Clarification for non-Hindus

[Arkangel]

I thought creating a new thread is appropriate for this. Many in the west have no idea about the hinduism being followed by hindus in India. They believe that what ISCKON preaches here to be the same in India. There is a lot of difference and i would like to mention some here.

This is a qoute from a different thread:

Clarification for non-Hindus:
The Mahabharat Arkangel mentions is the world's longest epic-poem. The Bhagavad-Gita, the equivalent of the Hindu Bible, is an excerpt from this poem.

Arkangel: The Gita is not official canon. In Hindu terms it is Smriti, not Sruti. It does, however,so nicely summarize certain Hindu themes that it has come to be revered as a sort of Hindu Bible.
Sruti -- the official, intuited revelations of hinduism, consist of the sacred Vedas.

I agree with your assessment of "Krishna Consciousness." This movement is a specific cult created by a single individual. It is dualistic and not quite in synch with most schools of Hindu philosophy.
The "ultimate godhead" -- Brahman, is not ordinarily personified (endowed with qualities) Qualified avatars such as Krishna are usually conceived of as manifestations or aspects of Brahman.

Firstly, the gita is not taken from the epic poem, it is mentioned in it. According to Hindu mythology, the Gita was given to mankind much befor the epic poem. Krishna just retells it to Arjuna when he says that he cannot battle his own bothers. This is told in the story of SatyaNarayana Pooja. Narayana is the other name of Vishnu and Satya means truth or true and Pooja is a form worship.

Secondly, Brahma is not just the ultimate godhead as mentioned and teached by ISCKON. It is Brahma, Vishu, and Shiva. The triune god who form the Ultimate Godhead. Brahma being the creator, Vishnu being the order and life, and Shiva being the destroyer. The 3 are said to be created from Om Shakti which means eternal energy.

Hindusim is not a religion as sense like others in the world. Their is no set order or hierachy. As you said no offical canon which also means you are free to choose which ever you want.

The vedas are divided into 3, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sama Veda.

In the time of Rig Veda, Indra was the ultimate godhead with Varuna was the creator. Nothing much changed with the second Veda but by the 3rd Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahaeshwara (Shiva) came into existence. Indra was reduced to demi god and later just the god of thunder and heaven. Varuna to was reduced to demi god status of God of air. Varuna means Air.

Shiva by far is the oldest and first Hindu god to be ever worshiped.

Much before the Aryans invaded and brought with them much off their culture influnced by greek and viking( sorry forgot the name but i hope you get the meaning) cultures and religion. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of India worshiped Shiva. When the aryans pushed into India from north, they pushed out dravidians to the south. But by the time the 3rd and last vedas were being written, the dravidian culture had fused with the aryan to form a new culture and religion. This is when most Indian historians believe that the present form of Hindusim started to develop and break away from the Vedic religion and the name Sanatana-dhrama was used. This is also when ritual sacrifice of animals as a part of worship to god ended. Dravidian philosophy and culture was starting to take importance in the Hindu religion.

After the vedas came the Puranas which are just mythlogical stories. These things are not tought by the ISCKON which does not believe in the Puranas. They have formed a kind of new-age view about the entire Hindu religion. Mainly focused on the Gita and Krsna.

Their is 2 path for Hindus, one of the spritual way and the other of the materialistic way. The spritual way is to sacrifice the materialistic life and be a yogi, even this is divided in many ways. One of utter hardship and the other of pure meditation. Many follow the materialistic way in India but the ISCKON combined the both materialistic and spritual way into a 3rd. This became a new-age way called the Hare-Krsna way. Not many born hindus follow this way but they do respect and visit Isckon temples in great numbers. But still the Puranas and mythology holds strong in their belief system. They do worship Krishna as god but he is not a popular god in India. Not as much as Ganesh or Ram. Ganesh is worshiped before any other god is worshiped in all schools of Hindu philosophies in India.

I guess Seyorni your view of the religion is from the Vedanta point of view or which in India is known as the Hara-Krsna way. They leave out the mythology and only concentrate on the spritual teachings of the religion which is a good thing but does not describe the Hindu religon. Without mythology hinduism is just another new-age religion. It is something the west will never understand. I guess ISCKON saw that and only teaches the ones which the west can understand.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

:verymad: What Gave You The Empression That Me And Seynori Was Isckoners Or Have A Limted View Of The Beloved Religion We Chose To Follow......oh Arkangel Don't Put Your Foot In Your Mouth For Surely You Won't Like The Sting:149:!!!!

 

[Arkangel]

:verymad: What Gave You The Empression That Me And Seynori Was Isckoners Or Have A Limted View Of The Beloved Religion We Chose To Follow......oh Arkangel Don't Put Your Foot In Your Mouth For Surely You Won't Like The Sting:149:!!!!

Dont have to be so rude.

