: RE: [Sri Ramakrishna] Origin of the Vedas

[Guest guest]

ARYAN AS RACE OR LANGUAGE

 

 

Aryan as Race or Language by david

frawley(http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/myth_aryan_invasion//aryan_as_ra\

ce_or_language/page1.htm)

 

The Aryan invasion theory is based upon the idea that

Aryan represents a particular group of people. In the

classical view of the Aryan invasion the Aryans are a

particular ethnic group, speaking a particular

language. However in Vedic literature Aryan is not the

name of the Vedic people and their descendants. It is

a title of honor and respect given to certain groups

for good or noble behavior. In this regard even the

Buddha calls his teaching Aryan, Arya Dharma; the

Jains also call themselves Aryans, as did the ancient

Persians. For this reason one should call the Vedic

people simply the " Vedic people " and not the Aryans.

If one takes Aryan in the Vedic sense it would not be

like talking of the invasion of good people, as if

goodness were a racial or linguistic quality

 

The Aryan invasion theory proposed that the Aryans

belonged to a particular racial stock - generally the

blond and blue-eyed nordic caucasians or at least

fair-skinned European types (for which no real

evidence in ancient India exists either) - and spoke

only one language, Vedic Sanskrit (though this appears

from the beginning as a priestly language, not a

common dialect). The Aryans were said to have looked

down upon those of different racial features or those

who spoke different (presumably non-Indo-European)

languages. The invasion theory thereby projected

various cultural biases - that Vedic culture was

racist or that it was based upon some sort of

linguistic chauvinism. In short it cast an aspersion

of prejudice and intolerance upon a culture before

there had been any real examination of it.

 

Meanwhile all the changes in ancient India were

defined by this conflict of racial or linguistic

groups, and ignoring all other factors of social

change.

 

This idea of a monolithic cultural group

chauvinistically promoting ethnic and linguistic

purity is the product of nineteenth century colonial

thinking. It mirrors nineteenth century European

racial views of humanity, in which dark-skinned people

were regarded as inferior and used as slaves. It is

quite different than the Hindu and Vedic view that the

One Being masks itself in numerous names and forms

which are all ultimately the same. Such a monolithic

group is incompatible with the image of the Aryans as

nomads, who as a scattered and disorganized group

could not have had such a uniform idea of their own

identity and been able to impose it upon a larger

population of more civilized peoples.

 

The Aryan invasion theory is an example of European

colonialism turned into an historical model. Its

simplicity is compelling but also questionable. Race

and language are not the only factors in the

development of civilization. Religious or economic

factors, which cut across racial and linguistic

divisions, often overwhelm them. For example, ancient

Mesopotamia had a number of ethnic groups, people of

different language families, a composite of many

religions, and yet many ommon cultural elements can be

found through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian

civilizations of the region.

 

This monolithic race/language approach to history

appears to be overly simplistic, particularly in the

twentieth century wherein the pluralism of culture (a

common Hindu idea) is becoming recognized. The history

of a subcontinent like India is likely to be much more

complex than such facile stereotypes.

 

Migration theories were in vogue in nineteenth and

early twentieth century thought, which had witnessed

the great migrations from Europe to America. Any new

cultural innovation discovered in archeology was made

the product of a new migration. A new pottery style

found in a culture was attributed to a new people

coming into the area. However migration is usually not

the main factor in social change, which usually occurs

owing to internal factors. Otherwise we would have to

explain the invasion or migration of the computer

people to explain current changes in civilization! Now

archaeologists are moving away from such migration

theories and looking more for the internal factors

that could cause such changes. If such internal

factors can be found - such as is the case in ancient

India which shows an internal continuity of cultural

developments going back to the pre-historic era - a

migration is not necessary.

 

ARYAN AS RACE OR LANGUAGE

 

 

We should note that Vedic literature, with its many

Gods and Goddesses who can be identified freely with

one another (what Max Muller called henotheism), is

clearly the product of a pluralistic culture and world

view, not that of a monolithic culture (which Hinduism

has never produced in the historical period either).

Unity-in-multiplicity is the basic theme of the Vedas

which state " That which is the One Truth the seers

speak in many ways (Rig Veda I.164). " This is not the

philosophy of militant nomads but of a mature cultural

complex in which many different cultural elements have

been interwoven. Simplistic invasion/migration

theories reducing cultural developments to movements

of narrowly defined groups of people appear now to be

out of date, and certainly do not mirror the Vedic

view of the universe.

 

 

***

The myth of aryan will blow to parts when u read the

complete essays given in the above website. The story

of saraswati river and the vedic image of the ocean

are the special features. With permission from the

moderator, i would like to post the entire site here.

 

kishore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

Looking for a job? Visit India Careers

Visit http://in.careers.