Guest guest Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 now im just going out on a limb here, but.... is it possible that maybe the aryan invasion did take place, only it took place at around 3000 BC? Perhaps, the Mahabharata, which is also said to take place around that time, represents the fighting between Aryans and Dravidians, which the author symbolically turned into fighting cousins, which were saved by the likes of Krisna. Krisna means black or dark i think. Perhaps this was meant to indicate that a great Dravidian helped bring about the end of the war. This would also explain the biggest problem for me with the anti-Aryan invasion theory. which is, the relationship between European languages and Sanksrit. If there was no invasion from the north, then why does this relationship exist? im not saying either way is right. Personaly, im more for the anti-aryan but still the truth must be found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Id assume the Aryan invasion theory to be correct. I say this based upon the genetic and linguistic similarities. There is an article posted on this forum under the heading 'European Aryan Invasion Theory- Genetic proof?'. This is an article taken from a well respected mobnthly scientific journal 'New Scientist'. I suggest you have a read of it but the general gist is that the Hindu caste system is staggered along the lines of percentage of European DNA contained. IE Brahmin more Dalit less. So i would say theres enough evidence to suggest the theory is more probable than improbable. However theres doubtful to be a definite conclusion. In terms of 'the truth must be found' Id disagree. It is , in my opinion, important that Hindu/Indian culture does not seek to emulate the West. The Aryan Invasion Theory would bring about the idea that the modern West must be right because it was Westerners who brought about Hinduism in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 "now im just going out on a limb here, but.... is it possible that maybe the aryan invasion did take place, only it took place at around 3000 BC? Perhaps, the Mahabharata, which is also said to take place around that time, represents the fighting between Aryans and Dravidians, which the author symbolically turned into fighting cousins, which were saved by the likes of Krisna. Krisna means black or dark i think. Perhaps this was meant to indicate that a great Dravidian helped bring about the end of the war. This would also explain the biggest problem for me with the anti-Aryan invasion theory. which is, the relationship between European languages and Sanksrit. If there was no invasion from the north, then why does this relationship exist? im not saying either way is right. Personaly, im more for the anti-aryan but still the truth must be found. " First off, I don't believe there was ONE race living in ancient India. Nor was there racial suppression. The caste system may have more upper-caste blood related to Europeans, but that DOESN'T mean that the caste system was the result of racial suppression. India was home to many invaders, and it's more likely that those invaders mated with those in upper castes for power and such. So upper caste blood is more mixed. However, I do not believe India, especially during the time of the Mahabharata consisted of any single race. Look at Peter Brook's Mahabharata, a play which emphasises the great diversity that might have been present in Ancient India. I believe that's far closer to the truth than any narrow-minded idea that there was racial suppression and stereotyping back then. Besides, there are remnants of Vedic influences existing around the globe, indicating the spirituality was once global. Vedic philosophy doesn't belong to India, but the whole world. And I've heard this ridiculous theory that the Pandavas were Aryans and the Kauravas were Dravidians and vice versa before. It was based on an uninformed idea that the gods only helped out the Pandavas and not the Kauravas, which is ludicrous. The gods took sides, yes, but they helped both parties. Krishna was God himself on Earth. Not just some great Dravidian as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 1) There's no verdict of AIT & it's also a p. who can make a verdict. Maybe we should wait for aliens. 2) For a foreigner, it's only a scientific p.. But for an Indian, it's related to nationalism, colonialism, cutural, race, religion, & etc.. So when you talk about this p., Indians will mention Britishes & other topics surprisingly. In other words, it's a subjective p. for them. 3) Eth. changs inevitably from ancient through mediaeval to modern age. Indians say they still stick to scriptures but many of them treat vedas & epics as myth.s or dispensable stuffs. If you point out some p.s of them in practice, they say those are MalPractices. Unfortunately I hardly see any trace showing that they feel uncomfortable with MalPractices. I'm really unable to answer the q. which religion is right in a imperfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 << im not saying either way is right. Personaly, im more for the anti-aryan but still the truth must be found. >> it is laready found that AIT is a clevr fabrication of the brits. please read artice/book by David Frawley, or In Search of Vedic India by Devamrita Swami. Aryan is not a race at all, say our scriptures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 as to why the Aryan invasion could not habve occurred at 3000BC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 i was at an Amaddiya mosque today and was talking with some of the devotees. One had mentioned that the country of Israel has officially declared that one of the lost 12 tribes DID settle in the North India/Kashmir/Pakistan/Afghanistan area. this got me thinking, if this happened sometimes after the exodus, which might have happend around 3500 BC, then a couple hundred years could have brought alot of nomads west to India. Could this have been the possible "aryan" invasion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 i was at an Amaddiya mosque today and was talking with some of the devotees. One had mentioned that the country of Israel has officially declared that one of the lost 12 tribes DID settle in the North India/Kashmir/Pakistan/Afghanistan area.] this got me thinking, if this happened sometimes after the exodus, which might have happend around 3500 BC, then a couple hundred years could have brought alot of nomads west to India. Could this have been the possible "aryan" invasion? Not impossible but unlikely. Identifying indo-aryan speaking tribe with semetic speaking tribe does not sound very logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 i think ur right....the language difference shouldve opened my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.