Vedic Deities

[Rubellite Fae]

There's a lot of focus of forms of Viṣṇu and Śiva, but the Vedas emphasize Indra, Agni, Soma and others.

The academic view is that Śiva was native to the Indus Valley, Viṣṇu's various forms were native to the Ganges plains, and that the Aryans brought the Vedic religion. Over time these were syncretized into a greater pantheon.

I wonder, tho, with the great importance the Vedas have had, why these early Aryan deities didn't become more commonly venerated by devotees.

Please answer from any perspective: academic, astika, nastika, devotee, yogi, etc.

 

[Marcion]

From the Ananda Marga Tantra-Yoga perspective Vishnu is the all-pervading aspect of God, so no deity based on a real person.

Shiva on the other hand started off as a Tantric Guru (who lived over 7000 years ago) who did not support the ritualistic Vedic religion of the already invading Aryan tribes and was worshipped by the Tantric non-Aryans as a God because of his life and teachings.

Only gradually and much later was Shiva accepted into the pantheon of the increasingly more Tantric Vedic religion as well (Tantrics of course accepted Him right from the start).
A similar thing happened to the Tantric Guru Krishna 3500 years later.

The Vedic religion was the religion of the Aryan rulers of India who had entered India for thousands of years from the North-West, but their culture and the later Veda's were increasingly influenced by the spiritually superior Tantric culture, so there was a gradual mixture of the Vedic and the Tantric approach.

The early (Rig) Veda is dominated by the gods of the Aryans from the time that they lived outside of India and still worshipped the forces of nature rather than an all pervading singular (mythical) God like Vishnu. It is not very different from the Pagan religion of the Europeans (that would later be replaced by the somewhat more Tantric Christian religion).

The mythical god Rama was created by the early Indian Aryans as their divine epic hero who had conquered the non-Aryans or the "forces of darkness" symbolised as monkeys and demons.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder, tho, with the great importance the Vedas have had, why these early Aryan deities didn't become more commonly venerated by devotees.
Please answer from any perspective: academic, astika, nastika, devotee, yogi, etc.

The answer is simple. To survive, the Aryan brahmins had to adopt local deities, otherwise no one would have used their services. The minority merged into the majority. The majority gave due respect to the minority. Both were happy.
BTW, Marcion is not a Hindu.

 

[sayak83]

There's a lot of focus of forms of Viṣṇu and Śiva, but the Vedas emphasize Indra, Agni, Soma and others.

The academic view is that Śiva was native to the Indus Valley, Viṣṇu's various forms were native to the Ganges plains, and that the Aryans brought the Vedic religion. Over time these were syncretized into a greater pantheon.

I wonder, tho, with the great importance the Vedas have had, why these early Aryan deities didn't become more commonly venerated by devotees.

Please answer from any perspective: academic, astika, nastika, devotee, yogi, etc.

Actually Vishnu is a Vedic deity, one of the brothers of Indra in the Vedas. His importance increased and eclipsed that of other Vedic gods over time...probably because their followers became more numerous over time. Such things happen after all. Though in Yajna rituals, Indra is certainly invoked a lot. But Indra's deity form worship (a distinct non-Vedic practice) never really took off.
Rudra/Siva is also a Vedic deity, though perceived as an "outsider" and provoked fear and awe. So probably Rudra indeed came from the Harappan culture and became adopted and popular because of His perceived potency and closeness (He and Parvati stays on earth in the great Mountains and the Forests).

Mitra and Varuna have mostly been forgotten though, with Vishnu taking over all the roles of Varuna as the great Lord and keeper of the Cosmos. Mitra has been "incarnated" in the form of Dharma and its many many codices.

Such evolution happens after all. Forms change, yet the Brahman behind is Unchanging.

 

[Marcion]

There's a lot of focus of forms of Viṣṇu and Śiva, but the Vedas emphasize Indra, Agni, Soma and others.

