The Unfounded Aryan Invasion Theory .

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, Your query is based on the theory of ‘Aryan Invasion’ which was the creation of pseudo-scholars of western colonialism . The Unfounded Theory of “Aryan Invasion” .

Prof. Edmund Leach, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, has aptly written : “Why do serious scholars persist in believing in the Aryan invasions? (…) Why is this sort of thing attractive? Who finds it attractive? Why has the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically associated with an Aryan invasion? (…) The details of this theory fit in with this

racist framework (…) The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’ civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated kind was already nearly 6,000 years old. Here I will only remark that the hold of this myth on the British middle-class imagination is so strong that even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation of an independent India and independent Pakistan the Aryan invasions of the second millennium BC are still treated as if they were an established fact of history” . One of the strategies of the 'invasionists', has been to avoid debate altogether by dismissing their adversaries as Hindu chauvinists and cranks. Even a decade ago, a scholar raising questions about the truth of the Aryan invasion would have been hard pressed to find an audience, much less a platform . Often their 'refutations' of challenges to the theory were little more than 'haughty dismissals'. To get back to the Aryan invasion, the study of ancient India, at least in the modern Western sense, may be said to have begun with Sir William Jones in the late 18th century. One of Jones's discoveries was that Indian languages - Sanskrit in particular - and European languages are related . To account for this, European scholars, the most famous of whom was F. Max Müller, proposed an invasion of 'Aryans' from the Eurasian steppes. There were other currents - like colonial politics and Christian missionary interests - that need not detain us here. He assigned a date of 1500 BC for the invasion and 1200 BC for the

composition of the Rigveda . The reason for the date was his firm belief in the Biblical chronology that assigned 23 October 4004 BC for the Creation and c. 2448 for Noah's Flood, though he sought to give other - equally fanciful - explanations. Though their knowledge of the Vedas and the Sanskrit language was limited, European scholars contrived to find and interpret a few passages in the Vedas as the record of the invasion of fair skinned Aryans and their victory over the dark skinned natives . In other words, the Aryan invaders were colonisers like themselves . As often the case, such theories tell us more about the people who

created them than history. With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization in 1921 - greater in extent than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia combined - archaeological data also became available, which could now be used in the study of ancient India . But no systematic effort was made to connect archaeological data with the ancient Indian literature . On the other hand, the entrenched Aryan invasion theory led most scholars to keep Harappan archaeology and ancient Indian literature permanently separated - a situation that persists to

this day . This has created a strange situation : the Harappans, the creators of the greatest material civilisation of antiquity, have no literary or historical context . On the other hand, the Vedic Aryans, the creators of the greatest literature the world has ever known have no archaeological or even geographical existence . As a result, after more than two centuries, the subject called Indology has no foundation to speak of ; what we have

instead is little more than a collection of views and ad-hoc theories that often contradict one another . When people began applying scientific methods to the abundant data that is now available, highlighted contradictions and pointed out the limitations of comparative linguistics for technical problems like Vedic chronology and the decipherment of the Harappan script, it aroused hostile reaction. Scholars like Wakankar, Sethna, Frawley, Natwar Jha and others that have looked at the data from an empirical viewpoint have impressive achievements . They include the mapping of the Saraswati river, highlighting the maritime basis of Vedic society, showing

mathematical and other connections between Vedic India and West Asia and Egypt, and, above all, the decipherment of the Harappan script . The last achievement, mainly the work of Jha led also to the decipherment of what has been called the 'World's oldest writing'. The result is that we now have a historical context for the Harappans linking archaeology and the Vedic literature. This leads to a quantum jump in our understanding of ancient history. When we look at the contributions of the invasionist school, we find hardly anything that could not be - or has not been - written a century ago. Where nineteenth century scholars brought the Aryans from Eurasia or even Europe, some today bring them from Bactria or the 'Kurgan' in the Pontic region ; where Bishop Caldwell a hundred years ago brought the Dravidians from Scythia, Bernard Sergent today brings them from Africa. The contrasts are equally striking when we compare the efforts to read the Indus seals. Father Heras thought it was Proto Dravidian but ended up using Tamil ; so did Asko Parpola. Malati Shengde claimed it was

Akkadian, from which she tried to derive Sanskrit ! And yet, all of them combined could not read a syllable of the Harappan writing . At the heart of this lies an attachment to a methodology - an unwillingness to accept failure in the face of evidence . When they run into a contradiction, they simply dismiss the evidence . Bernard Sergent, for example, dismisses evidence pointing to a major ecological catastrophe as the cause of the rapid collapse of the Harappan civilization . Instead he opts for an economic crisis following the Aryan invasion . (A great natural calamity invariably leads to economic crisis - witness Turkey after the recent earthquake.) It is not so easy to dismiss scientific data. The documented record of a three hundred-year drought was the possible cause of the collapse of the Harappan Civilization . We now know that it was a meteor impact c. 2350 BC that was the direct cause of the drought that ended ancient civilizations . In fact, the study of such meteor impacts is leading to fuller

understanding of the ending of the last Ice Age that led to the rise of civilisations. We cannot simply ignore all this and hold on forever to nineteenth century models and methods conceived at a time when none of this was known. The available ancient astronomical records is the best source or anyone interested in a summary of ancient astronomy and its implications. It vides a lucid summary of the salient points, while refuting the scientifically unsupportable charge of 'back calculation'.

The crucial point to note is that astronomical data are systematically consistent : they do not for example place the Rigveda before the Brahmanas or Kalidasa before the Mahabharata. All this brings us back to the baseless Aryan invasion theory . Since its advocates can no longer avoid debate with 'haughty dismissals', and those in India at least can no longer depend on government patronage that sustained them for fifty years, it is difficult to see how they can continue monopolising the establishment . Continuity between Indra and Shiva Once Indra had been identified by the AIT ( Aryan

Invasion Theory) as a deified tribal leader of the invaders, an antagonism was elaborated between the “Aryan” sky-god Indra and the “pre-Aryan” fertility god Shiva ; Indra being the winner of the initial military confrontation, but Shiva having the last laugh by gradually winning over the conquerors to the cult of the subdued natives. Once a Catholic priest from Kerala claimed, “Shiva is not a Hindu god, because he is the god of the pre-Aryans.” That Shiva was the god of the Harappans, is based on a single Harappan finding, the so-called Pashupati seal . It depicts a man with a strange headwear sitting in lotus posture and surrounded by animals . Though not well visible, He seems to have three faces, which may mean that He is a three-faced god (like the famous three-faced Shiva sculpture in the Elephanta cave), or that He is a four-faced god with the back face undepictable on a two-dimensional surface. The common speculation is that this is Shiva in his Pashupati (“lord of beasts”) aspect . Ever since the discovery of the Gundestrup cauldron in Central Europe, which depicts the Celtic horned god Cernunnos similarly seated between animals, this Pashupati seal is actually an argument in favour of the IE character of Harappan culture. Let us, nevertheless, go with the common opinion : Shiva for the Harappans, Indra for the Aryans. Those who see it this way have never explained why the dominant Aryans have, over the centuries, abandoned their victorious god (Indra is practically not worshipped in any of the Vedic temples manned by Brahminical priests) in favour of the god of their defeated enemies. At any rate, when we study these two divine characters, we find that they are not all that antagonistic . Shiva is the Vedic god Rudra (Shambhu) . It so happens that Indra’s and Rudra’s domains are more or less the same : both are thundering sky gods. Christians who picture Jesus as the friend of the outcasts, may like to know that the despised “Aryan

racist god” Indra is in fact on the side of the outcasts: “Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12) As David Frawley has shown, Indra has many epithets and attributes which were later associated with Shiva: the dispeller of fear, the lord of mAyA (enchantment), the bull, the dancer, the destroyer of cities (Indra purandara, Shiva tripurahara) . Both are associated with mountains, rivers, male fertility, fierceness, fearlessness, warfare, transgression of established mores, the Aum sound, the Supreme Self. Indra is praised as having a tremendous appetite for the psychedelic soma juice. Shiva has Soma-Shiva as one of his aspects, a name containing one of those Brahminical etymology games: Soma is the Vedic intoxicant, and also the moon (as in SomwAr, “Monday”), which is part of Shiva’s iconography (hence his, epithet SomanAtha). The now-popular theory that Shiva is a non-Vedic and anti-Vedic god, is partly based on the Puranic story

of the destruction of Daksha’s sacrifice. Daksha is the father of Shiva’s beloved Sati : he rebukes Shiva, Sati commits suicide, and Shiva vents his anger by disturbing the sacrifice which Daksha is conducting. Daksha refuses to worship Shiva because Shiva is vedabAhya, “outside the Vedas” ; as in a fit of anger, mortals also call their relatives all kinds of inaccurate names. As David Frawley shows, the Daksha story is quite parallel to the Vedic story of Indra stealing the soma from Twashtr and even killing the latter, and to the Vedic story of Rudra killing Prajapati. In each case, a god who disrupts or “destroys” the world order, is seen to defeat a god representing the process of creation, which is equated with the process of the Vedic sacrifice (the Creator creates the world by sacrificing). The destroyer-god, himself a cornerstone of the created world, disrupts the creative sacrifice. David Frawley restores these stories to their traditional metaphysical interpretation : “Both Indra’s and Shiva’s role of destroying Prajapati or his son relate to their role as eternity (absolute time) destroying time or the year (relative time) represented by Prajapati and the sacrifice.” The physical explanation given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak is in consonance with modem insights into mythology, viz. that the victory of the one god over the other may simply refer to the replacement of one constellation by the next as the stellar location of the equinox. The outsider role of Shiva in the Puranic pantheon is the continuation of Indra’s role in the Vedic pantheon, which in turn is only the Indian version of a role which exists in the other IE pantheons as well, e.g. the Germanic fire god Loki or the Greco-Roman warrior-god Ares/Mars. Shiva also continues Indra’s role of warrior-god . Till today, many Shiva sadhus are proficient in the martial arts. The Shaiva war-cry Hara Hara Mahadev is still used by some regiments of the Indian army as well as by Hindu demonstrators during communal confrontations. Finally, Shiva, “the auspicious one”, is an epithet of not only Rudra but of Vedic gods in general. Indra himself is called shiva several times (Rg-Veda 2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). Shiva is by no means a non-Vedic god, and Indra never really disappeared from popular Hinduism but lives on under another name . Om Namo Bhagavate

Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev------- Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Rajeev Prabhu, Hare Krishna humble respects. Good article by Swami Narasinga. I have a few questions... MAybe I should have written

straight to Maharaj, but I do not know HH's email id. Talking of the religions east of Indus. It is still maintained by many groups that of the South that, there was a form of Dravidan religion which dominated South India. Later on the Brahmins and Aryans overpwered them and mixed and matched their own religion with that of the Dravidians. They even claim that the Shiva they worshipped is different from the Shambu of the Vedas. They have nothing to do with the Vedas. Their religious practices even pre-date that of the Vedas. I am looking for a scientific analysis of this claim, from a qualified Vaishnava. My intention is not to disprove anything. Humble respects Abhilash suda sangaran <sudmail wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. From: "srikrishnadasa_rajeev" <srikrishnadasa_rajeevSun, 24 Sep 2006 08:34:03 -0000 The True Religion is not Man-made (Written by : Swamy B.G.Narasingha .) Hare Krishna , During a recent visit to Europe, I had some informal discussions about religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas . and I was surprised to hear some devotees speak about such groups as the Sufis, Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims as being deeply 'surrendered' souls. Of course, generally speaking this may be true - but surrendered to what? I would like to point out in this article that sraddha [faith], saranagati [surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to Krishna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in ancient times.The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God himself - dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic relationship that exists between Krishna and all living entities eternally. This is sometimes called `sanatana-dharma' , eternal religious principles. In a word `sanatana-dharma' has been summed up as seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme Being. Therefore, so-called service to various Deities or to icons that

are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true sense of the word.Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of spirituality in India that, "At present many false meanings have been imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to man, obedience to the teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928) .In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all sorts of misconceptions andinnovations have also been passed off as spiritual practices, devotion, service, love of God, etc, when in fact they are not.In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka, Ch.1 as

follows :"The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj . It is said in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3) :bhaj ityesa vai dhatuhsevayam parikirtitahtasmat seva budhaih proktabhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi" The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful `sadhakas' should engage in the service of Sri Krishna with great endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born ."The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul [atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead [bhagavan] . In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul or the Personality of Godhead exists in the world's popular mundane religions . Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the popular mundane religions as transcendental .Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west,

Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows :"Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure is fundamental to all these religions . Unlike the transcendental words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal . Therefore, one who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt about them since they lack a solid foundation ." (Sarasvati Thakura, purport, Cc. Adi17.169) . Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose seva . First surrender, then serve : tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya . This surrender means far more than one's strict obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or thought . Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krishna and not to that of anything else . First surrender [pranipatena] then serving mood [sevaya] manifests . And to surrender one must have faith, sraddha .If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so-called belief is only a temporary state of mind fabricated under the modes of material nature . Such a mental belief system is not to be confused with sraddha .Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of nature . Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the living entity the path of devotional service, Krishna-bhakti . Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in hisMahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10

..The definition of sraddha is this :sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscayakrsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya" By performing transcendental loving service to Krishna, one automatically performs all secondary activities . This confident, firm faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is known as sraddha." (Cc. Madhya 22.62) .To have firm conviction that devotion to Krishna is the only means for the living entity, and that performance of karma and jnana devoid of bhakti are useless . Such a favorable inclination of the heart is called sraddha .Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates

from the internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi . This energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krishna and therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any lesser Gods or Masters . As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krishna."Sraddha reveals Krishna [Visnu] and no other . However, if one finds oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those of the Abrahamic

tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha .In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's greatest Acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm conviction that by serving Krishna all other purposes will be served .The numerous so-called religions of the world that exist outside the Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real connection to the Absolute Truth . Over time the proponents of these major world religions have done much harm to the world anddeceived a multitude of people by engaging them in impious activities and all in the name of 'good faith.'If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion one will discover that all contemporary religious

thought has originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome theology but rather as a Vedic heresy . The first heresy of this kind was Zoroastrianism that gained afollowing in the western frontiers of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was written .Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the Vedas . Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras [demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity. Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka :"Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a

very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran . It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran . Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a 'Trinity' made its appearance in the religion [Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion "."At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this, so they made a compromise

stating that these three concocted gods were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura,Tattva-viveka 1/21) .Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in approximately 500 BCE, the Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea . In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god of the Mountains or the god of Abraham . The idea that there is one Supreme God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who the Supreme God was eluded them .Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient world had been pagan in their beliefs . From monotheism, first being introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed and then Islam developed along those lines . But in no case was the nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known .In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation of Jesus . These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should becautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to the opinions of previous Acaryas .Thus, all the so-called religions west of the

Indus River can rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in the name of the Protestant Church and New Age Religions . Unfortunately, none of these said heresiesrepresent the Supreme Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the ultimate goal of

life. Swamy B.G.Narasingha Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji , The very concept of ‘Aryan Invasion’ is foreign to Vedic religion . We can’t find any indication of AIT in the Vedic scriptures including Bhavishya Purana ( which accurately predicts the future events related to even Jesus and Islam) .

The latest scriptural update ‘Narayaneeyam’ ( which has the stamp of approval of Sri Krishna Himself) doesn’t mention anything about AIT . Paramacharya Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi , the greatest Sage of recent times ; who was widely acknowledged as a divine personality ; in His write-ups has dismissed ‘Aryan Invasion’ as absolutely fake and the hand work of European colonialists to

create divisions within Hinduism . I agree with you that , there are differences in the religious practices of North and South Indians . But if we look closely into the religious practices of various sects of South Indians themselves, we can’t find much uniformity . This is mainly due to the freedom ‘Vedic religion’ is providing to it’s followers

.. I also agree that Shiva’s image is contradictory at times . Shiva is a ‘tamasvic’ manifestation of Maha-Vishnu ; and His followers at times don’t adhere to the requirements of Vedas. There are many interpretations on this aspect . The social reformer Sri Narayana Guru once stated that Shiva was

initially a tribal leader whose great qualities later attained him Godly status . There all are different versions like this , which can’t be corroborated by vedic scriptures . As a Vaishnava , I believe 100% in the truthfulness of ancient Rsis of Bharatha Varsha . They were not the ones to manipulate the sacred concepts for personal gains . In Christianity it happened with Old Testament

being modified as New Testament , just to suit with the taste of the followers . Vedic scriptures are not man made and are absolutely eternal . In reality , they are the literary incarnations of Bhagavan Narayana . Regarding the prominence of ‘Indra’ and his equation with Shiva , please note that the

reference was totally based on Rg Veda . Earlier , I had answered to your question on AIT on the basis of the write-ups of impartial researchers . In Vedic scriptures, we don’t have any portion that mention about ‘Aryan Invasion’ . In my opinion , we should believe the words of the great Paramacharya . Finally , as a humble servant of Bhagavan Sri Krishna and HIS beloved Vaishnavas , and based on my humble understanding of Gita and Bhagavatham, may I humbly remind you that , Krishna has given utmost importance to Brahmanas and Rsis . Bhagavan’s devotees are required not to suspect the credentials of the mentioned authorities of Vedic Santana Dharma . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev -----------------------------Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Dear Prabhu, Thankyou for the reply. Possibly the Aryans did not come from outside India. They might have been a

mightier group within Bharat Varsha. So, Max Muller & his AIT, is not the point. My point of confusion is that still there is a huge possibility that there were many religions paralelly existing in Bharat. And it could be that Vedic religion adopted Shambu, into Vedas? Vedic religion ate up the other smaller religions? And it claimed to be eternal dharma!! There are so many visible differences in the religious following of the North and South of India. This is another reason for my question. Something surprising in the article you send is the equation "Shiva = Indra"!!! Regards Abhilash SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, Your query is based on the theory of ‘Aryan Invasion’ which was the creation of pseudo-scholars of western colonialism . The Unfounded Theory of “Aryan Invasion” . Prof. Edmund Leach, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, has aptly written : “Why do serious scholars persist in believing in the Aryan invasions? (…) Why is this sort of thing attractive? Who finds it attractive? Why has the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically associated with an Aryan invasion? (…) The details of this theory fit in with this racist framework (…) The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’

civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated kind was already nearly 6,000 years old. Here I will only remark that the hold of this myth on the British middle-class imagination is so strong that even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation of an independent India and independent Pakistan the Aryan invasions of the second millennium BC are still treated as if they were an established fact of history” . One of the strategies of the 'invasionists', has been to avoid debate altogether by

dismissing their adversaries as Hindu chauvinists and cranks. Even a decade ago, a scholar raising questions about the truth of the Aryan invasion would have been hard pressed to find an audience, much less a platform . Often their 'refutations' of challenges to the theory were little more than 'haughty dismissals'. To get back to the Aryan invasion, the study of ancient India, at least in the modern Western sense, may be said to have begun with Sir William Jones in the late 18th century. One of Jones's discoveries was that Indian languages - Sanskrit in particular - and European languages are related . To account for this, European scholars, the most famous of whom was F. Max Müller, proposed an invasion of 'Aryans' from the Eurasian steppes. There were other currents - like colonial politics and Christian missionary interests - that need not detain us here. He assigned a date of 1500 BC for the invasion and 1200 BC for the composition of the Rigveda . The reason for the date was his firm belief in the Biblical chronology that

