Countering The Aryan Invasion Theory

[Guest guest]

A subject in which I have recently developed quite an interest is the growing

rejection among scholars of the idea that the classical Vedic civilization of

ancient India ever was the product of "Aryan invaders" from outside the Indian

subcontinent in the first place.

 

I've read some of the literature and, like the apparently increasing number of

responsible researchers who call this traditional notion into doubt, I think it

is entirely plausible that the historically Western concept of an alien "Aryan

Race" leaving its permanent imprint upon India culture and religion (the "Aryan

Invasion Theory", in brief) by way of invasion and subjugation of an indigenous

people is little more than a product of the Eurocentric bias of nineteenth

century historians and archaeologists, the dominance of whose views persisted

well into the twentieth century, and which have been embraced, at least in part,

by some Indians as well.

 

I certainly have much more to learn on this point. For those who may find this

topic interesting, I've included two links to articles which attempt to refute

the theory. (Additional relevant articles can be linked from either one of

these.) The first is entitled "Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory" by Dr.

Dinesh Agrawal, and the link to the full article follows a brief excerpt in

which he discusses the true meaning of the term "Arya":

 

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_agrawal.html

 

An article by David Frawley entitled "The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy" is

likewise fascinating in its examination of the extent to which the fostering of

hostility between the inhabitants of Northern India and those of Southern India

may have simply been part of the "divide and conquer" ideology and policies of

British Imperialism.

 

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley_1.html

 

Perhpas these essays can serve to generate more light--and less heat. Any

thoughts or comments?

[Guest guest]

21 years ago, Zecharia Sitchin (linguistic scholar & historian of ancient

Hebrew, Sumerian, Akkadian, and other early Mesopotamian civilizations)

published

The 12Th Planet (1976) which discusses the periodic return to our solar

system of a large, red planet called Nibiru by ancient Sumerian historians (and

Marduk by the Babylonians). Nibiru was home to a race of war-prone hominids

referred to in ancient texts by either their earlier Sumerian name of Anunnaki

or

their later Hebrew name of Nefilim (the word Nefilim is mentioned repeatedly in

the Bible). The Anunnaki are described as handsome, well developed human

look-a-likes who are physically larger than humans; averaging 10-15 feet tall.

While the rank and file astronauts who first came to Earth were called Anunnaki

by Sumerian historians, the ruling royalty were always referred to as gods. The

Anunnaki were technologically capable of interplanetary space travel when

they first arrived on Earth about 450,00 years ago.

 

Nibiru was called the 12Th Planet by the ancients because it is a member of

our solar system (ancients included the Moon and Sun as planets). However,

unlike the other planets in our solar system, which are in a singular orbit

around

the sun, Nibiru is in a binary orbit (Z) between two suns: our sun and

another cold {unlit} sun far out in our galaxy.

 

Nibiru returns to our solar system approximately every 3,600 years. Nibiru is

sometimes referred to as the red comet or red star in some ancient texts (and

the 19th century channeled work, the Oahspe). Sitchin explains in his book

that the 3,600 year periodic cycle of Nibiru is called a Shar or Sar by Sumerian

historians. While a single shar occupies a time span of a little more than

3,600 years on Earth, it is equivalent to one year on the planet Nibiru. All

told, ancient Sumerian clay tablets and cylinder seals record a total period of

occupation/visitation by the Anunnaki of over 124 Shars. Sitchin provides

compelling historical evidence that the Anunnaki actively participated in the

affairs of mankind up to the final destruction of the great city of Sumer in

Mesopotamia, about 2,000BC. The Anunnaki's original objective in coming to Earth

was

to mine for Gold; an element they atomically dispersed in their atmosphere in

order to prevent core-produced heat from dissipating excessively into space.

Since 99% of Nibiru's orbital cycle is too far from our sun to benefit from

its heat, it has to retain its internally generated heat in order to survive The

Anunnaki first extracted gold from the waters of the Persian Gulf area, but

later switched to land mining in South Africa and other locations due to

greater abundance of gold ore.

[Guest guest]

> the growing rejection among scholars

>of the idea that the classical Vedic civilization of

>ancient India ever was the product of "Aryan

>invaders" from outside the Indian subcontinent in the

>first place.

 

This is an inaccurate representation of the theory.

The theory states that ancient Indian civilization

resulted from the fusion of ideas entering India from

the Northwest with the religion of the peoples who

were already in India when these outsiders arrived.

Each contributed important elements. Much of the

mythology came from outside, while the more important

spiritual beliefs and yogic practices originated

within India. So the stories about Brahma and Krishna

and these other gods came from one source, whereas the

infinitely more important spirituality was probably

practiced in India thousands of years before these

people from Central Asia climbed over the mountains

into India.

I ask you one question: which of these two aspects

of Hinduism do Europeans and Americans find more

understandable? The mythology, certainly, because it

is similar to their own mythology. If you talk to them

about Rama and the cowgirls, they grasp your point

immediately. If, however, you talk to them about

yantras and mantras and chakras and such, they look at

you as if you are insane. Such things are totally

unknown to them.

I have read some of the literature that you

suggest. I find it to be just as biased and unreliable

as the European writings that you attack.

 

Sister Usha Devi

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

söndagen den 27 juli 2003 15.02 skrev Sister Usha Devi:

> I ask you one question: which of these two aspects

> of Hinduism do Europeans and Americans find more

> understandable? The mythology, certainly, because it

> is similar to their own mythology. If you talk to them

> about Rama and the cowgirls, they grasp your point

> immediately. If, however, you talk to them about

> yantras and mantras and chakras and such, they look at

> you as if you are insane. Such things are totally

> unknown to them.

 

My experience is different. I find that westeners have very much harder to

understand the "mythology" properly, than to understand chakras and so on.

Westeners are mechanistic, and chakras, yantras, etc. are tools, and they can

thus somehow grasp it. To understand that the body has subtle channels and

chakras, is not much harder than to crasp that the body has channels that the

blood can circle throught, and inner organs. But the other concepts are much

more alien to western thinking. Westeners might think that they understand

the whole system of gods, demigods etc, but that is a kind of illusion, since

normally they appear totally clueless. Just look at the idea about Indian

polyteism. That's how it appears to a westener. It is somewhere on the path

to personal aspects of subtle energy, that they get lost. And then, show me

the westener that even can being to understand the concept of brahman.

 

Practicing of yoga, purifying the chakras, and whatever, is a path to

understanding the spiritual subjects. It is not the final end. Just as the

blood vessels and medical science is not the end of human existence.

 

As for the cowherd girls, that obviously is a description that is adapted

towards the Indian culture, to make the concepts easier to understand. For a

westener, who have no idea what a cowherd girl is, it makes no sense, and

they will surely misunderstand it. Better to use another concept for

westeners.

 

Now, in the subtle, spiritual realm, there can be as many cows, cowherds, and

whatever as you want to. So it is not a bad concept. It might just be easily

misunderstood. It is not really about cows as we know them.

 

disclaimer:

This is my vision, and how I see it. That does not mean that anyone else will

see it in the same way, or that this is the only "right" way of seeing it

all. It is just one way.

 

Prisni d.

[Guest guest]

Just a comment: With westener I mean a normal westener on the street,

untrained in (Indian) spiritual concepts.

 

Prisni