Wednesday, January 29, 2014

ns rajaram on the 'aryan' debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnuevHgciI 

out of india!

--
sent from samsung galaxy note, so please excuse brevity

2 comments:

non-carborundum said...

Rajeev

Not to say that Aryan invasion theory is correct, but 60-70 thousand years back is not meaningfully different from the fact that all humans have their origins in Africa, some 100,000 years back.

Recently I read that the first blue eyed human may have been as recent as 7,000 years old.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-first-ol-blue-eyes-is-7000-years-old-and-lived-in-a-cave-9086310.html

So, races might have differentiated even after civilization came and certainly some civilizations in India are that old.

Human evolution may be happening a lot faster than we imagine. Maybe people living in India 2000 years back were very much different from what we have today and they will be quite different from what we have today after 300 to 500 years.

Tejaswininimburia said...

The problem with INDOLOGISTS is that they have standards for different theories but they converge on one stupid theory of considering Rig Veda as history. They suffer from many predicaments-- what to do with genesis? Can Egypt have civilization prior to Menus? What about pre Sumerian races? Whether to believe super civilization in Turkey seven thousand years before? What to do with Celts/Iberians/Norse? What to do with Polynesians and their extensive contact with Australia/South America? How can Africans remain dormant though they were the primordial race?What makes them intelligent out of Africa? These questions nobody have cogent answer. The most important fact suppressed was Hittite language did not have gender for words a characteristic of PIE and sldobUralic/Finnish etc., This is no surprise Hittites used Hieroglyphics/cuneiform where there is no provision for gender for words. Another important factor was Runic Alphabet of Norse for which gender for word was difficult. The mute question who and how was gender for word introduced and for what purpose? The only answer is Tantrism which alone required Bijaksharas with divinity. Further a deeper look at Rig Vedic hymns signifies that it is recollection of heroic deeds of PRAISED ONES--INDRA/VARUNA/MITHRA rather than narrating historical event. Further the concept of Vedas by Say an a is completely different from earlier times since as per South Indian inscriptions and well supported by Nachinarkiyanar that only THAITTRIYAM/SAMAM/TALAVAKARAM/AGNIVESHYAM were prominent and these itself descended from Grihyasutras. The commentary by Sayana should not be considered on par with Holy Bible/Quran since VEDAS sustained solely through Prayoga or Application in Grihyasutras. For example though Lord Vishnu is being held as protector of Yagyas still Vaishnavas did not give prominence to Yagyas while Saivaites known as Maheswaras performed Yagyas which can be confirmed from Nayanmars stories. Thus PIE may be relevant only for political purposes in India and Rig Vedic hymns can never be relied for history. For example SRI SABARA SAMHITA a very ancient one is gaining prominence only now and can it be said that it relates to twentieth century. Seeing history through Rig Veda is the greatest absurdity.