assigned 23 October 4004 BC for the Creation and c. 2448 for Noah's Flood, though he sought to give other - equally fanciful - explanations. Though their knowledge of the Vedas and the Sanskrit language was limited, European scholars contrived to find and interpret a few passages in the Vedas as the record of the invasion of fair skinned Aryans and their victory over the dark skinned natives . In other words, the Aryan invaders were colonisers like themselves . As often the case, such theories tell us more about the people who created them than history. With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization in 1921 - greater in extent than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia combined - archaeological data also became available, which could now be used in the study of ancient India . But no systematic effort was made to connect archaeological data with the ancient Indian literature . On the other hand, the entrenched Aryan invasion theory led most scholars to keep Harappan archaeology and ancient Indian literature permanently separated - a situation that persists to this day . This has created a strange situation : the Harappans, the

creators of the greatest material civilisation of antiquity, have no literary or historical context . On the other hand, the Vedic Aryans, the creators of the greatest literature the world has ever known have no archaeological or even geographical existence . As a result, after more than two centuries, the subject called Indology has no foundation to speak of ; what we have instead is little more than a collection of views and ad-hoc theories that often contradict one another . When

people began applying scientific methods to the abundant data that is now available, highlighted contradictions and pointed out the limitations of comparative linguistics for technical problems like Vedic chronology and the decipherment of the Harappan script, it aroused hostile reaction. Scholars like Wakankar, Sethna, Frawley, Natwar Jha and others that have looked at the data from an empirical viewpoint have impressive achievements . They include the mapping of the Saraswati river, highlighting the maritime basis of Vedic society, showing mathematical and other connections between Vedic India and West Asia and Egypt, and, above all, the decipherment of the Harappan script . The last achievement, mainly the work of Jha led also to the decipherment of what has been called the 'World's oldest writing'. The result is that we now have a historical context for the Harappans linking archaeology and the Vedic literature. This leads to a quantum jump in our understanding of ancient history. When we look at the contributions of the invasionist school, we find hardly anything that could not be - or has not been - written a

century ago. Where nineteenth century scholars brought the Aryans from Eurasia or even Europe, some today bring them from Bactria or the 'Kurgan' in the Pontic region ; where Bishop Caldwell a hundred years ago brought the Dravidians from Scythia, Bernard Sergent today brings them from Africa. The contrasts are equally striking when we compare the efforts to read the Indus seals. Father Heras thought it was Proto Dravidian but ended up using Tamil ; so did Asko Parpola. Malati Shengde claimed it was Akkadian, from which she tried to derive Sanskrit ! And yet, all of them combined could not read a syllable of the Harappan

writing . At the heart of this lies an attachment to a methodology - an unwillingness to accept failure in the face of evidence . When they run into a contradiction, they simply dismiss the evidence . Bernard Sergent, for example, dismisses evidence pointing to a major ecological catastrophe as the cause of the rapid collapse of the Harappan civilization . Instead he opts for an economic crisis following the Aryan invasion . (A great natural

calamity invariably leads to economic crisis - witness Turkey after the recent earthquake.) It is not so easy to dismiss scientific data. The documented record of a three hundred-year drought was the possible cause of the collapse of the Harappan Civilization . We now know that it was a meteor impact c. 2350 BC that was the direct cause of the drought that ended ancient civilizations . In fact, the study of such meteor impacts is leading to fuller understanding of the ending of the last Ice Age that led to the rise of civilisations. We cannot simply ignore all this and hold on

forever to nineteenth century models and methods conceived at a time when none of this was known. The available ancient astronomical records is the best source or anyone interested in a summary of ancient astronomy and its implications. It vides a lucid summary of the salient points, while refuting the scientifically unsupportable charge of 'back calculation'. The crucial point to note is that astronomical data are systematically consistent : they do not for example place the Rigveda

before the Brahmanas or Kalidasa before the Mahabharata. All this brings us back to the baseless Aryan invasion theory . Since its advocates can no longer avoid debate with 'haughty dismissals', and those in India at least can no longer depend on government patronage that sustained them for fifty years, it is difficult to see how they can continue

monopolising the establishment . Continuity between Indra and Shiva Once Indra had been identified by the AIT ( Aryan Invasion Theory) as a deified tribal leader of the invaders, an antagonism was elaborated between the “Aryan” sky-god Indra and the

“pre-Aryan” fertility god Shiva ; Indra being the winner of the initial military confrontation, but Shiva having the last laugh by gradually winning over the conquerors to the cult of the subdued natives. Once a Catholic priest from Kerala claimed, “Shiva is not a Hindu god, because he is the god of the pre-Aryans.” That Shiva was the god of the Harappans, is based on a single Harappan finding, the so-called Pashupati seal . It depicts a man with a strange headwear sitting in lotus posture and surrounded by animals . Though not well visible, He seems to have three faces, which may mean that He is a three-faced god (like the famous three-faced Shiva sculpture in the Elephanta cave), or that He is a four-faced god with the back face undepictable on a two-dimensional surface. The common speculation is that this is Shiva in his Pashupati (“lord of beasts”) aspect . Ever since the

discovery of the Gundestrup cauldron in Central Europe, which depicts the Celtic horned god Cernunnos similarly seated between animals, this Pashupati seal is actually an argument in favour of the IE character of Harappan culture. Let us, nevertheless, go with the common opinion : Shiva for the Harappans, Indra for the Aryans. Those who see it this way have never explained why the dominant Aryans have, over the centuries, abandoned their victorious god (Indra is practically not worshipped in any of the Vedic temples manned by Brahminical priests) in favour of the god of their defeated enemies. At any rate, when we study these two divine characters, we find that they are not all that antagonistic . Shiva is the Vedic god Rudra (Shambhu) . It so happens that Indra’s and Rudra’s domains are more or less the same : both are thundering sky gods. Christians who picture Jesus as the friend of the outcasts, may like to know that the despised “Aryan racist god” Indra is in fact on the side of the outcasts: “Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and

the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12) As David Frawley has shown, Indra has many epithets and attributes which were later associated with Shiva: the dispeller of fear, the lord of mAyA (enchantment), the bull, the dancer, the destroyer of cities (Indra purandara, Shiva tripurahara) . Both are associated with mountains, rivers, male fertility, fierceness, fearlessness, warfare, transgression of established mores, the Aum sound, the Supreme Self. Indra is praised as having a tremendous appetite for the psychedelic soma juice. Shiva has Soma-Shiva as one of his aspects, a name containing one of those Brahminical etymology games: Soma is the Vedic intoxicant, and also the moon (as in SomwAr, “Monday”), which is part of Shiva’s iconography (hence his, epithet SomanAtha). The now-popular theory that Shiva is a non-Vedic and anti-Vedic god, is partly based on the Puranic story of the destruction of Daksha’s sacrifice. Daksha is the father of Shiva’s beloved Sati : he rebukes Shiva,

Sati commits suicide, and Shiva vents his anger by disturbing the sacrifice which Daksha is conducting. Daksha refuses to worship Shiva because Shiva is vedabAhya, “outside the Vedas” ; as in a fit of anger, mortals also call their relatives all kinds of inaccurate names. As David Frawley shows, the Daksha story is quite parallel to the Vedic story of Indra stealing the soma from Twashtr and even killing the latter, and to the Vedic story of Rudra killing Prajapati. In each case, a god who disrupts or “destroys” the world order, is seen to defeat a god representing the process of creation, which is equated with the process of the Vedic sacrifice (the Creator creates the world by sacrificing). The destroyer-god, himself a cornerstone of the created world, disrupts the creative sacrifice. David Frawley restores these stories to their traditional metaphysical interpretation : “Both Indra’s and Shiva’s role of

destroying Prajapati or his son relate to their role as eternity (absolute time) destroying time or the year (relative time) represented by Prajapati and the sacrifice.” The physical explanation given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak is in consonance with modem insights into mythology, viz. that the victory of the one god over the other may simply refer to the replacement of one constellation by the next as the stellar location of the equinox. The outsider role of Shiva in the Puranic pantheon is the continuation of Indra’s role in the Vedic pantheon, which in turn is only the Indian version of a role which exists in the other IE pantheons as well, e.g. the Germanic fire god Loki or the Greco-Roman warrior-god Ares/Mars. Shiva also continues Indra’s role of warrior-god . Till today, many Shiva sadhus are proficient in the martial arts. The Shaiva war-cry Hara Hara Mahadev is still used by some regiments of the Indian army as well as by Hindu demonstrators during communal

confrontations. Finally, Shiva, “the auspicious one”, is an epithet of not only Rudra but of Vedic gods in general. Indra himself is called shiva several times (Rg-Veda 2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). Shiva is by no means a non-Vedic god, and Indra never really disappeared from popular Hinduism but lives on under another name . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev------- Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Rajeev Prabhu, Hare Krishna humble respects. Good article by Swami Narasinga. I have a few questions... MAybe I should have written straight to Maharaj, but I do not know HH's email id. Talking of the religions east of Indus. It is still maintained by many groups that of the South that, there was a

form of Dravidan religion which dominated South India. Later on the Brahmins and Aryans overpwered them and mixed and matched their own religion with that of the Dravidians. They even claim that the Shiva they worshipped is different from the Shambu of the Vedas. They have nothing to do with the Vedas. Their religious practices even pre-date that of the Vedas. I am looking for a scientific analysis of this claim, from a qualified Vaishnava. My intention is not to disprove anything. Humble respects Abhilash suda sangaran <sudmail wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small