The academic view is that Śiva was native to the Indus Valley, Viṣṇu's various forms were native to the Ganges plains, and that the Aryans brought the Vedic religion. Over time these were syncretized into a greater pantheon.

I wonder, tho, with the great importance the Vedas have had, why these early Aryan deities didn't become more commonly venerated by devotees.

Please answer from any perspective: academic, astika, nastika, devotee, yogi, etc.

They did not become venerated by devotees because they were not originally living Tantric Guru's or relatives of Guru's like Shiva (from 7000 years ago), Krishna (from 3500 years ago), Shiva's wife Kálii (Kaoverii, only since about 1600 years ago). The impact of such living Tantric Guru's was much deeper.

The Vedic gods were only worshipped in a ritualistic way rather than in a devotional way. The relationship with Shiva however was much more intimate and He also wasn't worshipped with a specific biija mantra (acoustic root) by His devotees.
The Vedic cult however eventually accepted Shiva as the transmutational pinciple (Shiva was to them the one fundamental substance of the universe which transmuted into the various forms of creation) and they worshipped Shiva with the sound 'mm', as the acoustic root of transmutation. So they were not as intimate with Him as the followers of Shiva Tantra (Shaeva Tantriks) were.

 

[ajay0]

There's a lot of focus of forms of Viṣṇu and Śiva, but the Vedas emphasize Indra, Agni, Soma and others.

The academic view is that Śiva was native to the Indus Valley, Viṣṇu's various forms were native to the Ganges plains, and that the Aryans brought the Vedic religion. Over time these were syncretized into a greater pantheon.

I wonder, tho, with the great importance the Vedas have had, why these early Aryan deities didn't become more commonly venerated by devotees.

Please answer from any perspective: academic, astika, nastika, devotee, yogi, etc.

Recent archaeological discoveries have proven that the Aryan Invasion or Migration theories are not credible and have no basis.The Hindu ,Buddhist and Jain scriptures also clearly emphasize Arya means noble person or person of character, and is not a racially affiliated term.

The dark skin of Vishnu, Rama, Bharatha, Krishna, Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Drona as mentioned in the epics is also further proof of this.

The Shivalingam was worshipped in the Indus valley civilization.

The scriptures also show the likes of Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Parashurama all worshipping the non-anthropomorphic Shivalingam.

The Shivalingam is considered in Hindu scriptures to be a cosmic pillar of light, while the Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shivalingam representing God as a point of light, and the same as Allah, Jehovah, Ahura Mazda of the other monotheistic religions.

Only the non-anthropomorphic Shivalingam was worshipped in ancient India as a symbol of the Divine, as shown by the Lingams excavated in the Indus valley civilization. Later on, buddhist and jain temples came up with anthropomorphic idols of Buddha and Mahavira.

Emulating them, the Hindus started creating anthropomorphic idols of Rama, Krishna, Devi and other gods and goddesses alongside the Shivalingam. This is how anthropomorphic idol worship also started in Hinduism.

The mantras related to the other gods and goddesses are mainly used in vedic rituals, and do not have much significance beyond that.

 

[Marcion]

The stone age penis worship unfortunately became associated with Satguru Sadashiva and although transformed into a more spiritual form as the shivalingam, it has no historical base as having anything to do with Lord Shiva (as so very much became associated with this great Guru during the thousands of years after He lived).

Lord Shiva was not a full Aryan nor was Lord Krishna, who lived about 4 thousand years after the Caucasian Aryans had started to arrive in India (so there were hardly Aryans left after so much time had passed). The presence of Caucasian genes in the Indian population (especially in the North and West) has been amply proven by genetic research. Only religious fundamentalists try to deny this fact.

Of course the Brahmin caste who in part descended from the original Aryans never stopped calling themselves Aryans (with all the special praises of their priviliged caste) even after their skins were no longer lily white after mixing extensively with the rest of the Indian population.