You have no idea how much i know about sanatana-dhrama, or that i do or do not follow it. It is never wrong to learn new view points. You might learn more about your religion.

It is not proper for a Hindu to insult another, and anger does not serve you in the path of enlightment. A wise person does not react with emotion but acts on wisdom.

If their is anything wrong in my statements show me, but trying to insult me isnt going to help your cause.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

:tsk: No it is not proper for one to insult another "hindu" thats the passion of the flesh,but then that impelys that you are "hindu", oh arkangel it would seem you are not aware of your own actions, because i recall you being very rude to seynori in a intellectual way of course but i percieved that justure and came accordly, i will not allow a fellow web friend to be insulted indirectly it is my dharma but only a small percentage....i guess your religion will allways be, something....Knockout

 

[Valjean]

I thought creating a new thread is appropriate for this. Many in the west have no idea about the hinduism being followed by hindus in India. They believe that what ISCKON preaches here to be the same in India. There is a lot of difference and i would like to mention some here.

This is a qoute from a different thread:
Firstly, the gita is not taken from the epic poem, it is mentioned in it. According to Hindu mythology, the Gita was given to mankind much befor the epic poem. Krishna just retells it to Arjuna when he says that he cannot battle his own bothers. This is told in the story of SatyaNarayana Pooja. Narayana is the other name of Vishnu and Satya means truth or true and Pooja is a form worship.

Secondly, Brahma is not just the ultimate godhead as mentioned and teached by ISCKON. It is Brahma, Vishu, and Shiva. The triune god who form the Ultimate Godhead. Brahma being the creator, Vishnu being the order and life, and Shiva being the destroyer. The 3 are said to be created from Om Shakti which means eternal energy.

Hindusim is not a religion as sense like others in the world. Their is no set order or hierachy. As you said no offical canon which also means you are free to choose which ever you want.

The vedas are divided into 3, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sama Veda.

In the time of Rig Veda, Indra was the ultimate godhead with Varuna was the creator. Nothing much changed with the second Veda but by the 3rd Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahaeshwara (Shiva) came into existence. Indra was reduced to demi god and later just the god of thunder and heaven. Varuna to was reduced to demi god status of God of air. Varuna means Air.

Shiva by far is the oldest and first Hindu god to be ever worshiped.

Much before the Aryans invaded and brought with them much off their culture influnced by greek and viking( sorry forgot the name but i hope you get the meaning) cultures and religion. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of India worshiped Shiva. When the aryans pushed into India from north, they pushed out dravidians to the south. But by the time the 3rd and last vedas were being written, the dravidian culture had fused with the aryan to form a new culture and religion. This is when most Indian historians believe that the present form of Hindusim started to develop and break away from the Vedic religion and the name Sanatana-dhrama was used. This is also when ritual sacrifice of animals as a part of worship to god ended. Dravidian philosophy and culture was starting to take importance in the Hindu religion.

After the vedas came the Puranas which are just mythlogical stories. These things are not tought by the ISCKON which does not believe in the Puranas. They have formed a kind of new-age view about the entire Hindu religion. Mainly focused on the Gita and Krsna.

Their is 2 path for Hindus, one of the spritual way and the other of the materialistic way. The spritual way is to sacrifice the materialistic life and be a yogi, even this is divided in many ways. One of utter hardship and the other of pure meditation. Many follow the materialistic way in India but the ISCKON combined the both materialistic and spritual way into a 3rd. This became a new-age way called the Hare-Krsna way. Not many born hindus follow this way but they do respect and visit Isckon temples in great numbers. But still the Puranas and mythology holds strong in their belief system. They do worship Krishna as god but he is not a popular god in India. Not as much as Ganesh or Ram. Ganesh is worshiped before any other god is worshiped in all schools of Hindu philosophies in India.

I guess Seyorni your view of the religion is from the Vedanta point of view or which in India is known as the Hara-Krsna way. They leave out the mythology and only concentrate on the spritual teachings of the religion which is a good thing but does not describe the Hindu religon. Without mythology hinduism is just another new-age religion. It is something the west will never understand. I guess ISCKON saw that and only teaches the ones which the west can understand.

Namaste, Arkangel. Your post is interesting. You have a broader knowledge of Indian history than I do. Whenever I attempted to read about it I found so many conflicting opinions I eventually gave up. :banghead3
I have some questions about some of your statements, though.
You mention that the Gita is not exerpted from the Mahabharata, but only mentioned in it.
I've always read that the Gita was a part of the Mahabharata. I'm sure you know that if you Google "Mahabharata" and scroll to sections 25 through 42 in book six you'll find the Bhagavad Gita, verbatim, start to finish ( I just did it, just to make sure). This seems like more than a mention. I'm thinking you may be referring to the Gita as having been a separate, independent work at one time, that was later incorporated into the Mahabharata.