Business. From: "srikrishnadasa_rajeev" <srikrishnadasa_rajeevSun, 24 Sep 2006 08:34:03 -0000 The True Religion is not Man-made (Written by : Swamy B.G.Narasingha .) Hare Krishna , During a recent visit to Europe, I had some informal discussions about religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas . and I was surprised to hear some devotees speak about such groups as the Sufis, Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims as being deeply 'surrendered' souls. Of course, generally speaking this may be true - but surrendered to what? I would like to point out in this article that sraddha [faith], saranagati [surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to Krishna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in

ancient times.The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God himself - dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic relationship that exists between Krishna and all living entities eternally. This is sometimes called `sanatana-dharma' , eternal religious principles. In a word `sanatana-dharma' has been summed up as seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme Being. Therefore, so-called service to various Deities or to icons that are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true sense of the word.Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of spirituality in

India that, "At present many false meanings have been imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to man, obedience to the teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928) .In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all sorts of misconceptions andinnovations have also been passed off as spiritual practices, devotion, service, love of God, etc, when in fact they are not.In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka, Ch.1 as follows :"The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj . It is said in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3) :bhaj ityesa vai

dhatuhsevayam parikirtitahtasmat seva budhaih proktabhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi" The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful `sadhakas' should engage in the service of Sri Krishna with great endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born ."The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul [atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead [bhagavan] . In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul or the Personality of Godhead exists in the world's popular mundane religions . Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the popular mundane religions as transcendental .Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west, Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows :"Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure is fundamental to all these religions . Unlike

the transcendental words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal . Therefore, one who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt about them since they lack a solid foundation ." (Sarasvati Thakura, purport, Cc. Adi17.169) . Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose seva . First surrender, then serve : tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya . This surrender means far more than one's strict obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or thought . Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krishna and not to that of anything else . First surrender [pranipatena] then serving mood [sevaya] manifests . And to surrender

one must have faith, sraddha .If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so-called belief is only a temporary state of mind fabricated under the modes of material nature . Such a mental belief system is not to be confused with sraddha .Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of nature . Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the living entity the path of devotional service, Krishna-bhakti . Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in hisMahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10 .The definition of sraddha is this :sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscayakrsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya" By performing transcendental loving service to

Krishna, one automatically performs all secondary activities . This confident, firm faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is known as sraddha." (Cc. Madhya 22.62) .To have firm conviction that devotion to Krishna is the only means for the living entity, and that performance of karma and jnana devoid of bhakti are useless . Such a favorable inclination of the heart is called sraddha .Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates from the internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi . This energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krishna and therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any lesser Gods or Masters . As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krishna."Sraddha reveals Krishna [Visnu] and no other . However, if one finds oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those of the Abrahamic tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha .In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's

greatest Acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm conviction that by serving Krishna all other purposes will be served .The numerous so-called religions of the world that exist outside the Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real connection to the Absolute Truth . Over time the proponents of these major world religions have done much harm to the world anddeceived a multitude of people by engaging them in impious activities and all in the name of 'good faith.'If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion one will discover that all contemporary religious thought has originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome theology but rather as a Vedic heresy . The

first heresy of this kind was Zoroastrianism that gained afollowing in the western frontiers of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was written .Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the Vedas . Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras [demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity. Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka :"Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran . It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran . Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a 'Trinity' made its appearance in the religion [Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion "."At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this, so they made a compromise stating that these three concocted gods were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura,Tattva-viveka 1/21) .Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in

approximately 500 BCE, the Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea . In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god of the Mountains or the god of Abraham . The idea that there is one Supreme God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who the Supreme God was eluded them .Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient

world had been pagan in their beliefs . From monotheism, first being introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed and then Islam developed along those lines . But in no case was the nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known .In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation of Jesus . These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should becautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to the opinions of previous Acaryas .Thus, all the so-called religions west of the Indus River can rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in the name of the Protestant Church and New Age Religions . Unfortunately, none of these said heresiesrepresent the Supreme Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the ultimate goal of life. Swamy B.G.Narasingha Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, I am very happy to know about your rejection of Arayan Invasion Theory . The Mc aulay’s education system based on AIT , is the root cause of divisions within Hinduism . This education system was implemented by the British , in accordance with their ‘divide and rule’ policy . Regarding your observation on Dravidian system and related non-vedic practices beoing followed by certain sections of people , my opinion is the following : If we check the history we can find that , the demonic personalities like Ravana had defied the Vedic scriptures to

cultivate own religious practices . Although he had good knowledge of the Vedas, Ravana refused to abide by it and developed an anti-vedic religious culture known as Drawidian . When the Varnasrama system was in place , those belonging to the Sudra and ‘Avarna’ (outside varnasrama) categories didn’t have facilities to be know about vedic requirements . Therefore, they followed the easily available Drawidian practices . Later, selfish politicians under the garb of “Social Reformers” created

‘Drawidian’ sectarian movements to grab power . They violently denied the relevance of Vedas and puranas , bluntly describing them to be the creation of Brahmins . In reality , the topmost Drawidian leaders like E.V.Ramaswamy Naikar, Annadurai and M.G.Ramachandran , secretly performed vedic Deity worship in their own personal lives . Unfortunately , millions of their innocent followers were mislead by these hypocrites under the cover of “Drawidianism ” . In this age , everyone has opportunity to familiarize with the vedic requirements and practice it in own life to attain God realization . After experiencing Krishna’s mercy , a devotee is no more interested in any non-vedic ideology such as that of Draviwidian . Bhagavan Krishna states in Bhagavad Gita , Chapter 16 : Sloka 17“Self-complacent

and always impudent, filled with false prestige and intoxication of wealth, they (Asuras) sometimes perform yajnas (sacrifices) in name for show only without following any rules or regulations of the scriptures.) Sloka 23-24” He who discards the rules and regulations of vedic scriptures and acts in an arbitrary way according to his own will, attains neither perfection nor happiness nor the supreme

destination.Therefore, let the vedic scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction.” I agree with you that , there are some anomalies in certain puranas . But it is natural in Kali-yuga . Krishna is

causelessly merciful to His devotees . Bhagavan has clarified the anomalies through such recent scriptural books like Narayaneeyam and through the teachings and books of Vaishnava Acharyas like Srila Prabhupada . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev---Abhilash Nair

<abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Dear Rajeev Prabhu, Many fallen dandavats to you. There are many examples of non-vedc practices in various groups in India. These could be an indication of the existence of other religious followings in India, which were not Vedic. Like in the Nairs of Kerala, matrilinear system and polyandry existed. These are not Vedic systems. So, there is a feeling among a few nairs that, they were never part of the Vedic religion, they were a Dravidian race and that their style of worship and systems of marriage etc were completely different from the Vedic religion. Later by the manipulation of the brahmins they were forced by the kings or other due to some other reason, they came under the Vedic umbrella. These questions are not asked bcos of

any disrespect to the Vedas of Vedic rshis. I am also a Vaishnava and wil continue to be one. But, in my mind these are all possibilities. The puranas do not contain all the stories of all the little happenings in bharatvarsha. They are the gift of great seers of Vedic wisdom. This is not a challenge to them. Another point we should keep in mind is that there have been manipulations to almost all the puranas. Meaning, there could be people of vested interest meddling with the scriptures. In the current version of the Srimad Bhagavatham which we have, there are few (not sure - hundred of thousand) slokas missing. No, I do not beleive in AIT. I beleive Aryans were always present in India. They had their religious fervor and so did other races, with there parallel lines of faith and following. At some point in time everything got merged into one hinduism. I do not feel that this is in anyway a denigrating

aspect. All races waged wars, understood politics and economics at all times. You have made a good point on the non-uniformity of many S. Indian sects, in their modes of worship. Thankyou. humble servant Abhilash SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji , The very concept of ‘Aryan Invasion’ is foreign to Vedic religion . We can’t find any indication of AIT in the Vedic scriptures including Bhavishya Purana ( which accurately predicts the future events related to even Jesus and Islam) . The latest scriptural update ‘Narayaneeyam’ ( which has the stamp of approval of Sri Krishna Himself) doesn’t mention anything about AIT . Paramacharya

Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi , the greatest Sage of recent times ; who was widely acknowledged as a divine personality ; in His write-ups has dismissed ‘Aryan Invasion’ as absolutely fake and the hand work of European colonialists to create divisions within Hinduism . I agree with you that , there are differences in the religious practices of North and South Indians . But if we look closely into the religious practices of various sects of South Indians themselves, we can’t find much uniformity . This is mainly due to the freedom ‘Vedic religion’ is providing to it’s followers . I also agree that Shiva’s image is contradictory at times . Shiva is a ‘tamasvic’

manifestation of Maha-Vishnu ; and His followers at times don’t adhere to the requirements of Vedas. There are many interpretations on this aspect . The social reformer Sri Narayana Guru once stated that Shiva was initially a tribal leader whose great qualities later attained him Godly status . There all are different versions like this , which can’t be corroborated by vedic scriptures . As a Vaishnava , I believe 100% in the truthfulness of ancient Rsis of Bharatha Varsha . They were not the ones to manipulate the sacred concepts for personal gains . In Christianity it happened with Old Testament being modified as New Testament , just to suit with the taste of the followers . Vedic scriptures are not man made and are absolutely eternal . In reality , they are the literary incarnations of Bhagavan Narayana . Regarding the prominence of ‘Indra’ and his equation with Shiva , please note that the reference was totally based on Rg Veda . Earlier , I had answered to your question on AIT on the basis of the write-ups of impartial researchers . In Vedic scriptures, we don’t have any portion that mention about ‘Aryan Invasion’ . In my opinion , we should believe the words of the great Paramacharya . Finally , as a humble servant of Bhagavan Sri Krishna and HIS beloved Vaishnavas , and based on my humble understanding of Gita and

