yima actually laid his knife against the ground and caused the Earth to expand (twice) to accomodate the overpopulation resulting from his "stewardship" of mankind.

Harte

Yeah, silly me. What was I thinking?

Of course that happened. So did every other creation and/or ice age story from every culture and peoples worldwide. Never mind that they conflict with each other and contain magical physics defying events.

edit on 12/28/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

Ah c'mon man. I'm not saying take every word of every myth to be true - but the great flood story is repeated consistently across many ancient cultures and landscapes. It is the most common story to be found, and is very often accompanied by the ''Noah's Ark" story. This is another case of the Ark story, except this time it is a settlement and not a 'boat'.

Of course the details change, and the non fundamentals are exaggerated and twisted by each culture (which are the parts you pick up on and claim BS to the whole myth), but the core story of flood and interaction between 'man' and 'God' prior to the floods arrival is possibly the most consistent story of our ancient history.

I'm not saying believe in 'God' and so forth, but that simply some truth lies in these 'myths' as they seem to originate from common sources. Maybe it was just an end of ice age flood, and the humans who survived were so incapable of understanding how they survived that they all began attributing their success to God, across the whole world.

But the devil is in the details. These stories always include someone reliable being warned by a 'higher entity' (God, King, Great Shepard etc) of the flood in advance so that the human race can be prepared. Isn't that an odd detail to keep cropping up? Isn't it more likely that these ancients, who if we're susceptible to primitive withdrawals to God as an explanation, would simply just claim God was good to them throughout the flood. Why the re-appearing story of 'God' warning man in time, and man effectively saving man?

Of course, 'God' by no means necessary in any of these ancient myths has to refer to a God that only we modern humans can comprehend. A God to an ancient man is what we are to the modern tribes still operating.

I'm just saying, as much as one shouldn't take these myths to be word for word truth (or even plausible sometimes at all), one shouldn't also blast all myths as just that - 'myths'.

When core elements of myths from across the whole ancient world seem to overlap, it would be silly to discredit the whole thing based on some supernatural claims here and there. But surely, there's a common source to these stories, even if it is just a flood, and therefore these corresponding myths can be invaluable to our deciphering of a mysterious history.

reply to post by LUXUS

The Aryans had horses and chariots whilst the Indians did not.

Horse remains have been found at Indus Valley sites. (see:Surkotada)

Even if only the "Aryan" invaders had horses, it does not automatically make them the authors of the Vedic civilization. That's like saying warlike Mongols on horseback authored the epics, philosophies, sciences and cultures of the lands they invaded. Such ideas are based on fantasy, not reality. Warlike invaders on horseback don't build civilizations...they only destroy. On the contrary, they are only "civilized" by already existing cultures.

If by "Aryan" you mean the blonde/blue-eyed European types, they all developed in Europe and were not present in India during the development of its culture. If anything at all, Indian mythology and languages went Westwards to the middle east and Europe, not the other way round. (Which is why small pockets of Indra worshipers existed in the middle east. See : Mittanis)

Maya danava the one responsible for introducing temple architecture, astronomical knowledge to south India is not native to India and this is even stated in the ancient text.

That sits well with the fantastic theory that intellectual warriors on horseback, with no built civilization on their yet-to-be ascertained homeland... appeared out of nowhere and started to transfer all their knowledge and wisdom to the Indians.

As the basis of the thread was the tradition from the Avesta i should point out that the term Aryan always describes the ethnic group therein and is not used in the extended sense of meaning 'noble', 'Ar' as i pointed out is an Indo-European root for 'High', as used by the Celts for example, and was most likely applied in the sense of 'high-landers'....

Unlike the several meanings connected with ārya- in Old Indic, the Old Iranian term has solely an ethnic meaning. That is in contrast to Indian usage, in which several secondary meanings evolved, the meaning of ar- as a self-identifier is preserved in Iranian usage, hence the words "Iran"/"Iranian" themselves. Iranian airya meant and means "Iranian", and Iranian anairya meant and means "non-Iranian". Arya may also be found as an ethnonym in Iranian languages, e.g., Alan/Persian Iran and Ossetian Ir/Iron

The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Aryan, where Iran means "land of the Aryans," and has been in use since Sassanid times The Avesta clearly uses airya/airyan as an ethnic name , where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō "Iranian lands, peoples", airyō.šayanəm "land inhabited by Iranians", and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; "Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā", the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā

Aryan Wiki

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


No aryans do not have blond hair blue eyes, actually they were tall, green eyes and red hair for the most part and yes they did have white skin, they looked exactly like those mummies in china! Broadly speaking we can call them a Celtic peoples.

As for Maya danava he came from Athalaantham after the flood, yes another story about refugees fleeing a doomed island. Madam Blavatsky states he was a survivor from Atlantis!