 

[ajay0]

The stone age penis worship unfortunately became associated with Satguru Sadashiva and although transformed into a more spiritual form as the shivalingam, it has no historical base as having anything to do with Lord Shiva (as so very much became associated with this great Guru during the thousands of years after He lived).

It is unfortunate that westerners then and now are continuing to associate the Shivalingam with tribal penis worship and so on.

Swami Vivekananda, in the Paris Congress of religions in 1900, deeply criticized this misinterpretation of the Shivalingam as penis worship by a european scholar, and stated that it corresponds to a cosmic pillar of light, which is also stated by the Kashi Vishwanath temple, the most famous Shiva temple in India. An another name for the Shivalingam is Jyotirlingam with Jyoti meaning light.

The Paris congress

At the Congress, Mr. Gustav Oppert, a German Pandit, read a paper on the origin of the Shâlagrâma-Shilâ. He traced the origin of the Shalagrama worship to that of the emblem of the female generative principle. According to him, the Shiva-Linga is the phallic emblem of the male and the Shalagrama of the female generative principle. And thus he wanted to establish that the worship of the Shiva-Linga and that of the Shalagrama — both are but the component parts of the worship of Linga and Yoni! The Swami repudiated the above two views and said that though he had heard of such ridiculous explanations about the Shiva-Linga, the other theory of the Shalagrama-Shila was quite new and strange, and seemed groundless to him.

The Swami said that the worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In that hymn a description is found of the beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. As afterwards the Yajna (sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes, and flames, the Soma plant, and the ox that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice gave place to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted-hair, his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva, and so on — just so, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga, and was deified to the high Devahood of Shri Shankara. In the Atharva-Veda Samhita, the sacrificial cakes are also extolled along with the attributes of the Brahman.

In the Linga Purâna, the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories, meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the superiority of Mahâdeva.

Lord Shiva was not a full Aryan nor was Lord Krishna, who lived about 4 thousand years after the Caucasian Aryans had started to arrive in India (so there were hardly Aryans left after so much time had passed). .

The Arya actually means noble one or gentleman, as mentioned earlier. This is also emphasized by the Hindu scriptures along with Buddhist and Jain scriptures.

The presence of Caucasian genes in the Indian population (especially in the North and West) has been amply proven by genetic research. Only religious fundamentalists try to deny this fact.

There has been many migrations to India from all over the world, and such tribes were taken into the Aryan cultural fold. This was especially evident in the North and west which is on the path of migration routes.

They embraced the Aryan culture, but this does not imply any racial connotations.

The misinterpretation of the Arya as racial other than religious/cultural started with european scholars with conditioned viewpoints.

Even Max Mueller deplored such viewpoints and stated thus, "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians... To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.

One of the reasons why such racial interpretations persisted was because of the inferiority complex of western civilization of not being an ancient civilization and inferior to the Jewish ancient civilization.

The racial appropriation of the Aryan culture in India inspite of Hindu and Buddhist scriptures declaring the contrary, was a psychological tool for them to overcome this inferiority complex with respect to the Jewish one.

 

[Srivijaya]

The stone age penis worship unfortunately became associated with Satguru Sadashiva

Firstly, there are no scriptures dating from the stone age to explain the phallic forms of that time, or what the people considered them to mean. So calling it "penis worship" is to fall victim to a convenient modern assumption, and to close down other considerations.

and although transformed into a more spiritual form as the shivalingam,

Again, nobody can make that judgement. How do we know it wasn't spiritual? Who can tell us? The fact that the modern mind cannot equate such artifacts with anything spiritual is our problem. Stone age people had their own culture. Who are we to judge?

it has no historical base as having anything to do with Lord Shiva

Well, that's a million-dollar question. From a Buddhist tantric point of view, the Chakrasamvara tantra is allied, if not entirely derived from Shaivite sources. The couplings we see of Heruka and his consort are no different in meaning to the Shiva ligam residing in the yoni. Both represent the indivisibility of bliss and awareness, or Shiva/Shakti (depending on the source).