Bhagavatham, may I humbly remind you that , Krishna has given utmost importance to Brahmanas and Rsis . Bhagavan’s devotees are required not to suspect the credentials of the mentioned authorities of Vedic Santana Dharma . Om Namo Bhagavate

Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev -----------------------------Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Dear Prabhu, Thankyou for the reply. Possibly the Aryans did not come from outside India. They might have been a mightier group within Bharat Varsha. So, Max Muller & his AIT, is not the point. My point of confusion is that still there is a huge possibility that there were many religions paralelly existing in Bharat. And it could be that Vedic religion adopted Shambu, into Vedas? Vedic religion ate up the other smaller religions? And it claimed to be eternal dharma!! There are so many visible differences in the religious following of the North and South of India. This is another

reason for my question. Something surprising in the article you send is the equation "Shiva = Indra"!!! Regards Abhilash SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, Your query is based on the theory of ‘Aryan Invasion’ which was the creation of pseudo-scholars of western colonialism . The Unfounded Theory of “Aryan Invasion” . Prof. Edmund Leach, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, has aptly written : “Why do serious scholars persist in believing in the Aryan invasions? (…) Why is this sort of thing attractive? Who finds it attractive? Why has the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically associated with an Aryan invasion? (…) The details of this theory fit in with this racist framework (…) The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’ civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated kind was already nearly 6,000 years old. Here I will only remark that the hold of this myth on the British middle-class imagination is so strong that even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation of an independent India and independent Pakistan the Aryan invasions of the second millennium BC are still treated as if they were an established fact of

history” . One of the strategies of the 'invasionists', has been to avoid debate altogether by dismissing their adversaries as Hindu chauvinists and cranks. Even a decade ago, a scholar raising questions about the truth of the Aryan invasion would have been hard pressed to find an audience, much less a platform . Often their 'refutations' of challenges to the theory were little more than 'haughty dismissals'. To get back to the Aryan invasion, the study of ancient India, at least in the modern Western sense, may be said to have begun with Sir William Jones in the late 18th century. One of Jones's discoveries was that Indian languages - Sanskrit in particular - and European languages are related . To account for this, European scholars, the most famous of whom was F. Max Müller, proposed an invasion of 'Aryans' from the Eurasian

steppes. There were other currents - like colonial politics and Christian missionary interests - that need not detain us here. He assigned a date of 1500 BC for the invasion and 1200 BC for the composition of the Rigveda . The reason for the date was his firm belief in the Biblical chronology that assigned 23 October 4004 BC for the Creation and c. 2448 for Noah's Flood, though he sought to give other - equally fanciful - explanations. Though their knowledge of the Vedas and the Sanskrit language was limited, European scholars contrived to find and interpret a few passages in the Vedas as the record of the invasion of fair skinned

Aryans and their victory over the dark skinned natives . In other words, the Aryan invaders were colonisers like themselves . As often the case, such theories tell us more about the people who created them than history. With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization in 1921 - greater in extent than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia combined - archaeological data also became available, which could now be used in the study of ancient India . But no systematic effort was made to connect

archaeological data with the ancient Indian literature . On the other hand, the entrenched Aryan invasion theory led most scholars to keep Harappan archaeology and ancient Indian literature permanently separated - a situation that persists to this day . This has created a strange situation : the Harappans, the creators of the greatest material civilisation of antiquity, have no literary or historical context . On the other hand, the Vedic Aryans, the creators of the greatest literature the world has ever known have no archaeological or even geographical existence . As a result, after more than two centuries, the subject called Indology has no foundation to speak of ; what we have instead is little more than a collection of views and ad-hoc theories that often contradict one another . When people began applying scientific methods to the abundant data that is now available, highlighted contradictions and pointed out the limitations of comparative linguistics for technical problems like Vedic chronology and the decipherment of the Harappan script, it aroused hostile reaction. Scholars like Wakankar, Sethna, Frawley, Natwar Jha and others that have looked at the data from an empirical viewpoint have impressive achievements . They include the mapping of the Saraswati river, highlighting the maritime basis of Vedic society, showing mathematical and other connections between Vedic India and West Asia and Egypt, and, above all, the decipherment of the Harappan script . The last achievement, mainly the work of Jha led also to the decipherment of what has been called the 'World's oldest writing'. The result is that we now have a historical context for the Harappans linking archaeology and the Vedic literature. This leads to a quantum jump in our understanding of ancient history. When we look at the contributions of the invasionist school, we find hardly anything that could not be - or has not been - written a century ago. Where nineteenth century scholars brought the Aryans from Eurasia or even Europe, some today bring them from Bactria or the 'Kurgan' in the Pontic region ; where Bishop Caldwell a hundred years ago brought the Dravidians from Scythia, Bernard Sergent today brings them from Africa. The contrasts are equally striking when we compare the efforts to read the Indus seals. Father Heras thought it was Proto Dravidian but ended up using Tamil ; so did Asko Parpola. Malati Shengde claimed it was Akkadian, from which she tried to derive Sanskrit ! And yet, all of them combined could not read a syllable of the Harappan writing . At the heart of this lies an attachment to a methodology - an unwillingness to accept failure in the face of evidence . When they run into a contradiction, they simply dismiss the evidence . Bernard Sergent, for example, dismisses evidence pointing to a major ecological catastrophe as the cause of the rapid collapse of the Harappan civilization . Instead he opts for an economic crisis following the Aryan invasion . (A great natural calamity invariably leads to economic crisis - witness Turkey after the recent earthquake.) It is not so easy to dismiss scientific data. The documented record of a three hundred-year drought was the possible cause of the collapse

of the Harappan Civilization . We now know that it was a meteor impact c. 2350 BC that was the direct cause of the drought that ended ancient civilizations . In fact, the study of such meteor impacts is leading to fuller understanding of the ending of the last Ice Age that led to the rise of civilisations. We cannot simply ignore all this and hold on forever to nineteenth century models and methods conceived at a time when none of this was known. The available ancient astronomical records

is the best source or anyone interested in a summary of ancient astronomy and its implications. It vides a lucid summary of the salient points, while refuting the scientifically unsupportable charge of 'back calculation'. The crucial point to note is that astronomical data are systematically consistent : they do not for example place the Rigveda before the Brahmanas or Kalidasa before the Mahabharata. All this brings us back to the baseless Aryan invasion theory . Since its advocates can no longer avoid debate with 'haughty dismissals', and those in India at least can no longer depend on government patronage that sustained them for fifty years, it is difficult to see how they can continue monopolising the establishment . Continuity between Indra and Shiva

Once Indra had been identified by the AIT ( Aryan Invasion Theory) as a deified tribal leader of the invaders, an antagonism was elaborated between the “Aryan” sky-god Indra and the “pre-Aryan” fertility god Shiva ; Indra being the winner of the initial military confrontation, but Shiva having the last laugh by gradually winning over the conquerors to the cult of the subdued natives. Once a Catholic priest from Kerala claimed, “Shiva is not a Hindu god, because he is the god of the pre-Aryans.” That Shiva was the god of the Harappans, is based on a single Harappan finding, the so-called Pashupati seal . It depicts a man with a strange headwear sitting in lotus posture and surrounded by animals .

Though not well visible, He seems to have three faces, which may mean that He is a three-faced god (like the famous three-faced Shiva sculpture in the Elephanta cave), or that He is a four-faced god with the back face undepictable on a two-dimensional surface. The common speculation is that this is Shiva in his Pashupati (“lord of beasts”) aspect . Ever since the discovery of the Gundestrup cauldron in Central Europe, which depicts the Celtic horned god Cernunnos similarly seated between animals, this Pashupati seal is actually an argument in favour of the IE character of Harappan culture. Let us, nevertheless, go with the common opinion : Shiva for the Harappans, Indra for the Aryans. Those who see it this way have never explained why the dominant Aryans have, over the centuries, abandoned their victorious god (Indra is practically not worshipped in any of the Vedic temples manned by Brahminical priests) in favour

of the god of their defeated enemies. At any rate, when we study these two divine characters, we find that they are not all that antagonistic . Shiva is the Vedic god Rudra (Shambhu) . It so

happens that Indra’s and Rudra’s domains are more or less the same : both are thundering sky gods. Christians who picture Jesus as the friend of the outcasts, may like to know that the despised “Aryan racist god” Indra is in fact on the side of the outcasts: “Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12) As David Frawley has shown, Indra has many epithets and attributes which were later associated with Shiva: the dispeller of fear, the lord of mAyA (enchantment), the bull, the dancer, the destroyer of cities