I also noticed you're among those who place the Atharva in a category separate from the other Vedas. I know some scholars do this, but I'm not familar with the historical reasoning behind it. Could you explain?

 

[Jyothi]

Hi all,

I would like to state that bhagavad gita is part of the mahabharata aas it is known today - why is there such a qualification - my research indicates that mahabharata as an epic poem in terms of its sanskrit etymology was constructed over different periods and there are different versions of the same.

Gita is a compilation of the essence of the upanishads brought in contextually inside the mahabharata as a revealation of lord krishna to arjuna a pandava prince on the battle field in kurukshetra which is currently in Haryana state. The Gita could or could not have been part of the very first mahabharata - i dont know

a correction i would like to suggest to arkangel - varuna is the god of the seas and vata or vayu is the god of wind

again i do not agree with the aryan invasion theory - it is now proved to be false.

regards

 

[Jyothi]

I also noticed you're among those who place the Atharva in a category separate from the other Vedas. I know some scholars do this, but I'm not familar with the historical reasoning behind it. Could you explain?

the rig veda is the truth through intuition
sama is a rearrangement of rigvedic hymns for musical rendering and easy memorization
yajur refers to the various rites and practices for conducting yagna or homa or havan - worshipping various dieties through agni or the fire, which would not only carry offerings to the gods, but also purify anything given to it.
atharva veda is the least understood or learnt - most people do not know the verses. this veda includes certain metaphysical and otherworldy rites and incantations.

it requires a substantial amount of mental preparation and discipline - to remain sane and learn the veda. thus most people dont learn it and some even look down upon it

more the dark side as westerners might want to call it.

cheers

 

[Valjean]

Hi all,

I would like to state that bhagavad gita is part of the mahabharata aas it is known today - why is there such a qualification - my research indicates that mahabharata as an epic poem in terms of its sanskrit etymology was constructed over different periods and there are different versions of the same.

Gita is a compilation of the essence of the upanishads brought in contextually inside the mahabharata as a revealation of lord krishna to arjuna a pandava prince on the battle field in kurukshetra which is currently in Haryana state. The Gita could or could not have been part of the very first mahabharata - i dont know

And Mahabharata could be characterized as a tretise on the evils of gambling.

again i do not agree with the aryan invasion theory - it is now proved to be false.

The Aryan invasion theory is one of the current "hot topics" in Indian religious debate.
Could you post some of these proofs, Jyothi?

regards[/QUOTE]

 

[Jyothi]

And Mahabharata could be characterized as a tretise on the evils of gambling.

mahabharata is a lot more than a treatise on the evils of gambling. may be you should read it more.....

 

[Jyothi]

i will com back on the aryan invasion theory - do you want a new post onthat

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you for your clarification Arkangel. I hope you wouldn't mind, but I feel a further clarification of what you have written is in order:

Firstly, the gita is not taken from the epic poem, it is mentioned in it. According to Hindu mythology, the Gita was given to mankind much befor the epic poem. Krishna just retells it to Arjuna when he says that he cannot battle his own bothers. This is told in the story of SatyaNarayana Pooja. Narayana is the other name of Vishnu and Satya means truth or true and Pooja is a form worship.

The knowledge of the Gita, mainly yoga, can indeed be found before the Mahabharata era, as it is part of Santana Dharma of ancient India, which has an unending legacy. The word Santana itself means eternal.

However, the Gita itself was the spoken word and revelations of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield and is essentially a treatise on yoga. So it incorrect that the Gita was given to mankind before this time.

Secondly, Brahma is not just the ultimate godhead as mentioned and teached by ISCKON. It is Brahma, Vishu, and Shiva. The triune god who form the Ultimate Godhead. Brahma being the creator, Vishnu being the order and life, and Shiva being the destroyer. The 3 are said to be created from Om Shakti which means eternal energy.

I think there has been a misunderstanding of the terms Brahman and Atman It is Brahman that is the ultimate, absolute, unchanging and transcedental self. The supreme Godhead.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva manifest from his ultimate reality, and they are aspects of this same universal consciousness, just like the Atman. Brahma is present within every universe and it is from here the Sanskrit word for universe/solar system Brahmanda originates. It is formed of the words Brahma(expand) and anda(egg) and thus literally means expanding egg. Likewise, in every universe there is Vishu who preserves it and Shiva who destroys it at the end of a cosmic cycle(mahakalpa).


From here you will see, that the demi-gods are used to denote physical phenomena or physical roles in the universe. This is where the common misconception arises about Hinduism being polytheistic, but as we can see from the above, there is only ONE supreme soul(Brahman) and everything else is the manifestation of it, thus Hinduism is monistic and/or monotheistic at it's core. This will help us understand other points you have made.

The vedas are divided into 3, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sama Veda.

In the time of Rig Veda, Indra was the ultimate godhead with Varuna was the creator. Nothing much changed with the second Veda but by the 3rd Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahaeshwara (Shiva) came into existence. Indra was reduced to demi god and later just the god of thunder and heaven. Varuna to was reduced to demi god status of God of air. Varuna means Air.

Shiva by far is the oldest and first Hindu god to be ever worshiped.

The Vedas are written in very complicated and cryptic Vedic Sanskrit and even the best of Sanskrit Scholars are confounded by them. So, it would be prudent to reserve some doubt about any translations of the Vedas you happen upon. The Vedas are the central texts of Santana Dharma, and the word Veda itself means "storehouse of knowledge" and from these have arisen the darsanas or main sciences and schools of logic, yoga, linguistics, physics, medicine, among other things.

However, if one reads some of the scholary translations of the Vedas, one cannot reconcile the more sophisticated sciences that are ascribed to it, with the agrian, polytheistic, ritualistic and primitive translations of the Vedas by early scholars and Indologists. Therefore, the translations are likely inaccurate.

The misunderstanding arises from the misinterpretation of terms used to describe demi-gods. Just as above, you have mentioned "Varuna" but at the same time you define Varuna as air. This means there are two possibles meanings for "Varuna" in the context of the Vedas; an entity/deity being or "air"

As we ascertained earlier, the demi-gods are used to denote physical phenomena or physical roles in the universe, so it would be consistent in assuming that Varuna means "air" in the Vedas.

The early Indologists and Sanskritists, like Max Muller, had a very limited and corrupted understanding of Sanskrit and Hinduism. So their translations are errornous and very unreliable. I have noted myself many distortions, misinterpretations and the like. If you read modern translations of the Vedas by some Indian scholars more learned in Sanskrit and Indian religion, you will happen upon a completely different book, but that is consistent and reconcilable with the other texts written in classical Sanskrit that ascribe their origin towards the Vedas.

You will also find that Hinduism is also a pantheistic religion. That is it worships natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, water as spiritual deity beings. However, it also recognises that these spiritual beings have a physical aspect, and not just that, but an emotional aspect. That is that these spiritual beings are present within our body, just as they are present within the body of Krishna and within the universe. You see, Hinduism models the universe as a fractal; everythings reflects one another and is self contained. The human body is essentially a microcosm of the universal body.

So there are three levels of semantics to the use of terms for gods, all which are considered true on their own plane of existence. So it may well be true that Indra slayed the demon Vitra that had taken control of the strom clouds causing droughts on Earth and with his thunder bolt he slayed Vitra, allowing rain to fall once more.

Yet there is another more mundane meaning to this verse: That an electric dicharage in the clouds causes rain to fall. Now this would be consistent with another Sanskrit text that is based on the science of cloud formation and formation of rain/water by electric discharges called the Meghotpatti-Prakarna

So the deeper we look into the Vedas, the more we can see how it is more scientific and consistent with all other Sanskrit texts. However, the translations by early European scholars are not and thus, because of sufficient doubt, should be discarded.

The Vedas are not a separate religion or set of scriptures that were supplanted by later texts. They are the core of Santana Dharma or Hinduism.

Much before the Aryans invaded and brought with them much off their culture influnced by greek and viking

Please do not state this as fact. The Aryan Invasion theory, is exactly that, a theory. It has been widely discredited and debunked recently as British Imperialist propoganda and now it is most likely, given the amassing evidence, that there never was an Aryan invasion or even an Aryan and Dravadian race. This theory arose because of the similarities of Sanskrit and Indian culture with Indo-European languages and speculations that the sudden disappeance of the "Harappans" was a mass invasion. It was thus assumed that "Aryans" must have invaded from central Europe. However, there are no records of such an invasion taking place or Hinduism having a foreign origin.

However, how does one account for the similarities then? The reverse would be that there was a migration of Indians westwards that carried the culture and language with them. There is more evidence to support this than vis-versa.

Of course we can enter into pages and page of debate over the validity of AIT theory, but suffice to say it is only a theory and cannot be stated as a fact.

Their is 2 path for Hindus, one of the spritual way and the other of the materialistic way. The spritual way is to sacrifice the materialistic life and be a yogi, even this is divided in many ways. One of utter hardship and the other of pure meditation.

There is only one way - Yoga. Yoga means to yoke or to join or union. A Hindu is to attain liberation or enlightenment by joining/uniting with the supreme soul - Brahman. The ISCKON call this "Krishna" but before Krishna incarnates, this was known as Brahman or ultimate reality. Shivaists call it Shakti or Shiva. These are all just different words to describe Brahman.

Let's completely demystify it and just call it by it's objective term: ultimate reality. No longer do we need to confuse ourselves with words such as Krishna, Brahman, Shiva or Om Shakti or even holy spirit.

It is funny how just the name for this ultimate reality divides people. A Muslim calls it Allah; a Jew calls it yhwa; a Christian calls it God or Jesus and a Hindu calls it Brahman/Ishwar and a Buddhist calls it Nirvana. They are referring to the same ultimate reality. The only difference is their beliefs about what that ultimate reality is and what are it's attributes.

There are many forms and paths of Yoga and none of which advocate materialism. They are all spiritual paths. If materialism could lead to spiritual liberation, there would be need for spirituality. The main doctrine of Hinduism is that the world is Maya(illusion) and our egos bind us on this Earth plane. We continue to reincarnate on the Earth plane until we are free of desire. It is the souls desire that leads to incarnation.

This can only be done through spirituality, which is the process through which we burn our desires and Samskaras leading to the true light of the spirit to shine forth.

There are many ways of doing this and they are of secular nature; they are not just for Hindus, they're for anbody. I just recently wrote a post about the many paths of Yoga on another forum, so I will reproduce that here in my next post - as it's most informative.

 

[Surya Deva]

There are many paths of Yoga, each that would suit different dispositions and personality types. They all lead to the same goal, that is union with the supreme soul and with ultimate reality. In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the states of existence are delinated as the gross, the subtle and the casual, each of which are formed of finer and finer atoms. The casual is the ultimate and primordial reality.

This ultimate state can be attained through these various paths of Yoga, including the physical yogas, namely Hatha Yoga and Kundalini Yoga. Hatha Yoga is not just an exercise regimen, it is based on the model of the body being an energy system. The Yoga Sutras postulate that the human body is composed of a physical, subtle(astral) and casual body and they are interrelated. In the astral body there are thousands of energy centres or points called chakras and they are connected through networks of spiritual channels called Nadis. These regulate the flow of Prana(life force) around the body. There are thousands of minor chakras and 7 main chakras situated on the spine that govern specific aspects of our psychological, emotional and physical health:

The above image shows the 7 main Chakras in the human body.

Through Hatha Yoga, the Hatha Yogi works on his chakras and Nadis to improve the spiritual health of the astral body by clearing up blockages and facilitating the flow of Prana in the body. The various postures(asanas) and locks(mudras) and breath control exercises(Pranayama) are designed specifically to work on this.

Kundalini Yoga is based on the same model, however here the emphasis is on awakening a dormant potential spiritual energy called Kundalini at the base of the spine(coiled up) which is discussed in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika and is often depicted as a coiled up snake with it's tail in it's mouth. Through Kundalini Yoga exercise, which also include postures, locks and breath control, but are targeted on the spine, this Kundalini energy is made to ascend the spinal column towards the crown chakra leading to the state of superconsciousness.

Laya Yoga, while not a physical Yoga, functions on the same model. Here the Laya Yogi will meditate on the Chakras directly. The Chakras are seen as doorways into consciousness and by meditating directly on them one can experience them in their fullness e.g. The heart Chakra governments the emotions of love and by meditating on it one can attain infinite and unconditional love.

Jnana Yoga, the yoga of knowledge is based on the fundamental principle of Neti Neti, which means "Not This, Not this" through self inquiry and study, a Jnana Yogi tries to find the answers to who he really is and what true reality is by eliminating everything that it isn't and discriminating between the illusory and transistory and the real and the absolute.

Then there is Bhakti Yoga - the yoga of devoition, which is for somebody with a religious disposition. The main belief in Yoga and Hinduism is that supreme soul pervades all and is omnipresent. In other words if we have eyes to see god, then we can see him in anyone, in anything. It is about forming a loving relationship with god and with people and about cultivating unconditional love. A Bhakti yogi chooses an object/person or image to worship. It could be a spiritual person(Jesus, Buddha), a deity being or god himself. It is from Bhakti Yoga the worship of images and idols has sprang in Hinduism. It could even your own parents who you worship. What is important here is to purify your emotions to allow true and unconditional love.

The final and highest form of Yoga is Raja Yoga -the most sophisticated and scientific form of Yoga. It is also called "Royal science" This path is for those of a more scientific and intellectual disposition and enlightenment can only be attained through pure logic and mental concentration. Using your powers of logic and concentration you observe reality and your mind.

Again to reiterate, though these paths are completely different in techniques, they all lead to the same goal. That is Yoga.

Without mythology hinduism is just another new-age religion. It is something the west will never understand. I guess ISCKON saw that and only teaches the ones which the west can understand.

Hinduism is a very complex religion. To understand it, one must study it very carefully. It is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands, of texts. I am studying it all the time and everyday I learn something new and wonderful about it.

The new-age spirituality is almost 90% Hinduism. So it is not surprising that Hinduism would seem like a new-age religion. A lot of the concepts you will find in new age spirituality such as psychic senses, Kundalini, chakras, meditation, astral planes, ascended masters and so on so forth are Hindu concepts.

Likewise Sikhism and Buddhism also share many Hindu concepts.
You are right that ISCKON is not Hinduism, it a branch of Hinduism, which like Sikhism and Buddhism has become it's own religion today. However, at the same time, it is based on one of the central Hindu texts. I don't know much else about ISCKON and how it's doctrines differ from main Hinduism. I did, attend a Hare Krishna Class once, and decidedly they did operate very differently from orthodox Hinduism.

 

[Jyothi]

Suraj,

thanks for the absolutely beautiful post.

Regards
Jyothi :jiggy:

 

[Arkangel]

Suraj, true to your name you shine new paths of wisdom to me. It was a wonderful post.

I agree that the aryan invasion is propaganda. There never was a invasion of sorts but you cant completely rule out the similarities of the gligamesh story, nordic mythology, greek mythology and Indian mythology.

But what you say about there not being a Dravidian or Aryan race in India is not accurate. It is easy to find the distinct features of Dravidian, they are darker in color, with larger nose bridge. You can easily tell who is a south indian and who is north indian. Dravidian language evolved completely different and not influenced by sanskrit. For example Tamil, it has been spoken from 800 B.C where as Sanskrit evolved a little bit earlier. Tamil evolved from a much earlier language but its evolution is side by side of Sanskrit and influnced by it through cultural exchanges and not as part of sanskrits evolution.

Celtic language like Irish and and Nordic (viking) language are similar to sanskrit. The theory is that sanskrit evolved from a common language that spawned/evolved into Irish, and other nordic languages. Dravidian languages entirely originated in India and they spread out from India spawning/evolving into different languages in Asia. There is a theory that Japanese is influnced by Dravidian languages like other south east asian languages. I know Japanese and there are words that are pronounced and mean the same in Tamil, which i know too.

I know a Hindi and a little Irish from a friend who is Irish so can tell there are words that are pronounced and mean the same in both. I do not know any Nordic languages so cant say much about them.

To Jyothi,
atharva veda as you said is the most dificult ot practise. I disagree with it but do agree with you labeling it as the darkside. But it does not justify it, sounds more like blackmagic and evil. This much i can say that it is not so, i know that you did not mean it to be evil but i would like to clarify to others that is it not so. You can be sane and still practice it. It is not that difficult to understand. I would love to explain more on it but that would not be proper and i will not do it. It is something you will have to come to on your own.

To Seyorni
I am more influnced by the South Indian Hindusim which views atharva veda has different from other vedas. I am not sure of the reason so would not like to state it.

Aryan Invasion:
The theory is that some time between 1500-1000 bc or earlier India was invaded by the nomadic people called Aryans from central europe or mainly the Nordic people. This theory does not hold true when it comes to actual evidence of there existance before they invaded India. They say that aryans were culturally superior to those living in India then but there is no evidence of their culture before the invasion. No building, or other cultural artifacts that they left behind before they invaded India. The new theory is that they are not a invasion from central europe but rather a cultural invasion from Sindu region to central europe. I do not belive in this theory either the reason is given down. The reason behind this is the langauge evolution of the nordic languages and sanskrit which as a common orgin. There has to be a common language from which this to distinct branches of evolution of different languages began. This is called as Indo-european languages since they phonetical sound similar and orgins of the language are similar. There are even genetic similarites with some North Indians or Indian Aryans with those of Caucasian/European origin. A Dravidian on the other hand has no euro features in him, his evolution in the Sub Continent is far more older than the Aryans who are newer in the evolution chart of that region. North Indians who are not of the same race as of South Indians have a lot of euro-features.

Skin coloration takes atleast 20,000 years to change, so dark skin is formed by being in a UV rich area like the Sub Continent, Australia and Africa for nearly 20,000 years and more. So those in India of lighter color have not been their for more than that but Dravidians who are dark skinned have been in that region for more than that. Which suggest that their migration to the Sub Continent was much more earlier than the later migration of Aryans who are light skinned. But the subsequent inter breeding as resulted in mixing of both races making no one ture Aryan or Dravidian in India only few of those who have not inter breed much like people from Kerla and some Northern regions like the Kashmiris and Punjab still hold the genetic material from the past.

So my conclusion that even though there never was a militraristic invasion of Aryans into India but there have been cultural and genetic influnce of europeans and central asians in India. Like how Dravidian culture and genetic influnce is there on other south east asian people.

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you Jyothi and Arkangel for your wonderful compliments:

Arkangel, the Aryan invasion is now popularly being characterized as propoganda. So if it is propoganda, it must have an ulterior motive.

There was a two-fold purpose to the AIT theory when it was thrust upon Indians 1) to undermine the credibility and integrity of Hinduism and Indians 2) to divide Indians amongst themselves. I will elucidate on both:

1) The British Imperialists were trying to prove to Indians that they had an European origin anyway and were not indigenous, thus how could they protest colonial rule. They understand that Indian culture was rooted in the Vedas and Hinduism, so by undermining that, they seeked to uproot it. In fact Max Muller, widely regarded as one of the most prominent early Sanskrit scholars wrote a set of letters to his wife which contained very disturbing thoughts on India and Hinduism. If you read literature from this period written on India, very demeaning things are written about it, including in the encylopedia Britanica.

2) Now, I am saying this is true or not, but I can show you how it would worked to the favour of the British who are infamous for the doctrine of "Divide and Rule" and using religion or race to divide people. Most famous is how they partitioned the country of India to create Pakistan. Similarily, they partitioned the country ideologically by dividing Indians into Aryans(north Indians) and Dravidians(South Indians) and this definitely worked to their favour in undermining the fabric of Indian society.

Before the British invaded India, North Indians and South Indians, Hindus and Muslims coexisted with one another. It becomes much easier to believe, that given that AIT is likely imperialist propoganda, that the Aryan and Dravidian which are predicates of it, is also likely propoganda.

Now the facts, nowhere in Indian texts is the word Aryan used to denote a race of people. In fact the word "Aryan" is Sanskrit for "noble" and was used to describe learned and wise people. Krishna uses the word in the Bhagvad Gita to rebuke Arjun "Arjun, don't be so unnoble"

Moreover, the Hindu religion, which as you understood is comprised of many texts from different Rishis etc, also has contributions from South Indian Rishis. Today, representation of Vedic religion is found more in the South.

Just because there is a difference in facial features, in skin tone or even in language does not mean they're a different race. It is interesting how in one country, if you go to another town, you happen upon different cultures, language or accents and looks. You can see this in any big country, such as the USA.

This is why I do not invest any faith in AIT theory and the Aryan/Dravidian race devide. There is just no evidence to support it, other than speculation, and what further undermines it's credibility is it's propogandist origins.

As for the Sanskrits similarities with IE family of languages. Yes, it is too great to ignore, and any rationalist would have to conclude there is a common origin. However, as I said before, why is it assumed that it must have been a migration of Europeans towards India, couldn't it be vis-versa? There is more reason to believe that the latter is the case but euro-centric scholars and historicans will not concede to that.

For example Sanskrit is a very complex language, far more complex than Greek and Latin and has a perfect grammar and probably older. Greek and Latin have great similarity with it, so could they have branched of from Sanskrit? Again this is something euro-centric scholars could not concede.

What is interested that the European numeral system can be traced to the Sanskrit numeral system and as far as my understandings shows today the demical system is an Indian creation, as they were the only culture to use zero.

Just before Islam flourished in Arabia, there was a polytheistic religion there, and they worshipped a similar patheon of gods as those in Hinduism, such as Varuna. I believe there was even Indra and others.

This indicates, at least to me, that the vedic religion extended beyond the boundaries of India. As there are no records to show that the religion was brought in India from central Europe, the reverse would support that Indians brought it into Europe.

There is evidence to show that ancient India had trade links with many foreign empires and people from all over the world came to Indian universities to study. Indeed as far as Sumaria you can find vedic symbolism and architecture.

When the Saraswati river dried up, the settlers there could have migrated out from India towards central Europe and Asia and carried the culture with them.

There is also evidence, particularly in the Rig Veda, that ancient Indians were a seafaring people and had great understanding of navigation and mathematics. Indeed, the Harrapan cities are planned like modern cities.

There is no way of knowingly with absolute certainity what happened, but indeed the possibilities I mentioned above, could be true as well. I don't think it is important, however, to know the history of Hinduism, to appreciate the philosophies. I'll leave the history to the historians to debate over.

 

[Arkangel]

There is nothing much to argue on the aryan invasion theory.

One thing i would like to point out, Gligamesh story which is Mesopotamian in origin is far older than the Indus civilization suggesting that it is not a influnce of Indian culture but the other way. As for the Greek and Nordic culture goes they too were influnced by Mesopotamian and Egyptian.

All this is speculative in nature and can never be proved who is right but as far as aryan invasion theory goes, i do not believe it to be true. There is no proper evidence than the language similarity. Genetic similarity does not mean that it was a invasion but a mere migration of people from one place to the other.

But as far as the facial and geneolgy goes North Indians are different from South. That does not mean they are different humans. Chinese look a lot different from others but they are humans and their is not difference in their DNA which makes them any less or superior than others. This kind of changes takes place as a cause of evolution and this in no British Propaganda. British do not make skin color or for that matter genes. Nature does over a period of time.(Suraj do not get insulted by this statement, many people tend to as i have experienced in this forum, a little sensitve ego when it come to sarcasm).

To know more about this you need to study human migration theory from Africa. This is no propaganda but a serious research not biased by any political affiliations.

India is a UV(ultra violet) rich country meaning that sun shine is more here just like in Africa and Australia. Given 20,000 years from now, all the whites in Australia will be of dark skinned, that is just evolution trying to protect the body from cancer. The chances of a darkskinned person getting skin cancer is very low than a white skinned. That is why many Australians suffer from skin cancer and not even a few in Africa or the sub continent.

We humans divide people on race and color not nature. For nature, this is just evloution trying to adapt well to the given conditions.

This does not mean that Aryans or any such people invaded just says that some time in Indian history there were a set of people who migrated their around 70,000 years and then their was a second migration some 10,000 to 7000 years ago. Of the first migration their is clear fossil evidence but of the second only vague evidence which the British used to form the Aryan invasion theory. Migration of people is differnt than invasion. And Suraj as you said the migration did not take palce from the Indus valley to central europe when the saraswati river dried up. They moved south.

But let us leave this invasion argument at this. We both know it never happened and let not get stuck on semantic relations.

 

[Surya Deva]

Re Atharva veda:

This is what I meant, earlier about how it depends on which translation you consult. If you read the early translations, you will find magical incantations and potions, that sounds like Black Magic and spells. Yet, Atharva Veda is what the science of Ayurveda is based on. So it is not reconcilable with the hocus pocus.

In the Atharva Veda there is also the mention of Dhanur Vidya(the science of war). There is a verse which speaks of using a missile tipped with fire against the enemy. This has been translated by Maruice Bloom as an incantation to Agni Deva to destroy the enemy. This is because Maurice Bloom does not have understanding of what Agni was. It's been assumed, very shortsightedly, that it was a deity. When really it means fire.

I was reading an early translation of Rig Veda recently, which speaks of creation. First of all, it was so badly translated and incoherent(just like Blooms's translation of AV), I could hardly make any sense of it. Moreover, nearly everything was being translated as a god. For, example, the Hiryangarbh which is also explained in the Bhagvad Gita, is translated as a "Golden germ" and the first god in existence. When it really means golden womb(or cosmic womb) within which the entire existence was contained and when it exploded after a big bang(Bindu vishpot) it lead to the creation of the universe.

Thus you will find early translations of most Hindu literature to be outdated. A similar attitude is also taken by western scholars today. For instance in the book "A Dummies Guide to Hinduism" it says that everything written before 1995 in the west on Hindusm is outdated. I think many today are becoming aware of just how dubious these translations are.

I find the best thing to do, if you truly want to study it academically, is to open up several translations in front of you and study and contrast verse by verse and reference the Sanskrit word in a dictionary. See what makes sense.

You don't have to do this with other Sanskrit texts, only those written in Vedic Sanskrit. Everything written in Vedic Sanskrit is open to interpretation.

 

[Surya Deva]

Ark Angel, it is interesting you mention the Africa migration theory. I was reading an article on National Geographic that proposed a theory on of how humans migrated from Africa and into India and then migrated out from India and and colonised Europe. Of course, all of this is just theory for me. You find with archeology and history, that it is constantly changing, as new information appears. It would be highly ignorant to claim to know with absolute certainity what happened thousands of years ago, without having absolute incontrovertible proof.

The Aryan invasion theory, which is now revised to migration theory, when really it should have been discarded completely after being exposed, is very strongly refuted by DNA evidence. In the British journal Current Biology based on genetic tests a key mitrochondria DNA of the Western Eursian strain only accounted for 5.2% of Indian population, compared to over 70% in Europe. Furthermore, the Western Eurasian strain was present equally in both South and North India. So there is no genetic divide between them. So given that very hard evidence, there was never an Aryan migration/invasion or what have you.

Again, the word Aryan is used to describe a class of humans, not a race.

As for Mesopotamnia being older. It maybe, but at the same time it not known for certain how old the Indian civilisation is. If one looks at the geneology of kings and the recent discovery of the submerged city, it could be as older than 10,000 years old. Suffice to say, Hinduism evolved in a uniquely Indian context and is not some foreign import. The influences of Hinduism and Sanskrit on the rest of the world would suggest either there was a migration out from India or the culture of India projected beyond it's boundaries.

 

[Valjean]

mahabharata is a lot more than a treatise on the evils of gambling. may be you should read it more.....

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but the whole convoluted drama of the Mahabharata did begin with a loosing toss of the dice.

 

[ChrisP]

I hate to but in, not being Hindu inclined in any way, however my point is historic and not religious.

I notice early on that a theory of Aryan invasion upon the Vedics is described.

I do not think that this can be the case as Vedic scripture is almost identical in every way to Avestan scripture (Zoroastrian, in the modern world). There was a rift between the two groups of what once was this single religion well before the Roman emipire and possibly around or before the time of the Egyptian civilisations.

This group of people were the original Aryan race, and lived (mostly) in what is now Iran.

When the religion schismed, the two sides went their seperate ways. One to end in near extinction, the other to be tossed into the melting pot of the east.