The utilisation of sexual energy is part of the elementary teachings of tantra; which is the reason these teachings were kept secret. The jewel in the lotus symbolizes nothing short of full enlightenment. The ash-smeared tantrics (Shiva's colour) who haunted the charnel grounds knew this.

 

[ajay0]

Swami Vivekananda here blamed Tantric interpretations for the misinterpretation of the Shivalingam.

The Paris congress

The explanation of the Shalagrama-Shila as a phallic emblem was an imaginary invention and, from the very beginning, beside the mark. The explanation of the Shiva-Linga as a phallic emblem was brought forward by the most thoughtless, and was forthcoming in India in her most degraded times, those of the downfall of Buddhism. The filthiest Tântrika literature of Buddhism of those times is yet largely found and practiced in Nepal and Tibet.

 

[Rubellite Fae]

Recent archaeological discoveries have proven that the Aryan Invasion or Migration theories are not credible and have no basis.The Hindu ,Buddhist and Jain scriptures also clearly emphasize Arya means noble person or person of character, and is not a racially affiliated term.

If your support is archaeology, please reference the paper. If it's a sacred text, please reference the śloka.

In my experience the evidence for Aryan migration is beyond enough. We have more evidence for this than most hypotheses in archaeology. So, for the purposes of this discussion I'm taking as given that the Aryans, IVC, and Southern India natives represent three distinct cultures with all that that entails. This does not discount the fact that Arya does mean noble. Neither should it imply anything racial, as there is no biological evidence for races within H. sapiens sapiens.

The scriptures also show the likes of Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Parashurama all worshipping the non-anthropomorphic Shivalingam.

Where is this specifically stated?

Later on, buddhist and jain temples came up with anthropomorphic idols of Buddha and Mahavira.

I have read that it was Buddhist Greeks in Bacteria who first built statues of Buddha as Indian Buddhists at the time saw no need to emphasise the body of the man who had achieved the Buddha state. So, please reference a source for this info.

The mantras related to the other gods and goddesses are mainly used in vedic rituals, and do not have much significance beyond that.

Okay, but this skips past my original question. If Hinduism is astika, why is there no significance to these Vedic deities outside the earliest texts?

 

[Rubellite Fae]

Lord Shiva was not a full Aryan nor was Lord Krishna, who lived about 4 thousand years after the Caucasian Aryans had started to arrive in India (so there were hardly Aryans left after so much time had passed). The presence of Caucasian genes in the Indian population (especially in the North and West) has been amply proven by genetic research. Only religious fundamentalists try to deny this fact.

The genetic, linguistic, and archaeological evidence all agree that the Indo-Aryans entered around 1500 BCE. 4,000 years after that is still 500 years away.

Where did you get your information?

 

[Rubellite Fae]

Firstly, there are no scriptures dating from the stone age to explain the phallic forms of that time, or what the people considered them to mean. So calling it "penis worship" is to fall victim to a convenient modern assumption, and to close down other considerations.

लिङ्ग literally mean "sign symbol or mark which denotes one's sex." While "penis worship" is probably inaccurate, it's no less so than any other assumption. Personally, I go for the idea that they were venerating the generative principle itself (as it is almost always linga + yoni).

Also, stone phalluses are found all over the prehistoric world and archaeologists tend to link these with fertility rituals and a greater generative principle. The IVC lingas stand out because they feature a yoni thus showing the harmony between male & female principles, just as the taichi (yinyang symbol) does in China.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just wanted to point out that Marcion's is probably partially accurate. To be clear, though, it wasn't "penis worship" as a modern person would interpret the phrase.

 

[Rubellite Fae]

The answer is simple. To survive, the Aryan brahmins had to adopt local deities, otherwise no one would have used their services.

This answers why Shiva & Visnu's forms continued to be venerated until today. My question is how Hindus who venerate these forms can consider themselves to be astika. Shouldn't they be venerating those who are extolled in the Vedas to be astika?

 

[Aupmanyav]

After the merger, the Aryans too became Hindus. The majority imported Vishnu, Rudra and Saraswati; and exported the vast Hindu pantheon into Vedic religion. You can hardly find any dividing line in religion or among people.

 

[ajay0]

This does not discount the fact that Arya does mean noble. Neither should it imply anything racial, as there is no biological evidence for races within H. sapiens sapiens.

True, but but stating that the 'Aryans' are distinct from the other Hindus when the whole of Hinduism is a religious culture, implies a racial interpretation of the term.

Let the Pundits fight among themselves; it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests. If the Europeans do not like us, Aryas, because we are dark, let them take another name for themselves—what is that to us? ~ Swami Vivekananda

If your support is archaeology, please reference the paper. If it's a sacred text, please reference the śloka.

All this is available in the internet itself.

The discovery of the Saraswati riverbed through sattelite imagery has pushed back any invasion or migration theory by a couple of milleniums, as the Saraswati river is mentioned numerous times in the Vedas.

Same goes for the Arya with respect to the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scriptures.

Even Max Mueller, as stated earlier has not approved of any racial interpretation of the term Arya. It was the likes of racist pseudo-scholars like Arthur de Gobineau who first gave a racial interpretation to the term Aryan, and set the foundation for later superficial ideologies like Nazism which bled Europe white in the world wars. Neo-nazism continues to plague European administrators inspite of severe laws legislated against it. The ban on swastika by the european governments continue to be a major issue for devout Hindus who see it as a sacred symbol.

Swami Vivekananda had warned the westerners of tampering with the Aryan culture and civilization through racial interpretations, and the dangers of continuing with its materialistic civilization.

Swami Vivekananda stated in a speech in 1897, "The whole of Western civilisation will crumble to pieces in the next fifty years if there is no spiritual foundation. It is hopeless and perfectly useless to attempt to govern mankind with the sword. You will find that the very centres from which such ideas as government by force sprang up are the very first centres to degrade and degenerate and crumble to pieces. Europe, the centre of the manifestation of material energy, will crumble into dust within fifty years if she is not mindful to change her position, to shift her ground and make spirituality the basis of her life."

I have read that it was Buddhist Greeks in Bacteria who first built statues of Buddha as Indian Buddhists at the time saw no need to emphasise the body of the man who had achieved the Buddha state. So, please reference a source for this info.

The Buddhist and Jain idols in their respective temples created the Hindu ones as well through emulation. That the Buddhist greeks at the time of Alexander may have first built statues of Buddha does not make much difference to it.

 

[Rubellite Fae]

True, but but stating that the 'Aryans' are distinct from the other Hindus when the whole of Hinduism is a religious culture, implies a racial interpretation of the term.

Let the Pundits fight among themselves; it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests. If the Europeans do not like us, Aryas, because we are dark, let them take another name for themselves—what is that to us? ~ Swami Vivekananda

Indo-Aryans (or Aryans for short) were a linguistic group and the term can be more generally used to denote the culture of that linguistic group. They no longer exist. Modern Hindus may call themselves Aryas, but have no greater relationship to the historic Indo-Aryan than they do the indigenous Indians (IVC & prehistoric hunter gatherers). Hindus are an amalgamation of all of these cultures with the additional historic influences of Islamic and Western cultures. Your quote comes back to skin color when it has no relevance.

As a comparison, though much of my roots are Scandinavian, I am not Scandinavian. And, that ancestry isn't half as far back in history as the Aryans.

All this is available in the internet itself.

Sure, but the burden lies on the claim-maker. And, there is ample evidence for an Aryan migration. As I said, more evidence than in most prehistoric/early historic archaeology.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"—Carl Sagan

The discovery of the Saraswati riverbed through sattelite imagery has pushed back any invasion or migration theory by a couple of milleniums, as the Saraswati river is mentioned numerous times in the Vedas.

If you are talking about the assumption that the Ghaggar-Hakra river system was the Sarasvati, you may want to know that it is fed by monsoons, not mountain glaciers as Rig Veda says about the Sarasvati. More likely, the Sarasvati is the modern Helmand River (also called Haraxvati) north of India.

Same goes for the Arya with respect to the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scriptures.

Same what goes?

Even Max Mueller, as stated earlier has not approved of any racial interpretation of the term Arya. It was the likes of racist pseudo-scholars like Arthur de Gobineau who first gave a racial interpretation to the term Aryan, and set the foundation for later superficial ideologies like Nazism which bled Europe white in the world wars. Neo-nazism continues to plague European administrators inspite of severe laws legislated against it. The ban on swastika by the european governments continue to be a major issue for devout Hindus who see it as a sacred symbol.

How is this relevant? Our discussion has nothing to do with race or skin color.

The Buddhist and Jain idols in their respective temples created the Hindu ones as well through emulation. That the Buddhist greeks at the time of Alexander may have first built statues of Buddha does not make much difference to it.

I think it's an important distinction whether anthropomorphized statues, which are common in modern Hindu culture, came by way of Westerners (with their very different spiritual conceptions) or other South Asians.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indo-Aryans (or Aryans for short) were a linguistic group and the term can be more generally used to denote the culture of that linguistic group. They no longer exist. Modern Hindus may call themselves Aryas, but have no greater relationship to the historic Indo-Aryan than they do the indigenous Indians (IVC & prehistoric hunter gatherers). Hindus are an amalgamation of all of these cultures with the additional historic influences of Islamic and Western cultures. Your quote comes back to skin color when it has no relevance.

If you are talking about the assumption that the Ghaggar-Hakra river system was the Sarasvati, you may want to know that it is fed by monsoons, not mountain glaciers as Rig Veda says about the Sarasvati. More likely, the Sarasvati is the modern Helmand River (also called Haraxvati) north of India.

How is this relevant? Our discussion has nothing to do with race or skin color.

I think it's an important distinction whether anthropomorphized statues, which are common in modern Hindu culture, came by way of Westerners (with their very different spiritual conceptions) or other South Asians.

Rubellite Fae, I am not a 'chauvinistic Hindu'. I am a rebel. Most Hindus have problems with my understanding of Hinduism and history of Indo-Aryans (I label myself as a very strongly atheist Hindu). For one thing, I completely agree with the Kurgan hypothesis - and go beyond that. I believe that the original homeland of Indo-Europeans was somewhere in Siberia, high up in the Arctic Circle, where they had month long dawns and two-month long Arctic night. Because that is what is mentioned in RigVeda, our oldest book.

Yes, Hinduism is an amalgam, better than being a destroyer of beliefs that differ from one's own. When there is mixing, new shades will arise. That is natural. We have our lineages (Gotras) going back to thousands of years. They are sacrosanct. No one changes that. Yeah, skin color is not important, it goes by paternity (or by supposed paternity, the truth known only to the mother). Aryans still exist and Vedic religion is still practiced as a part of Hinduism by all Hindus. MtDNA of Indians is quite uniform (which means Indo-Aryans married indigenous women).

Ghagghar-Haka is Saraswati, but not the only one. Not Helmand, but Argandhab (Haraxvati) was another Saraswati. And not only that - I have found two more 'Sari-Su' (Golden Rivers), one in Turkmenistan and the other in Kazakhstan. Probably they were earlier 'Saraswatis'. Indo-Aryans commonly named the main rivers in the region of their of their habitation as 'Saraswati'. 'Saraswati' is a representation of the Milky Way galaxy on Earth. We have more Saraswatis in India than just Gagghar-Hakra.

All this is relevant to the discussion when we are talking about Indo-Aryans and Vedic religion. Aryans did not have a tradition of idol worship, therefore Idol worship and anthropomorphization is indigenous. We had anthromorphized deities even in Indus Valley civilization.

 

[ajay0]

Indo-Aryans (or Aryans for short) were a linguistic group and the term can be more generally used to denote the culture of that linguistic group. They no longer exist. Modern Hindus may call themselves Aryas, but have no greater relationship to the historic Indo-Aryan than they do the indigenous Indians (IVC & prehistoric hunter gatherers).

Even in terms of a linguistic group, the term Indo-european is used nowadays by academecians due to racial sensitivities on the back ground of the Jewish, gypsy and Slav genocides in the second world war, and the continued backdrop of Neo-nazism and race related violence, as the shooting in a mosque in New Zealand recently shows.

The Indo-european languages may have a common substratum or it can also be a case of OIT. These are all still theories even now.

Modern Hindus may call themselves Aryas, but have no greater relationship to the historic Indo-Aryan than they do the indigenous Indians (IVC & prehistoric hunter gatherers).

But the Hindus are an ancient civilization. Who can be more historical than them ! Definitely not the scandinavians who are of recent origin.

There is also a theory called OIT doing the rounds.

Your quote comes back to skin color when it has no relevance.

Vivekananda made such remarks due to the racial interpretations made by some scholars in the 19th century.

If they had made use of his wisdom and warnings then, europe would not have ended up in the mess it was in 1945.

Sure, but the burden lies on the claim-maker. And, there is ample evidence for an Aryan migration. As I said, more evidence than in most prehistoric/early historic archaeology.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"—Carl Sagan.

It seems that you are out of touch with modern academic theories on the subject on the basis of the latest findings.

Saraswati underground

The myth of the Aryan migration/invasion

The Aryan Invasion Theory: The Final Nail in its Coffin

If you are talking about the assumption that the Ghaggar-Hakra river system was the Sarasvati, you may want to know that it is fed by monsoons, not mountain glaciers as Rig Veda says about the Sarasvati. More likely, the Sarasvati is the modern Helmand River (also called Haraxvati) north of India..

You have not done your research properly and there are too many holes in your notes. I am talking about the sattelite imagery of the saraswati riverbed discovered in the last decade, which has brought about revision of historical theories.

The Saraswati river is the most frequently mentioned river in the Rig Veda. The Mahabharata mentions that the river dried up in a desert. Satellite imagery and geological tests have confirmed that the Saraswati River once flowed through the IVC. And a large number of IVC sites have been found to be based around this dried-up river. Saraswati River dried up prior to the supposedinvasion/migration of Aryans into India !

There are numerous references to constellations and other astronomical events,e.g. eclipses, in the Rig Veda. Based on such references, the composition of the Rig Veda has been dated circa 4,000B.C., which is long before their supposed invasion/migration into India circa 1500 b.c.

I think it's an important distinction whether anthropomorphized statues, which are common in modern Hindu culture, came by way of Westerners (with their very different spiritual conceptions) or other South Asians.

India had their own traditions of sculpture and arts, and probably borrowed from the Greeks as well, when they came here. They were defeated by Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, who later married the daughter of the Greek general Seleucus, and had good diplomatic relations with them.

 

[ajay0]

It should be understood that many tribes have come to India through the north-western routes and were absorbed in the folds of the Aryan culture, and adopted by the sages and brahmins. This explains the racial and cultural dissimilarities between such people situated in the north-western regions and the rest of India.

Shankaracharya himself is said to have raised such tribal peoples to the status of Kshatriyas and Brahmins to foster the Aryan culture. This has also been mentioned by Swami Vivekananda.

Also the fair-complexioned Mughals, who came from Central Asia themselves, had ruled northern India for centuries, and they have also made genetic contributions to the Indian genetic makeup resulting in fair-complexioned Indians.
Same too with the Britishers who have created a body of Anglo-indians in India.This is similar to the Arab and Moorish invasions of Italy, Spain and Portugal which have left its legacy of brown-skinned Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese.

So all these have to be taken into account before judging Indians on the basis of race-related theories. In terms of racial origin and so on, genetic testing is the key to determine accuracy.