(Indra purandara, Shiva tripurahara) . Both are associated with mountains, rivers, male fertility, fierceness, fearlessness, warfare, transgression of established mores, the Aum sound, the Supreme Self. Indra is praised as having a tremendous appetite for the psychedelic soma juice. Shiva has Soma-Shiva as one of his aspects, a name containing one of those Brahminical etymology games: Soma is the Vedic intoxicant, and also the moon (as in SomwAr, “Monday”), which is part of Shiva’s iconography (hence his, epithet SomanAtha). The now-popular theory that Shiva is a non-Vedic and anti-Vedic god, is partly based on the Puranic story of the destruction of Daksha’s sacrifice. Daksha is the father of Shiva’s beloved Sati : he rebukes Shiva, Sati commits suicide, and Shiva vents his anger by disturbing the sacrifice which Daksha is conducting. Daksha refuses to worship Shiva because Shiva is vedabAhya, “outside the Vedas” ; as in a fit of anger, mortals also call their relatives all kinds of inaccurate names. As David Frawley shows, the Daksha story is quite parallel to the Vedic story of Indra stealing the soma from Twashtr and even killing the latter, and to the Vedic story of Rudra killing Prajapati. In each case, a god who disrupts or “destroys” the world order, is seen to defeat a god representing the process of creation, which is equated with

the process of the Vedic sacrifice (the Creator creates the world by sacrificing). The destroyer-god, himself a cornerstone of the created world, disrupts the creative sacrifice. David Frawley restores these stories to their traditional metaphysical interpretation : “Both Indra’s and Shiva’s role of destroying Prajapati or his son relate to their role as eternity (absolute time) destroying time or the year (relative time) represented by Prajapati and the sacrifice.” The physical explanation given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak is in consonance with modem insights into mythology, viz. that the victory of the one god over the other may simply refer to the replacement of one constellation by the next as the stellar location of the

equinox. The outsider role of Shiva in the Puranic pantheon is the continuation of Indra’s role in the Vedic pantheon, which in turn is only the Indian version of a role which exists in the other IE pantheons as well, e.g. the Germanic fire god Loki or the Greco-Roman warrior-god Ares/Mars. Shiva also continues Indra’s role of warrior-god . Till today, many Shiva sadhus are proficient in the martial arts. The Shaiva war-cry Hara Hara Mahadev is still used by some regiments of the Indian army as well as by Hindu demonstrators during communal confrontations. Finally, Shiva, “the auspicious one”, is an epithet of not only Rudra but of Vedic gods in general. Indra himself is called shiva several times (Rg-Veda 2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). Shiva is by no means a non-Vedic god, and Indra never really disappeared from popular Hinduism but lives on under another name . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev------- Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran wrote: Rajeev Prabhu, Hare Krishna humble respects. Good article by Swami Narasinga. I have a few questions... MAybe I should have written straight to Maharaj, but I do not know HH's email id. Talking of the religions east of Indus. It is still maintained by many groups that of the South that, there was a form of Dravidan religion which dominated South India. Later on the Brahmins and Aryans overpwered them and mixed and matched their own religion with that of the Dravidians. They even claim that the Shiva they worshipped is different from the Shambu of the Vedas. They have nothing to do with the Vedas. Their religious practices even pre-date that of the Vedas. I am looking for a scientific analysis of this claim, from a qualified Vaishnava. My intention is not to disprove anything. Humble respects Abhilash suda sangaran <sudmail wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. From: "srikrishnadasa_rajeev" <srikrishnadasa_rajeevSun, 24 Sep 2006 08:34:03 -0000 The True Religion is not Man-made (Written by : Swamy B.G.Narasingha .) Hare Krishna , During a recent visit to Europe, I had some informal discussions about religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas . and I was surprised to hear some devotees speak about such groups as the Sufis, Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims as being deeply 'surrendered' souls. Of course, generally speaking this may be true - but surrendered to what? I would like to point out in this

article that sraddha [faith], saranagati [surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to Krishna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in ancient times.The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God himself - dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic relationship that exists between Krishna and all living entities eternally. This is sometimes called `sanatana-dharma' , eternal religious principles. In a word

`sanatana-dharma' has been summed up as seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme Being. Therefore, so-called service to various Deities or to icons that are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true sense of the word.Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of spirituality in India that, "At present many false meanings have been imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to man, obedience to the teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928) .In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all sorts of misconceptions andinnovations have also been passed off as spiritual practices, devotion, service,

love of God, etc, when in fact they are not.In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka, Ch.1 as follows :"The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj . It is said in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3) :bhaj ityesa vai dhatuhsevayam parikirtitahtasmat seva budhaih proktabhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi" The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful `sadhakas' should engage in the service of Sri Krishna with great endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born ."The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul [atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead [bhagavan] . In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul or the Personality of Godhead exists in the

world's popular mundane religions . Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the popular mundane religions as transcendental .Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west, Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows :"Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure is fundamental to all these religions . Unlike the transcendental words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal . Therefore, one who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt about them since they lack a solid foundation ." (Sarasvati Thakura, purport, Cc. Adi17.169) . Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose seva . First surrender, then serve : tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya . This surrender means far more than

one's strict obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or thought . Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krishna and not to that of anything else . First surrender [pranipatena] then serving mood [sevaya] manifests . And to surrender one must have faith, sraddha .If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so-called belief is only a temporary state of mind fabricated under the modes of material nature . Such a mental belief system is not to be confused with sraddha .Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of nature . Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the

living entity the path of devotional service, Krishna-bhakti . Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in hisMahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10 .The definition of sraddha is this :sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscayakrsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya" By performing transcendental loving service to Krishna, one automatically performs all secondary activities . This confident, firm faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is known as sraddha." (Cc. Madhya 22.62) .To have firm conviction that devotion to Krishna is the only means for the living entity, and that performance of

karma and jnana devoid of bhakti are useless . Such a favorable inclination of the heart is called sraddha .Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates from the internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi . This energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krishna and therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any lesser Gods or Masters . As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krishna."Sraddha reveals Krishna [Visnu] and no other . However, if one finds oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those of the Abrahamic tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha .In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's greatest Acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm conviction that by serving Krishna all other purposes will be served .The numerous so-called religions of the world that exist outside the Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real connection to the Absolute Truth . Over time the proponents of these major world religions have done much harm to the world anddeceived a multitude of people by engaging them in impious

activities and all in the name of 'good faith.'If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion one will discover that all contemporary religious thought has originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome theology but rather as a Vedic heresy . The first heresy of this kind was Zoroastrianism that gained afollowing in the western frontiers of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was written .Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the Vedas . Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras [demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity.

Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka :"Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran . It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran . Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a 'Trinity' made its appearance in the religion [Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion

"."At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this, so they made a compromise stating that these three concocted gods were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura,Tattva-viveka 1/21) .Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in approximately 500 BCE, the Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea . In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god

of the Mountains or the god of Abraham . The idea that there is one Supreme God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who the Supreme God was eluded them .Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient world had been pagan in their beliefs . From monotheism, first being introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed and then Islam developed along those lines . But in no case was the nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known .In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation of Jesus . These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should

becautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to the opinions of previous Acaryas .Thus, all the so-called religions west of the Indus River can rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in the name of the Protestant Church and New Age Religions .

Unfortunately, none of these said heresiesrepresent the Supreme Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the ultimate goal of life. Swamy B.G.Narasingha Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna! Dear Experts in Vedism, I agree with you about the horrible politics of "divide and conquer" led by the British. I agree with you that the AIT had done considerable damages, beyond imagination. And I can add this: "divide and conquer" was the politics of many people since the beginning of Times, but the expression was coined by Julius Caesar, the very first demagogue who was also "made" (out of fear for repraisal) Highest Priest for life "Pontifex maximus", which is the equivalent of the Pope in the Vatican which is a city within Rome. However, I still have the question: " then what about the Aryans?" What about the people who were so skillful at horse-riding and who started the Vedic cult? How come that Sanskrit is indeed an Indo-European language, very close to

Greek? Anyone knows? And yes, I agree that it is good to have rest at the lotus feet of Krishna. Hare Om! Monique SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, I am very happy to know about your rejection of Arayan Invasion Theory . The Mc aulay’s education system based on AIT , is the root cause of divisions within Hinduism . This education system was implemented by the British , in accordance with their ‘divide and rule’ policy . Regarding your observation on Dravidian system and related non-vedic practices beoing followed by certain sections of people , my opinion is the following : If we check the history we can find that , the demonic personalities like Ravana had defied the Vedic scriptures to cultivate own religious practices . Although he had good knowledge of the Vedas, Ravana refused to abide by it and developed an anti-vedic religious culture known as Drawidian . When the Varnasrama system was in place , those belonging to the Sudra and ‘Avarna’ (outside varnasrama) categories didn’t have facilities to be know about vedic requirements . Therefore, they followed the easily available Drawidian practices . Later, selfish politicians under the

garb of “Social Reformers” created ‘Drawidian’ sectarian movements to grab power . They violently denied the relevance of Vedas and puranas , bluntly describing them to be the creation of Brahmins . In reality , the topmost Drawidian leaders like E.V.Ramaswamy Naikar, Annadurai and M.G.Ramachandran , secretly performed vedic Deity worship in their own personal lives . Unfortunately , millions of their innocent followers were mislead by these hypocrites under the cover of “Drawidianism ” . In this age , everyone has opportunity to familiarize with the vedic requirements and practice it in own life to attain God

realization . After experiencing Krishna’s mercy , a devotee is no more interested in any non-vedic ideology such as that of Draviwidian . Bhagavan Krishna states in Bhagavad Gita , Chapter 16 : Sloka

17“Self-complacent and always impudent, filled with false prestige and intoxication of wealth, they (Asuras) sometimes perform yajnas (sacrifices) in name for show only without following any rules or regulations of the scriptures.) Sloka 23-24” He who discards the rules and regulations of vedic scriptures and acts in an arbitrary way according to his own will, attains neither perfection nor happiness nor the supreme destination.Therefore, let the vedic scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should

not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction.” I agree with you that , there are some anomalies in certain puranas . But it is natural in Kali-yuga . Krishna is causelessly merciful to His devotees . Bhagavan has clarified the anomalies through such recent scriptural books like Narayaneeyam and through the teachings and books of Vaishnava Acharyas like Srila Prabhupada . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev---Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran > wrote: Dear Rajeev Prabhu, Many fallen dandavats to you. There are many examples of non-vedc practices in various groups in India. These could be an indication of the existence of other religious followings in India, which were not Vedic. Like in the Nairs of Kerala, matrilinear system and polyandry existed. These are not Vedic systems. So, there is a feeling among a few nairs that, they were never

part of the Vedic religion, they were a Dravidian race and that their style of worship and systems of marriage etc were completely different from the Vedic religion. Later by the manipulation of the brahmins they were forced by the kings or other due to some other reason, they came under the Vedic umbrella. These questions are not asked bcos of any disrespect to the Vedas of Vedic rshis. I am also a Vaishnava and wil continue to be one. But, in my mind these are all possibilities. The puranas do not contain all the stories of all the little happenings in bharatvarsha. They are the gift of great seers of Vedic wisdom. This is not a challenge to them. Another point we should keep in mind is that there have been manipulations to almost all the puranas. Meaning, there could be people of vested interest meddling with the scriptures. In the current version of the Srimad Bhagavatham which we have, there are few

