Read at a website that Quetzalcoatl of Native American gods is actually Vishnu

[Guest guest]

and that India found America a long time ago, and brought the Native Americans here. I read that a lot of the names that the Native Americans have are derived from Sanskrit, and that Quetzalcoatl himself was associated with the eagle and serpent, like Vishnu.

 

Also, I read in another place that ancient Indians seemed to be familiar with Native Americans and called them "asuras". Their justification for this was that while ancient Indians followed astrology through Jupiter, the "asuras" followed astrology through Venus. The planets correspond with the groups in question.

 

This is the particular passage:

 

"From the Deccan Chronicle

 

HYDERABAD, INDIA, April 29, 2002: Recent studies suggests a link between Indus Valley and Mayans of Central America. The studies focused on the calendars of the two advanced civilizations. The Indus Valley inhabitants followed a calender based on the movements of Jupiter, and the Mayans followed one based on the Venus. In the Puranas, a secondary Hindu scripture, Jupiter, Brihaspati, was acknowledged to be the leader of the gods, while Venus, Shukra, was the leader of the asuras. The texts further state that the devas and asuras lived on opposite sides of the Earth. Mexico and India are at opposite sides in longitude. The correspondences were pointed out by B. G. Siddarth, director of the B. M. Birla Science Centre in Hyderabad. He also said the Hindu story of the churning of the ocean has been found in carvings in Mexico, as well Mayan representations of a tortoise carrying twelve pillars similar to Indian illustrations. Dr. Ganapati Sthapati of Chennai, a foremost expert on Vastu Shatra, the ancient Hindu architecture, has visited the Mayan structures in Central America and found many similarities between the design and construction methods of the Mayans and that of the ancient Hindus."

 

 

The site that I got the passage from is: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/some_of_the_archeological_finds_of_2002.htm

 

The other site that talks about the link between India and the Native Americans is: http://www.vandemataram.com/html/atlantis/arti2.htm

 

Particularly the passage: "Indian myths and legends mention that many deities (really exalted men) visited Patala or Atala. One of these was Vishnu who went there to help the survivors rehabilitate themselves from the ravages of a flood that nearly destroyed Atlantis. This "Vishnu" was what the Mexicans called Quetzalcoatl; the Mayans, Kukulkan, and the Inca and Moche Guculmatz.

Here are some proofs for my skeptics:God Vishnu's representative in Patala or Atala had to be none other than the Quetzalcoatl, Kukulcan, or Guculmatz. I say this because Vishnu's Vimana (modes of transportation) were an eagle and a raft of snakes. Quetzalcoatl's, etal Vimanas were also an eagle and a raft of snakes. The eagle signified the ability of those ancient travellers to traverse long distances, heedless of obstacles. The raft of snakes was just the Phoenician Nagas on their ships, the prows of which of resembled snakes and dragons."

[Guest guest]

In Mahabharata it is said that in their exile Arjuna went to explore the world and married a girl from the Naga tribe in Patala, which has been identified by scholars as America.

at that time America only consisted of tribes of Native Americans. It is quite startling that there is still some Naga evidence left in the Americas, which shows there is truth in the Mahabharata, which is remarkable as it is thousands of years old.

[Guest guest]

that there were no such things as Nagas, Asuras, Rakshasas. They were simply derogatory terms that the ancient Indians used for people. Also, it might also suggest that Rama and Krishna themselves were not gods, but just powerful men. Nothing more.

 

I have to say this is quite disappointing, as I've grown up hearing the tales of Rama and Krishna, and was a huge devotee of them.

[Guest guest]

Actually, whether you like it or not there is a Naga tribe in the Americas.

 

As for Asuras and Rakshas you still have people like this in India who practice some dark aspects of Tantra. Whereas these Nagas referred to in Mahabhrat were another people. The Asurans Rakshas are not a seperate race but the same Indians as you and me, just wicked people.

 

I don't know if Rama and Krishna were really gods or whether or not historical or mere symbolism of God, but Brahman or ParamAtma is the only concept of God in Hinduism which bears weight. A Hindu doesn't really have to believe in Avtars as it's a later development mainly in the epics and Puranas.

 

 

[Guest guest]

so? just because history gets mixed up in spirituality shoudn't make it 'dissapointing', it's just the nature of all ancient texts.

[Guest guest]

Read the passage I quoted again. The ancient Indians explicitly referred to the Native Americans as "asuras" because they followed a different planet in their astrology.

 

There may be a Naga tribe, but that doesn't mean the ancient Indians didn't discriminate.

 

As for the puranas and epics, I do believe at least a lot of those events happened, the whole question is: were Rama and Krishna gods? I think they existed, but what was the extent of their existence? Were they just powerful men, revered as gods? Or were they really incarnations of Vishnu?

 

How and when did Vishnu even become incorporated into the

Hindu pantheon of Gods? He is described as being the all-pervading aspect of God, but isn't that Shakti too?

 

Did the original Ramayana and Mahabharata talk about Rama and Krishna as if they were gods? as if they were incarnations of Vishnu?

 

Does anyone know what was contained in the original Ramayana and Mahabharata? Or are they lost forever and only tampered versions remain?

[Guest guest]

I am unaware that the ancient Indians called Native American 'Asuras', but I know they called other indians with what they regarded as immoral practices as 'Asuras'. So I can't say I'm totally convinced with your point. I do know that the tribe at Patala were referred to as Nagas, but not Asuras.

 

As for Rama and Krishna existing, I don't know and there is not much historical evidence to prove so, but then again they lived thousands of years ago. The theory of incarnations is something I question in Hinduism, I wonder when India really needed the incarnation (during the invasions) they never turned up, why?

 

As far as I know in the original Valmiki Ramayana Rama is not mentioned as an incarnation of god (or visnu) at all, just as a remarkable and righteous king who always tried to follow the path of Dharma. It was only later on in 'other' Ramayanas that he was accepted as an incarnation.

 

As for Krishna, there seems to be more evidence on his side. Dwarka,which was Krishnas kingdom sank in the end of Mahabharata has been found off the coast of Gujarat. I think in the Mahabharata (where Krishna has a much smaller role than the Bhagvatam) he is seen throughout to be an extraordinary being, it is only when he reveals himself to Arjuna in the Gita do we know he is God...an incarnation of Visnu. Visnu is actually mentioned in the Vedas, I don't think Shiva is, but Shiva is later identified with the Vedic god Rudra.

 

I think what we have today as the Ramayana is only a portion of what originally existed, it may have been shortened...the valmiki version is still longer than the Tulsidas version. But the Mahabharata was originally called 'Jaya' or 'Jai' and was expaned into the Mahabharata.

 

[Guest guest]

"I am unaware that the ancient Indians called Native American 'Asuras', but I know they called other indians with what they regarded as immoral practices as 'Asuras'. So I can't say I'm totally convinced with your point. I do know that the tribe at Patala were referred to as Nagas, but not Asuras."

 

I'm not making the point, it's the passage that I had posted in one of the above posts that make this point.

 

 

"As for Rama and Krishna existing, I don't know and there is not much historical evidence to prove so, but then again they lived thousands of years ago. The theory of incarnations is something I question in Hinduism, I wonder when India really needed the incarnation (during the invasions) they never turned up, why?"

 

Why would God let civilizations collapse in the first place? Karma. India must have accrued some bad karma, and they paid for it. God doesn't interfere with humans as far as protecting one country instead of another or something like that. Why would he protect India anyway? Just because it maintained the Vedas?

 

 

"As for Krishna, there seems to be more evidence on his side. Dwarka,which was Krishnas kingdom sank in the end of Mahabharata has been found off the coast of Gujarat. I think in the Mahabharata (where Krishna has a much smaller role than the Bhagvatam) he is seen throughout to be an extraordinary being, it is only when he reveals himself to Arjuna in the Gita do we know he is God...an incarnation of Visnu. Visnu is actually mentioned in the Vedas, I don't think Shiva is, but Shiva is later identified with the Vedic god Rudra."

 

In one of the passages and links I posted above, it talks of how the Native Americans worshipped the Shiv linga, which would obviously be associated with Shiva. They did not worship Vishnu until later, when he supposedly came to them. Then they added him to their pantheon of gods as Quetzalcoatl. It seems that Shiva was the original God of the ancient Indians, Vedas or no Vedas. Which may hint that the Vedas came quite a bit later in the development of ancient India, either through an Aryan invasion (which I hope isn't true, but it may be), or through Vishnu's own appearance to the ancient Indians. I'm basing this on the fact that Quetzalcoatl a.k.a. Vishnu was only added to the Native American pantheon of Gods later. And the Native Americans were supposed to have been brought over to America by the ancient Indians themselves.

 

Actually, maybe Vishnu did appear to the ancient Indians and that's around the time when the Vedas were composed (well, I'm hoping the AIT theory is false), considering Quetzalcoatl himself was to have come to America to teach the Native Americans about him or something.

 

 

"I think what we have today as the Ramayana is only a portion of what originally existed, it may have been shortened...the valmiki version is still longer than the Tulsidas version. But the Mahabharata was originally called 'Jaya' or 'Jai' and was expaned into the Mahabharata."

 

How was the Mahabharata expanded? I do think the BhagavadGita itself might have been tampered with, and Krishna was made into an incarnation of Vishnu, or maybe even was seen as the ultimate God. I've read that the Bhagavad-Gita was expanded and continually revised even after the supposed birth of Christ, and that it became heavily influenced by Christianity, in which a monotheistic influence was included.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"I've read that the Bhagavad-Gita was expanded and continually revised even after the supposed birth of Christ, and that it became heavily influenced by Christianity, in which a monotheistic influence was included."

 

Most scolars, western or eastern DO state that the Bhagavad Gita was written between 500BC - 200BC, around the same period as the later Upanishads. It was one of the few world examples of devotion to a personal God BEFORE the Christian era. There is more of a Buddhist influence that christian in the Gita and some scholars say that early christianity was heavily influenced by Buddhism and Christ may not have even existed, but is an amalgamation of different characters of the time. It seems around that period the world was moving towards the idea of a personal God. Though the Hare Krishnas claim the Gita is 5000 years old.

 

[Guest guest]

this is very interesting....i luv hearing articles like this

 

 

[Sephiroth]

I just want to add something.

 

According to Islam (Yes, Islam), they believe that there is a portal to Atlantis and the Demon World (Pattala) in Bermuda Triangle.

 

We all know that, by the time of Mahabratha War (some 5,000 years ago), most demons and Asuras on this world had been destroyed by years of war. So it could be possible that some of them had indeed ran to Atlantis, only to have it to sink.

 

Also, beside Dwarka, there was also report of another city which sank off the coast of China. Matter a fact, ruins of undersea city was found off the coast of Taiwan, and they, like Dwarka is seems to be developed by man (or at least human-like beings) with intelligence.