(not sure - hundred of thousand) slokas missing. No, I do not beleive in AIT. I beleive Aryans were always present in India. They had their religious fervor and so did other races, with there parallel lines of faith and following. At some point in time everything got merged into one hinduism. I do not feel that this is in anyway a denigrating aspect. All races waged wars, understood politics and economics at all times. You have made a good point on the non-uniformity of many S. Indian sects, in their modes of worship. Thankyou. humble servant Abhilash SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash

Prabhuji , The very concept of ‘Aryan Invasion’ is foreign to Vedic religion . We can’t find any indication of AIT in the Vedic scriptures including Bhavishya Purana ( which accurately predicts the future events related to even Jesus and Islam) . The latest scriptural update ‘Narayaneeyam’ ( which has the stamp of approval of Sri Krishna Himself) doesn’t mention anything about AIT . Paramacharya Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi , the greatest Sage of recent times ; who was

widely acknowledged as a divine personality ; in His write-ups has dismissed ‘Aryan Invasion’ as absolutely fake and the hand work of European colonialists to create divisions within Hinduism . I agree with you that , there are differences in the religious practices of North and South Indians . But if we look closely into the religious practices of various sects of South Indians themselves, we can’t find much uniformity . This is mainly due to the freedom ‘Vedic religion’ is providing to it’s followers . I also agree that Shiva’s image is contradictory at times . Shiva is a ‘tamasvic’ manifestation of Maha-Vishnu ; and His followers at times don’t adhere to the requirements of Vedas. There are many interpretations on this aspect . The social reformer Sri Narayana Guru once stated that Shiva was initially a tribal leader whose great qualities later attained him Godly status . There all are different versions like this , which can’t be corroborated by vedic scriptures . As a Vaishnava , I believe 100% in the truthfulness of ancient Rsis

of Bharatha Varsha . They were not the ones to manipulate the sacred concepts for personal gains . In Christianity it happened with Old Testament being modified as New Testament , just to suit with the taste of the followers . Vedic scriptures are not man made and are absolutely eternal . In reality , they are the literary incarnations of Bhagavan Narayana . Regarding the prominence of ‘Indra’ and his equation with Shiva , please note that the reference was totally based on Rg Veda . Earlier , I had answered to your question on AIT on the basis of the write-ups of impartial researchers . In Vedic scriptures, we don’t have any portion that mention about ‘Aryan Invasion’ . In my opinion , we should believe the words of the great Paramacharya . Finally , as a humble servant of Bhagavan Sri Krishna and HIS beloved Vaishnavas , and based on my humble understanding of Gita and Bhagavatham, may I humbly remind you that , Krishna has given utmost importance to Brahmanas and Rsis . Bhagavan’s devotees are required not to suspect the credentials of the mentioned authorities of Vedic Santana Dharma . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev -----------------------------Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran > wrote: Dear Prabhu, Thankyou for the

reply. Possibly the Aryans did not come from outside India. They might have been a mightier group within Bharat Varsha. So, Max Muller & his AIT, is not the point. My point of confusion is that still there is a huge possibility that there were many religions paralelly existing in Bharat. And it could be that Vedic religion adopted Shambu, into Vedas? Vedic religion ate up the other smaller religions? And it claimed to be eternal dharma!! There are so many visible differences in the religious following of the North and South of India. This is another reason for my question. Something surprising in the article you send is the equation "Shiva = Indra"!!! Regards Abhilash SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev <srikrishnadasa_rajeev (AT) (DOT) co.in>

wrote: Hare Krishna ! Dear Abhilash Prabhuji, Your query is based on the theory of ‘Aryan Invasion’ which was the creation of pseudo-scholars of western colonialism . The Unfounded Theory of “Aryan Invasion” . Prof. Edmund Leach, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, has aptly written : “Why do serious scholars persist in believing in the Aryan invasions? (…) Why is this sort of thing attractive? Who finds it attractive? Why has the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically associated with an Aryan invasion? (…) The details of this theory fit in with this racist framework (…) The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’ civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated kind was already nearly 6,000 years old. Here I will only remark that the hold of this myth on the British middle-class imagination is so strong that even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation of an independent India and independent Pakistan the Aryan invasions of the

second millennium BC are still treated as if they were an established fact of history” . One of the strategies of the 'invasionists', has been to avoid debate altogether by dismissing their adversaries as Hindu chauvinists and cranks. Even a decade ago, a scholar raising questions about the truth of the Aryan invasion would have been hard pressed to find an audience, much less a platform . Often their 'refutations' of challenges to the theory were little more than 'haughty dismissals'. To get back to

the Aryan invasion, the study of ancient India, at least in the modern Western sense, may be said to have begun with Sir William Jones in the late 18th century. One of Jones's discoveries was that Indian languages - Sanskrit in particular - and European languages are related . To account for this, European scholars, the most famous of whom was F. Max Müller, proposed an invasion of 'Aryans' from the Eurasian steppes. There were other currents - like colonial politics and Christian missionary interests - that need not detain us here. He assigned a date of 1500 BC for the invasion and 1200 BC for the composition of the Rigveda . The reason for the date was his firm belief in the Biblical chronology that assigned 23 October 4004

BC for the Creation and c. 2448 for Noah's Flood, though he sought to give other - equally fanciful - explanations. Though their knowledge of the Vedas and the Sanskrit language was limited, European scholars contrived to find and interpret a few passages in the Vedas as the record of the invasion of fair skinned Aryans and their victory over the dark skinned natives . In other words, the Aryan invaders were colonisers like themselves . As often the case, such theories tell us more about the people who created them than history. With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization in 1921 - greater in extent than ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia combined - archaeological data also

became available, which could now be used in the study of ancient India . But no systematic effort was made to connect archaeological data with the ancient Indian literature . On the other hand, the entrenched Aryan invasion theory led most scholars to keep Harappan archaeology and ancient Indian literature permanently separated - a situation that persists to this day . This has created a strange situation : the Harappans, the creators of the greatest material civilisation of antiquity, have no literary or historical context . On the other hand, the Vedic Aryans, the creators of the greatest literature the world has ever known have no archaeological or even geographical existence . As a result, after more than two centuries,

the subject called Indology has no foundation to speak of ; what we have instead is little more than a collection of views and ad-hoc theories that often contradict one another . When people began applying scientific methods to the abundant data that is now available, highlighted contradictions and pointed out the limitations of comparative linguistics for technical problems like Vedic chronology and the decipherment of the Harappan script, it aroused hostile reaction. Scholars like Wakankar, Sethna, Frawley, Natwar Jha and others that have looked at the data from an empirical viewpoint have impressive achievements . They include the mapping of the Saraswati river, highlighting the maritime basis of Vedic society, showing mathematical and other connections between Vedic India and West Asia and Egypt, and, above all, the

decipherment of the Harappan script . The last achievement, mainly the work of Jha led also to the decipherment of what has been called the 'World's oldest writing'. The result is that we now have a historical context for the Harappans linking archaeology and the Vedic literature. This leads to a quantum jump in our understanding of ancient history. When we look at the contributions of the invasionist school, we find hardly anything that could not be - or has not been - written a century ago. Where nineteenth century scholars brought the Aryans from Eurasia or even Europe, some today bring them from Bactria or the 'Kurgan' in the Pontic region ; where Bishop Caldwell a hundred years ago brought the Dravidians from Scythia, Bernard Sergent today brings them from Africa. The contrasts are equally striking when we compare the efforts to read the

Indus seals. Father Heras thought it was Proto Dravidian but ended up using Tamil ; so did Asko Parpola. Malati Shengde claimed it was Akkadian, from which she tried to derive Sanskrit ! And yet, all of them combined could not read a syllable of the Harappan writing . At the heart of this lies an attachment to a methodology - an unwillingness to accept failure in the face of evidence . When they run into a contradiction, they simply dismiss the evidence . Bernard Sergent, for example, dismisses evidence pointing to a major ecological catastrophe as the cause of the rapid collapse of the Harappan

civilization . Instead he opts for an economic crisis following the Aryan invasion . (A great natural calamity invariably leads to economic crisis - witness Turkey after the recent earthquake.) It is not so easy to dismiss scientific data. The documented record of a three hundred-year drought was the possible cause of the collapse of the Harappan Civilization . We now know that it was a meteor impact c. 2350 BC that was the direct cause of the drought that ended ancient civilizations . In fact, the study of such meteor impacts is leading to fuller understanding of the ending of the last Ice Age that led to the rise of civilisations. We cannot simply ignore all this and hold on forever to nineteenth century models and methods conceived at a time when none of this was

known. The available ancient astronomical records is the best source or anyone interested in a summary of ancient astronomy and its implications. It vides a lucid summary of the salient points, while refuting the scientifically unsupportable charge of 'back calculation'. The crucial point to note is that astronomical data are systematically consistent : they do not for example place the Rigveda before the Brahmanas or Kalidasa before the Mahabharata. All this brings us back to the baseless Aryan invasion theory

. Since its advocates can no longer avoid debate with 'haughty dismissals', and those in India at least can no longer depend on government patronage that sustained them for fifty years, it is difficult to see how they can continue monopolising the establishment . Continuity between Indra and Shiva Once Indra had been identified by the AIT ( Aryan Invasion Theory) as a deified tribal leader

of the invaders, an antagonism was elaborated between the “Aryan” sky-god Indra and the “pre-Aryan” fertility god Shiva ; Indra being the winner of the initial military confrontation, but Shiva having the last laugh by gradually winning over the conquerors to the cult of the subdued natives. Once a Catholic priest from Kerala claimed, “Shiva is not a Hindu god, because he is the god of the pre-Aryans.” That Shiva was the god of the Harappans, is based on a single Harappan finding, the so-called Pashupati seal . It depicts a man with a strange headwear sitting in lotus posture

and surrounded by animals . Though not well visible, He seems to have three faces, which may mean that He is a three-faced god (like the famous three-faced Shiva sculpture in the Elephanta cave), or that He is a four-faced god with the back face undepictable on a two-dimensional surface. The common speculation is that this is Shiva in his Pashupati (“lord of beasts”) aspect . Ever since the discovery of the Gundestrup cauldron in Central Europe, which depicts the Celtic horned god Cernunnos similarly seated between animals, this Pashupati seal is actually an argument in favour of the IE character of Harappan culture. Let us, nevertheless, go with the common opinion : Shiva for the Harappans, Indra for the Aryans. Those who see it this way have never explained why the dominant Aryans have, over the centuries, abandoned their victorious god (Indra is practically not worshipped in any of the Vedic temples manned by Brahminical priests) in favour of the god of their defeated enemies. At any rate, when we study these two divine characters, we find that they are not all that antagonistic . Shiva is the Vedic god Rudra (Shambhu) . It so happens that Indra’s and Rudra’s domains are more or less the same : both are thundering sky gods. Christians who picture Jesus as the friend of the outcasts, may like to know that the despised “Aryan racist god” Indra is in fact on the side of the outcasts: “Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12) As David Frawley has shown, Indra has many epithets and attributes which were later associated with Shiva: the dispeller of fear, the lord of mAyA (enchantment), the bull, the dancer, the destroyer of cities (Indra purandara, Shiva tripurahara) .

Both are associated with mountains, rivers, male fertility, fierceness, fearlessness, warfare, transgression of established mores, the Aum sound, the Supreme Self. Indra is praised as having a tremendous appetite for the psychedelic soma juice. Shiva has Soma-Shiva as one of his aspects, a name containing one of those Brahminical etymology games: Soma is the Vedic intoxicant, and also the moon (as in SomwAr, “Monday”), which is part of Shiva’s iconography (hence his, epithet SomanAtha). The now-popular theory that Shiva is a non-Vedic and anti-Vedic god, is partly based on the Puranic story of the destruction of Daksha’s sacrifice. Daksha is the father of Shiva’s beloved Sati : he rebukes Shiva, Sati commits suicide, and Shiva vents his anger by disturbing the sacrifice which Daksha is conducting. Daksha refuses to worship Shiva because Shiva is vedabAhya, “outside the Vedas” ; as in a fit of anger, mortals also call their relatives all kinds of inaccurate names. As David Frawley shows, the Daksha story is quite parallel to the Vedic story of Indra stealing the soma from Twashtr and even killing the latter, and to the Vedic story of Rudra killing Prajapati. In each case, a god who disrupts or “destroys” the world order, is seen to defeat a god representing the process of creation, which is equated with the process of the Vedic sacrifice (the Creator creates the world by sacrificing). The destroyer-god, himself a cornerstone of the created world, disrupts the creative sacrifice. David Frawley restores these stories to their traditional metaphysical interpretation : “Both Indra’s and Shiva’s role of destroying Prajapati or his son relate to their role as eternity (absolute time)

destroying time or the year (relative time) represented by Prajapati and the sacrifice.” The physical explanation given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak is in consonance with modem insights into mythology, viz. that the victory of the one god over the other may simply refer to the replacement of one constellation by the next as the stellar location of the equinox. The outsider role of Shiva in the Puranic pantheon is the continuation of Indra’s role in the Vedic pantheon, which in turn is only the Indian version of a role which exists in the other IE pantheons as well, e.g. the Germanic fire god Loki or the

Greco-Roman warrior-god Ares/Mars. Shiva also continues Indra’s role of warrior-god . Till today, many Shiva sadhus are proficient in the martial arts. The Shaiva war-cry Hara Hara Mahadev is still used by some regiments of the Indian army as well as by Hindu demonstrators during communal confrontations. Finally, Shiva, “the auspicious one”, is an epithet of not only Rudra but of Vedic gods in general. Indra himself is called shiva several times (Rg-Veda 2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). Shiva is by no means a non-Vedic god, and Indra never really disappeared from popular Hinduism but lives on under another name . Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!!! Your eternal servant , SriKrishnaDasa Rajeev------- Abhilash Nair <abhilash_ramachandran > wrote: Rajeev Prabhu, Hare Krishna humble respects. Good article by Swami Narasinga. I have a few questions... MAybe I should have written straight to Maharaj, but I do not know HH's email id. Talking of the religions east of Indus. It is still maintained by many groups that of the South that,

there was a form of Dravidan religion which dominated South India. Later on the Brahmins and Aryans overpwered them and mixed and matched their own religion with that of the Dravidians. They even claim that the Shiva they worshipped is different from the Shambu of the Vedas. They have nothing to do with the Vedas. Their religious practices even pre-date that of the Vedas. I am looking for a scientific analysis of this claim, from a qualified Vaishnava. My intention is not to disprove anything. Humble respects Abhilash suda sangaran <sudmail > wrote: Note: forwarded message attached. Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. To:

From: "srikrishnadasa_rajeev" <srikrishnadasa_rajeev (AT) (DOT) co.in>Sun, 24 Sep 2006 08:34:03 -0000 The True Religion is not Man-made (Written by : Swamy B.G.Narasingha .) Hare Krishna , During a recent visit to Europe, I had some informal discussions about religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas . and I was surprised to hear some devotees

speak about such groups as the Sufis, Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims as being deeply 'surrendered' souls. Of course, generally speaking this may be true - but surrendered to what? I would like to point out in this article that sraddha [faith], saranagati [surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to Krishna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in ancient times.The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God himself - dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic relationship that exists between

Krishna and all living entities eternally. This is sometimes called `sanatana-dharma' , eternal religious principles. In a word `sanatana-dharma' has been summed up as seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme Being. Therefore, so-called service to various Deities or to icons that are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true sense of the word.Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of spirituality in India that, "At present many false meanings have been imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to man, obedience to the

teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928) .In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all sorts of misconceptions andinnovations have also been passed off as spiritual practices, devotion, service, love of God, etc, when in fact they are not.In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka, Ch.1 as follows :"The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj . It is said in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3) :bhaj ityesa vai dhatuhsevayam parikirtitahtasmat seva budhaih proktabhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi" The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful `sadhakas' should engage in the service of Sri Krishna with great endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born

.."The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul [atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead [bhagavan] . In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul or the Personality of Godhead exists in the world's popular mundane religions . Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the popular mundane religions as transcendental .Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west, Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows :"Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure is fundamental to all these religions . Unlike the transcendental words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal . Therefore, one who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt about them since they lack a solid foundation ." (Sarasvati Thakura, purport, Cc. Adi17.169) . Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose seva . First surrender, then serve : tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya . This surrender means far more than one's strict obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or thought . Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krishna and not to that of anything else . First surrender [pranipatena] then serving mood [sevaya] manifests . And to surrender one must have faith, sraddha .If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so-called belief is only a temporary state of mind

fabricated under the modes of material nature . Such a mental belief system is not to be confused with sraddha .Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of nature . Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the living entity the path of devotional service, Krishna-bhakti . Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in hisMahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10 .The definition of sraddha is this :sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscayakrsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya" By performing transcendental loving service to Krishna, one automatically performs all secondary activities . This confident, firm faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is known as sraddha."

(Cc. Madhya 22.62) .To have firm conviction that devotion to Krishna is the only means for the living entity, and that performance of karma and jnana devoid of bhakti are useless . Such a favorable inclination of the heart is called sraddha .Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates from the internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi . This energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krishna and therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any lesser Gods or Masters . As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krishna."Sraddha reveals Krishna [Visnu] and no other . However, if one finds oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those of the Abrahamic tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha .In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's greatest Acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm conviction that by serving Krishna all other purposes will be served .The numerous so-called religions of the world

that exist outside the Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real connection to the Absolute Truth . Over time the proponents of these major world religions have done much harm to the world anddeceived a multitude of people by engaging them in impious activities and all in the name of 'good faith.'If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion one will discover that all contemporary religious thought has originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome theology but rather as a Vedic heresy . The first heresy of this kind was Zoroastrianism that gained afollowing in the western frontiers of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was written

..Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the Vedas . Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras [demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity. Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka :"Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran . It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally powerful rival to God, made his imaginary

appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran . Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a 'Trinity' made its appearance in the religion [Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion "."At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this, so they made a compromise stating that these three concocted gods were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura,Tattva-viveka 1/21) .Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in approximately 500 BCE, the Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea . In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god of the Mountains or the god of Abraham . The idea that there is one Supreme God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who the Supreme God was eluded them .Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient world had been pagan in their beliefs . From monotheism, first being introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed and then Islam developed along those lines . But in no case was the nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known

..In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation of Jesus . These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should becautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to the opinions of previous Acaryas .Thus, all the so-called religions west of the Indus River can rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in the name of the

Protestant Church and New Age Religions . Unfortunately, none of these said heresiesrepresent the Supreme Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the ultimate goal of life. Swamy B.G.Narasingha Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail.