Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inWere Hindus immigrants to India?
+4
Hellsangel
Vakavaka Pakapaka
Seva Lamberdar
silvermani
8 posters
Page 1 of 1
Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:31 pm
It would be wrong to see these migrations just in terms of Islamic conquests as we increasingly tend to do. The advent of Islam into India is only a visible marker, for peoples who migrated earlier and even just before the Islamic conquests were also of similar stock. For instance, that great Rajput clan, the Sisodias are of Scythian origin and historians derive their name from Sassanian. Just as Jat derives from Gatae, Ahir from Avar, Gujar from Khazar, Thakur from Tukharian. The Scythian or Saka tribes were the last pre-Islamic migrants into India. Some entered the plains through the Bolan Pass, and settled in Rajasthan which is why some Rajput, Gujar and Jat clans such as Pawar, Chauhan, Rathi, Sial and others now claim descent from there, whereas others like Mann, Gill, Bajwa, Bhullar, Sandhu and others who came through the Khyber Pass claim descent from Afghanistan.
Some of these clans acquired kingships and were readily granted genealogies by the Brahmin priesthood, who were ever willing to be imaginative as long as their status was assured and for suitable monetary rewards. The agnikula ritual cleansed them of the past and gave them a high place under the Hindu scheme.
Some of the genealogies given are quite extravagant. Thus the Suryavanshis can claim to have descended from the sun god, while the Chandravanshis can claim descent from the lunar god, and some claim even more specifically to be Raghuvanshis, the clan of Lord Rama. Not that to be a Scythian is something to be ashamed of. Herodotus reveals that even way back in the 5th century BC, the Scythians had political control over much of Central Asia and even as far as the Gangetic Plain. Alexander the Great took a Bactran princess, Roxanne (Rukhshana), as his bride as he had to buy peace with and gain Scythian allies.
Political maps of India of early periods clearly suggest an Indian polity heavily weighted in the northwestern part of South Asia. Even emperor Ashoka’s kingdom while centered in Pataliputra (Patna) extended mostly westward, as far as Bamian and Herat now in Afghanistan and hardly into the Deccan and below. This seems to have been so even way back between 2,800-2,600 BC, when the Indus Valley civilisation existed.
This civilisation is estimated to have included over 1,500 settlements over an area the size of Western Europe in present day Pakistan and western India. Excavations, not just in Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Kot Dijian and Dholavira, very clearly suggest that these were Dravidian settlements and were so till about 1,600 BC. Archeologists have concluded that during this period Harappa, despite the seeming lack of an army, was one of the largest and most powerful economic and political centers in the region (see Scientific American, July 2003).
Archeologists also believe that the decline of this civilisation coincided with the shifting of the course of the Ghaggar-Hakra River (Saraswati), then a major river of the Indus Valley. The collapse of the agricultural economy largely due to this, led to the overcrowding of cities like Mohenjo Daro and Harappa leading to civic disorder. Thus when the Aryans made their appearance around 1,500 BC these cities were ready to fall. By 1,000 BC a new and distinctive ideology and language began to emerge in this region. The Vedic period had arrived.
Quiet clearly, both, the Aryans and Dravidians were migrant races that travelled eastwards in search of pastures for their cattle and fertile land for agriculture. This is where we run into ideological problems with the ultra-nationalist and conservative Hindu gerontocracy that, like Gaga Bhatt did for Shivaji, are foisting a new genealogy upon our nation. The word out now is that we, Indians of today, are an indigenous people. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
The only indigenous people in India are the adivasis, who Nihar Ranjan Ray described as “the original autochthonous people of India.” The rest, be they Dravidian or Aryan, Hindu or Muslim, Rajput or Jat, are migrants with as much or as little claim as the European settlers in the new world have to be known as Americans. It is true that the colonising people in the Americas have managed to forge a distinct new identity, just as the European Jew has managed to become the modern Israeli, and the world acknowledges them as that, but to believe them to be an indigenous people would be akin to the patently bogus Afrikaner claim to be an indigenous African people.
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/mallikarjun-kharge-aryans-vedic-age-dravidians-scythians-saka-east-india-company-adivasis-hindu-muslim/story/1/7636.html
Some of these clans acquired kingships and were readily granted genealogies by the Brahmin priesthood, who were ever willing to be imaginative as long as their status was assured and for suitable monetary rewards. The agnikula ritual cleansed them of the past and gave them a high place under the Hindu scheme.
Some of the genealogies given are quite extravagant. Thus the Suryavanshis can claim to have descended from the sun god, while the Chandravanshis can claim descent from the lunar god, and some claim even more specifically to be Raghuvanshis, the clan of Lord Rama. Not that to be a Scythian is something to be ashamed of. Herodotus reveals that even way back in the 5th century BC, the Scythians had political control over much of Central Asia and even as far as the Gangetic Plain. Alexander the Great took a Bactran princess, Roxanne (Rukhshana), as his bride as he had to buy peace with and gain Scythian allies.
Political maps of India of early periods clearly suggest an Indian polity heavily weighted in the northwestern part of South Asia. Even emperor Ashoka’s kingdom while centered in Pataliputra (Patna) extended mostly westward, as far as Bamian and Herat now in Afghanistan and hardly into the Deccan and below. This seems to have been so even way back between 2,800-2,600 BC, when the Indus Valley civilisation existed.
This civilisation is estimated to have included over 1,500 settlements over an area the size of Western Europe in present day Pakistan and western India. Excavations, not just in Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Kot Dijian and Dholavira, very clearly suggest that these were Dravidian settlements and were so till about 1,600 BC. Archeologists have concluded that during this period Harappa, despite the seeming lack of an army, was one of the largest and most powerful economic and political centers in the region (see Scientific American, July 2003).
Archeologists also believe that the decline of this civilisation coincided with the shifting of the course of the Ghaggar-Hakra River (Saraswati), then a major river of the Indus Valley. The collapse of the agricultural economy largely due to this, led to the overcrowding of cities like Mohenjo Daro and Harappa leading to civic disorder. Thus when the Aryans made their appearance around 1,500 BC these cities were ready to fall. By 1,000 BC a new and distinctive ideology and language began to emerge in this region. The Vedic period had arrived.
Quiet clearly, both, the Aryans and Dravidians were migrant races that travelled eastwards in search of pastures for their cattle and fertile land for agriculture. This is where we run into ideological problems with the ultra-nationalist and conservative Hindu gerontocracy that, like Gaga Bhatt did for Shivaji, are foisting a new genealogy upon our nation. The word out now is that we, Indians of today, are an indigenous people. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
The only indigenous people in India are the adivasis, who Nihar Ranjan Ray described as “the original autochthonous people of India.” The rest, be they Dravidian or Aryan, Hindu or Muslim, Rajput or Jat, are migrants with as much or as little claim as the European settlers in the new world have to be known as Americans. It is true that the colonising people in the Americas have managed to forge a distinct new identity, just as the European Jew has managed to become the modern Israeli, and the world acknowledges them as that, but to believe them to be an indigenous people would be akin to the patently bogus Afrikaner claim to be an indigenous African people.
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/mallikarjun-kharge-aryans-vedic-age-dravidians-scythians-saka-east-india-company-adivasis-hindu-muslim/story/1/7636.html
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by silvermani Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:28 pm
My Rajput friend told me jats are a sect that started out as unacknowledged offspring of Rajputs and other lower caste women. He said "jat" is based on "jhoot".
silvermani- Posts : 1631
Join date : 2014-01-18
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:15 pm
Do you know what is at the heart of this silly hypothesis / article about "adi-vasis" (literally meaning "original residents") being the original inhabitants of India whereas "Hindus" as a kind of new migrants from outside?
The answer is that it simply is based on the wrong name "adi-vasis" used for people living at the fringes of society who simply had not wanted to change as the rest of society changed over time. This kind of thing would have happened to anyone, including a family in a village or even one of the siblings within a family, not willing to change with time. Now these idiotic researchers are calling these people at the fringes (who did not want to change) as original inhabitants and the rest of people who adopted progressive ways and changed as from outside.
Btw let's assume a family (let's call "A") in the 21st century adhering strictly to religious laws, having large number of children, the kids avoiding studies in science etc. and instead taking religious studies. Let's also consider another family from the same religion and area (let's call it "B") adopting all modern ways (small family size, more emphasis on science etc. and less on religion, religious studies and religious laws). Which family do you think is likely to lag behind and worthy of the title "adi-parivar" (original family) and why ("A" or "B")?
Hopefully, this will clarify the basis for this silly theory / article?
The answer is that it simply is based on the wrong name "adi-vasis" used for people living at the fringes of society who simply had not wanted to change as the rest of society changed over time. This kind of thing would have happened to anyone, including a family in a village or even one of the siblings within a family, not willing to change with time. Now these idiotic researchers are calling these people at the fringes (who did not want to change) as original inhabitants and the rest of people who adopted progressive ways and changed as from outside.
Btw let's assume a family (let's call "A") in the 21st century adhering strictly to religious laws, having large number of children, the kids avoiding studies in science etc. and instead taking religious studies. Let's also consider another family from the same religion and area (let's call it "B") adopting all modern ways (small family size, more emphasis on science etc. and less on religion, religious studies and religious laws). Which family do you think is likely to lag behind and worthy of the title "adi-parivar" (original family) and why ("A" or "B")?
Hopefully, this will clarify the basis for this silly theory / article?
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by silvermani Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:31 pm
I did a DNA test and apart from saying that I am mostly Indian, the test also revealed that I am 5% Melanesian and about 1% Polynesian. So I am mostly Indian, with a trace amount of immigration from Melanesia + Polynesia.
It would be interesting to do a DNA test of all the clans mentioned in the article and see what the results look like.
It would be interesting to do a DNA test of all the clans mentioned in the article and see what the results look like.
silvermani- Posts : 1631
Join date : 2014-01-18
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:28 pm
According to "The Sikular Annals of Science", any Indian who is not a descendent of Aurangajeb is not of Indian origin. Mian Aurangajeb did a very hard tapasya to Kafir lingams and won this right. Pappu, Sibal, Mulayam and Laloo routinely worship Aurangajeb's lingam and pray for a super Sikular future for India.silvermani wrote:I did a DNA test and apart from saying that I am mostly Indian, the test also revealed that I am 5% Melanesian and about 1% Polynesian. So I am mostly Indian, with a trace amount of immigration from Melanesia + Polynesia.
It would be interesting to do a DNA test of all the clans mentioned in the article and see what the results look like.
Vakavaka Pakapaka- Posts : 7611
Join date : 2012-08-24
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by silvermani Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:36 pm
I have no trace whatsoever of central asian(Mughals' point of origin) in my DNA. Proud to be a native, non Mughal IndianVakavaka Pakapaka wrote:According to "The Sikular Annals of Science", any Indian who is not a descendent of Aurangajeb is not of Indian origin. Mian Aurangajeb did a very hard tapasya to Kafir lingams and won this right. Pappu, Sibal, Mulayam and Laloo routinely worship Aurangajeb's lingam and pray for a super Sikular future for India.silvermani wrote:I did a DNA test and apart from saying that I am mostly Indian, the test also revealed that I am 5% Melanesian and about 1% Polynesian. So I am mostly Indian, with a trace amount of immigration from Melanesia + Polynesia.
It would be interesting to do a DNA test of all the clans mentioned in the article and see what the results look like.
silvermani- Posts : 1631
Join date : 2014-01-18
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:34 am
btw, considering that the Hindus seem to be only in India (at least that was the case a few centuries ago), from where did the Hindus originally go to India as claimed by the authors of this article? Shouldn't there be another country in the world today, other than India, with majority Hindu population, like the white Europeans going to America and becoming the majority population in U.S.A. etc. still having a large / majority of whites in Europe and similarly the Muslims from Arabia going and occupying other countries and becoming majority populations there (such as in Pakistan etc.) still having the majority Muslim population in Arabia (Saudi Arabia etc.)? Where is the Hindu equivalent (majority Hindu country) outside India (Indian subcontinent)? The answer is "Nowhere." In other words, this theory / research is bogus, implying that in reality Hindus originally were indigenous to India.Seva Lamberdar wrote:Do you know what is at the heart of this silly hypothesis / article about "adi-vasis" (literally meaning "original residents") being the original inhabitants of India whereas "Hindus" as a kind of new migrants from outside?
The answer is that it simply is based on the wrong name "adi-vasis" used for people living at the fringes of society who simply had not wanted to change as the rest of society changed over time. This kind of thing would have happened to anyone, including a family in a village or even one of the siblings within a family, not willing to change with time. Now these idiotic researchers are calling these people at the fringes (who did not want to change) as original inhabitants and the rest of people who adopted progressive ways and changed as from outside.
Btw let's assume a family (let's call "A") in the 21st century adhering strictly to religious laws, having large number of children, the kids avoiding studies in science etc. and instead taking religious studies. Let's also consider another family from the same religion and area (let's call it "B") adopting all modern ways (small family size, more emphasis on science etc. and less on religion, religious studies and religious laws). Which family do you think is likely to lag behind and worthy of the title "adi-parivar" (original family) and why ("A" or "B")?
Hopefully, this will clarify the basis for this silly theory / article?
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by silvermani Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:39 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:btw, considering that the Hindus seem to be only in India (at least that was the case a few centuries ago), from where did the Hindus originally go to India as claimed by the authors of this article? Shouldn't there be another country in the world today, other than India, with majority Hindu population, like the white Europeans going to America and becoming the majority population in U.S.A. etc. still having a large / majority of whites in Europe and similarly the Muslims from Arabia going and occupying other countries and becoming majority populations there (such as in Pakistan etc.) still having the majority Muslim population in Arabia (Saudi Arabia etc.)? Where is the Hindu equivalent (majority Hindu country) outside India (Indian subcontinent)? The answer is "Nowhere." In other words, this theory / research is bogus, implying that in reality Hindus originally were indigenous to India.Seva Lamberdar wrote:Do you know what is at the heart of this silly hypothesis / article about "adi-vasis" (literally meaning "original residents") being the original inhabitants of India whereas "Hindus" as a kind of new migrants from outside?
The answer is that it simply is based on the wrong name "adi-vasis" used for people living at the fringes of society who simply had not wanted to change as the rest of society changed over time. This kind of thing would have happened to anyone, including a family in a village or even one of the siblings within a family, not willing to change with time. Now these idiotic researchers are calling these people at the fringes (who did not want to change) as original inhabitants and the rest of people who adopted progressive ways and changed as from outside.
Btw let's assume a family (let's call "A") in the 21st century adhering strictly to religious laws, having large number of children, the kids avoiding studies in science etc. and instead taking religious studies. Let's also consider another family from the same religion and area (let's call it "B") adopting all modern ways (small family size, more emphasis on science etc. and less on religion, religious studies and religious laws). Which family do you think is likely to lag behind and worthy of the title "adi-parivar" (original family) and why ("A" or "B")?
Hopefully, this will clarify the basis for this silly theory / article?
There is none. India itself is that country. Hinduism spread to many Asian countries like Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc centuries ago. India was the main branch and all these were like satellite branches.
silvermani- Posts : 1631
Join date : 2014-01-18
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Hellsangel Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:48 pm
Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
Hellsangel- Posts : 14721
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:33 pm
Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).Hellsangel wrote:Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:40 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).Hellsangel wrote:Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
there is very little in common with the hinduism practiced today by the masses, and the hinduism of the Rig Veda. For example, there is no mention of Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc. in the Rig Veda. On the other hand there are many similarities and analogies between the Rig Veda and the Avesta (sacred text of Zoroastrians). See:
http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Note this quote: "It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit."
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:53 pm
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).Hellsangel wrote:Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
there is very little in common with the hinduism practiced today by the masses, and the hinduism of the Rig Veda. For example, there is no mention of Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc. in the Rig Veda. On the other hand there are many similarities and analogies between the Rig Veda and the Avesta (sacred text of Zoroastrians). See:
http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Note this quote: "It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit."
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:08 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).Hellsangel wrote:Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
there is very little in common with the hinduism practiced today by the masses, and the hinduism of the Rig Veda. For example, there is no mention of Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc. in the Rig Veda. On the other hand there are many similarities and analogies between the Rig Veda and the Avesta (sacred text of Zoroastrians). See:
http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Note this quote: "It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit."
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
could it be that Rig Vedic Sanskrit, and the language of the Avesta, are both descendants of one common ancestral language?
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:49 am
I am not here to comment on coulda shoulda woulda, but what happened.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).Hellsangel wrote:Sevaji, where did Buddhism start and where is it a majority religion?
there is very little in common with the hinduism practiced today by the masses, and the hinduism of the Rig Veda. For example, there is no mention of Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc. in the Rig Veda. On the other hand there are many similarities and analogies between the Rig Veda and the Avesta (sacred text of Zoroastrians). See:
http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Note this quote: "It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit."
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
could it be that Rig Vedic Sanskrit, and the language of the Avesta, are both descendants of one common ancestral language?
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by garam_kuta Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:33 am
Seva Lamberdar wrote:I am not here to comment on coulda shoulda woulda, but what happened.Rashmun wrote:
could it be that Rig Vedic Sanskrit, and the language of the Avesta, are both descendants of one common ancestral language?
A+
garam_kuta- Posts : 3768
Join date : 2011-05-18
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:59 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:I am not here to comment on coulda shoulda woulda, but what happened.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Buddhism is not totally absent from India (Indian subcontinent) even if it not a majority religion there now or ever. Moreover, many religious places important to Buddhism initially (including its founder Buddha) are still traceable to India (Indian subcontinent) these says where it had originated, unlike in the case of Hinduism as having nothing to trace back abroad in terms of its origin (the claim made in this article about Hinduism's foreign roots).
there is very little in common with the hinduism practiced today by the masses, and the hinduism of the Rig Veda. For example, there is no mention of Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc. in the Rig Veda. On the other hand there are many similarities and analogies between the Rig Veda and the Avesta (sacred text of Zoroastrians). See:
http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Note this quote: "It is quite possible to find verses in the oldest portion of the Avesta, which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit."
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
could it be that Rig Vedic Sanskrit, and the language of the Avesta, are both descendants of one common ancestral language?
Seva, any thoughts on the following:
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:02 pm
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:24 pm
The Rig Veda or other Hindu religious texts do not directly mention Mazda worship or Mazda worshippers. Rather, they mention a set of deities who carry the title asura.
The word asura is the Vedic equivalent of the Avestan ahura. Avestan words can frequently be changed to their Sanskrit equivalent by replacing h with s. Ahura is in turn said to be derived from the word ahu, meaning lord. As with the English word 'lord', ahu is a descriptive title for both a human lord (e.g. a feudal lord or landlord) and a divine lord. In the Avesta, God or Mazda, is sometimes addressed as Ahura (Lord) and sometimes as Ahura Mazda (Lord God). The use of the words in this manner can also be found in the Judeo-Christian Bible.
It is pertinent to note that in the older Veda, the Rig Veda, the term asura or lord is used (as in the Avesta) for individual gods and for people - but never for a group of gods. In other words, asura does not define a class of gods. Rather it is a title. In these older Vedic texts, the term deva, however, is used for both individual gods and the group of devas (visve devah). In other words, deva is used both as a title - a superior god - and as the name for the group of gods. Some gods with the title asura are also referred to as devas. This nomenclature changes in the later Vedic texts, where the word asura is used as a title and as the name of a group of gods, gods who had evolved into demons.
There is a considerable difference in the way asuras are treated in the older and younger Vedic texts and the difference may help us understand the manner in which the Aryan religions, and the relationship between them, evolved.
In the earlier Vedas, the devas and asuras are said to have been born of a common parent, but the asuras were the older (purva-deva) and stronger siblings - powerful and beneficent gods who merited equal if not greater respect than the devas.
In the later Vedic texts starting with the Atharva Veda, the asuras are referred to in the plural, that is as a group of deities. It is also in these later texts that the asuras are depicted as being opposed to the devas. In conflicts between the two, the asuras were invariably victorious. The devas were victorious when they used a ruse or received the help of a benefactor trickster such as Vishnu.
In the post Vedic texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita, Puranas and Itihasas, the asuras are transformed and treated as a group of demons who possess the vices of pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness, and ignorance (Gita 16.4). In the Brahmana texts, the asuras are hostile and opposed to the devas with whom they are in constant conflict.
However, no individual god who carries the title asura in the Rig Veda ever appears as an inimical adversary of the deva gods in the later Hindu religious texts, and none of the gods who bore the title asura in the older Rig Veda are mentioned in these later texts. In other words, the asuras of the earlier texts are not to be considered as demons. In one later text, the Upanishad, the new character of the asuras are accompanied with a new word, sura, meaning god, thereby implying that asura meant a-sura or a not-god.
It stands to reason that the change in the way the asuras were perceived by the deva worshippers closely parallels the changes in the relations between the asura and deva worshippers. There is an acknowledgement that the asura worship preceded deva worship and that in the early years, the asura worshippers were the dominant group.
A name that appears to be common to both the Avesta and Vedas is the Vedic asura Mitra (also see below) and the Avestan Mithra. In the Vedas, Mitra is often addressed together with the asura Varuna.
While the Vedas tend to anthropomorphize all its deities, it is probable that the asuras, Varuna, Mithra and Agni were originally invisible, non-anthropomorphic, genderless, non-iconic deities (cf. the attributes of Mazda) who may have been worshipped together as Asura worship or exclusively as Mazda worship.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm#asuraworship
The word asura is the Vedic equivalent of the Avestan ahura. Avestan words can frequently be changed to their Sanskrit equivalent by replacing h with s. Ahura is in turn said to be derived from the word ahu, meaning lord. As with the English word 'lord', ahu is a descriptive title for both a human lord (e.g. a feudal lord or landlord) and a divine lord. In the Avesta, God or Mazda, is sometimes addressed as Ahura (Lord) and sometimes as Ahura Mazda (Lord God). The use of the words in this manner can also be found in the Judeo-Christian Bible.
It is pertinent to note that in the older Veda, the Rig Veda, the term asura or lord is used (as in the Avesta) for individual gods and for people - but never for a group of gods. In other words, asura does not define a class of gods. Rather it is a title. In these older Vedic texts, the term deva, however, is used for both individual gods and the group of devas (visve devah). In other words, deva is used both as a title - a superior god - and as the name for the group of gods. Some gods with the title asura are also referred to as devas. This nomenclature changes in the later Vedic texts, where the word asura is used as a title and as the name of a group of gods, gods who had evolved into demons.
There is a considerable difference in the way asuras are treated in the older and younger Vedic texts and the difference may help us understand the manner in which the Aryan religions, and the relationship between them, evolved.
In the earlier Vedas, the devas and asuras are said to have been born of a common parent, but the asuras were the older (purva-deva) and stronger siblings - powerful and beneficent gods who merited equal if not greater respect than the devas.
In the later Vedic texts starting with the Atharva Veda, the asuras are referred to in the plural, that is as a group of deities. It is also in these later texts that the asuras are depicted as being opposed to the devas. In conflicts between the two, the asuras were invariably victorious. The devas were victorious when they used a ruse or received the help of a benefactor trickster such as Vishnu.
In the post Vedic texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita, Puranas and Itihasas, the asuras are transformed and treated as a group of demons who possess the vices of pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness, and ignorance (Gita 16.4). In the Brahmana texts, the asuras are hostile and opposed to the devas with whom they are in constant conflict.
However, no individual god who carries the title asura in the Rig Veda ever appears as an inimical adversary of the deva gods in the later Hindu religious texts, and none of the gods who bore the title asura in the older Rig Veda are mentioned in these later texts. In other words, the asuras of the earlier texts are not to be considered as demons. In one later text, the Upanishad, the new character of the asuras are accompanied with a new word, sura, meaning god, thereby implying that asura meant a-sura or a not-god.
It stands to reason that the change in the way the asuras were perceived by the deva worshippers closely parallels the changes in the relations between the asura and deva worshippers. There is an acknowledgement that the asura worship preceded deva worship and that in the early years, the asura worshippers were the dominant group.
A name that appears to be common to both the Avesta and Vedas is the Vedic asura Mitra (also see below) and the Avestan Mithra. In the Vedas, Mitra is often addressed together with the asura Varuna.
While the Vedas tend to anthropomorphize all its deities, it is probable that the asuras, Varuna, Mithra and Agni were originally invisible, non-anthropomorphic, genderless, non-iconic deities (cf. the attributes of Mazda) who may have been worshipped together as Asura worship or exclusively as Mazda worship.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm#asuraworship
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:03 pm
If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:11 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:19 pm
That also can mean that the original Vedic (Sanskritik) meaning of Deva (as 'good') got switched / distorted over time in Avestan (meaning not good). Originally, 'ustaad' in Hindi / Urdu used to mean a teacher (good person), but these days you call someone 'ustaad' as a person hoodwinking others.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:48 pm
Seva Lamberdar wrote:That also can mean that the original Vedic (Sanskritik) meaning of Deva (as 'good') got switched / distorted over time in Avestan (meaning not good). Originally, 'ustaad' in Hindi / Urdu used to mean a teacher (good person), but these days you call someone 'ustaad' as a person hoodwinking others.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
'Ustaad' has always had three meanings. The first is 'teacher' or 'guru' or 'mentor'; alternatively, it can mean a person extremely knowledgeable about a certain subject; finally it can refer to an extremely shrewd person (who might be guilty of hoodwinking others as you put it).
I take your point about a word losing its meaning and acquiring an alternative meaning. But note that not only did the meaning for 'deva' get "switched" as you put it, but also the meaning of the counterpart to the 'devas': the 'asuras/ahuras'. I find the explanation of the switching being due to two competing tribes to be more compelling, but i understand you don't like this explanation.
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Seva Lamberdar Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:10 am
In the ancient and original Vedic literature, "asura" is not a bad / evil entity but as being very temperamental and sometimes not easily subdued.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:That also can mean that the original Vedic (Sanskritik) meaning of Deva (as 'good') got switched / distorted over time in Avestan (meaning not good). Originally, 'ustaad' in Hindi / Urdu used to mean a teacher (good person), but these days you call someone 'ustaad' as a person hoodwinking others.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
'Ustaad' has always had three meanings. The first is 'teacher' or 'guru' or 'mentor'; alternatively, it can mean a person extremely knowledgeable about a certain subject; finally it can refer to an extremely shrewd person (who might be guilty of hoodwinking others as you put it).
I take your point about a word losing its meaning and acquiring an alternative meaning. But note that not only did the meaning for 'deva' get "switched" as you put it, but also the meaning of the counterpart to the 'devas': the 'asuras/ahuras'. I find the explanation of the switching being due to two competing tribes to be more compelling, but i understand you don't like this explanation.
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Kayalvizhi Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:25 am
There are two religions that are now consolidated and called Hinduism. 1) The native Hinduism worshiping Sivan and Thirumal. It is described in Tamil literature from the third Tamil academy. 2) Vedic Hinduism (Sivan is an addition later. He is not mentioned in Vedas).
Vedic Hinduism is from immigrant Aryans
Vedic Hinduism is from immigrant Aryans
Kayalvizhi- Posts : 3659
Join date : 2011-05-16
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:30 am
Kayalvizhi wrote:There are two religions that are now consolidated and called Hinduism. 1) The native Hinduism worshiping Sivan and Thirumal. It is described in Tamil literature from the third Tamil academy. 2) Vedic Hinduism (Sivan is an addition later. He is not mentioned in Vedas).
Vedic Hinduism is from immigrant Aryans
Not just Sivan and Thirumal, but also other native deities like Murugan and vaLLi, and minor deities like kAthu, karuppu etc which you'll encounter in rural TN.
MaxEntropy_Man- Posts : 14702
Join date : 2011-04-28
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by Guest Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:34 am
Seva Lamberdar wrote:In the ancient and original Vedic literature, "asura" is not a bad / evil entity but as being very temperamental and sometimes not easily subdued.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:That also can mean that the original Vedic (Sanskritik) meaning of Deva (as 'good') got switched / distorted over time in Avestan (meaning not good). Originally, 'ustaad' in Hindi / Urdu used to mean a teacher (good person), but these days you call someone 'ustaad' as a person hoodwinking others.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:
If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
'Ustaad' has always had three meanings. The first is 'teacher' or 'guru' or 'mentor'; alternatively, it can mean a person extremely knowledgeable about a certain subject; finally it can refer to an extremely shrewd person (who might be guilty of hoodwinking others as you put it).
I take your point about a word losing its meaning and acquiring an alternative meaning. But note that not only did the meaning for 'deva' get "switched" as you put it, but also the meaning of the counterpart to the 'devas': the 'asuras/ahuras'. I find the explanation of the switching being due to two competing tribes to be more compelling, but i understand you don't like this explanation.
actually, in the earliest strata of the Rig Veda, certain Vedic Gods are referred to as Asuras. this seems to be a decent intro on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura
-----
see also: https://sreenivasaraos.com/2012/10/05/varuna-and-his-decline-part-seven/
Guest- Guest
Re: Were Hindus immigrants to India?
by rawemotions Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:39 pm
It is not surprising that Congress and Sickularists are now trying to fall back on their time tested tactics to divide Hindus,that worked for 50 years, and voted these folks to power again and again, despite their sheer incompetence, and despite their penchant to loot the resources of their fellow people. They do not care about the country or its long term survival.Seva Lamberdar wrote:In the ancient and original Vedic literature, "asura" is not a bad / evil entity but as being very temperamental and sometimes not easily subdued.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:That also can mean that the original Vedic (Sanskritik) meaning of Deva (as 'good') got switched / distorted over time in Avestan (meaning not good). Originally, 'ustaad' in Hindi / Urdu used to mean a teacher (good person), but these days you call someone 'ustaad' as a person hoodwinking others.Rashmun wrote:Seva Lamberdar wrote:
If the text you pasted in the above is from Avestan, then I am right about what I said earlier about the close relation of Avestan with Sanskrit (repasted below in italics),
Incidentally, some people think that ancient Persian language Avestan and the Persian holy text Avesta (ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism) had a considerable influence on Sanskrit and Vedas, because there are many similar words and names (including the names for deities and sages) in Vedas and Avesta. But that makes little sense considering the word Avesta (and Avestan therefore) seems to be rooted in Sanskrit, avesta (or avestha) meaning “offering to the deity” in Sanskrit. This indicates that the influence in the beginning might be from the Vedas and Sanskrit and not from Avesta and Avestan.
In addition, Yajurveda in Sanskrit means “the sacrificial Veda” or the Veda dedicated specifically to yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Yajurveda thus has the same type of emphasis in relation to offerings and sacrifices during worship as does Avesta (which in Sanskrit means “the offering to the deity”). This indicates that the timeline and connection involving Avesta and Vedas (including the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit on Avesta and Avestan) is Yajurvedic rather than Rigvedic, because Yajurveda came after and evolved from the older and more general Rigveda to concentrate on yajnas (including sacrifices and offerings). Thus it is clear that the influence of Vedas and Sanskrit spread outwards from India, perhaps when some Sanskrit speaking Yajurvedi brahmins in India, specializing in the Yajurveda, ended up going abroad (Persia and beyond) either on their own or after being pushed out by others (who might have wanted a change, reduction perhaps, in emphasis on sacrifices and offerings etc. during worship).
http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog
Your blog is nonsensical. If the Avesta was composed by Yajurvedi brahmins it would not be the case that the word deva means devil in Avesta and many Vedic Hindu Gods are considered evil spirits in the Avesta.
In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
'Ustaad' has always had three meanings. The first is 'teacher' or 'guru' or 'mentor'; alternatively, it can mean a person extremely knowledgeable about a certain subject; finally it can refer to an extremely shrewd person (who might be guilty of hoodwinking others as you put it).
I take your point about a word losing its meaning and acquiring an alternative meaning. But note that not only did the meaning for 'deva' get "switched" as you put it, but also the meaning of the counterpart to the 'devas': the 'asuras/ahuras'. I find the explanation of the switching being due to two competing tribes to be more compelling, but i understand you don't like this explanation.
rawemotions- Posts : 1690
Join date : 2011-05-03
Similar topics» If only India had reciprocal immigration laws for Italian immigrants!
» Caste system amongst non-Hindus in India
» Why Hindus are angry at Muslims in India
» Owaisi speech on Hindus and India
» Now Muslims cannot point fingers at Hindus in India
» Caste system amongst non-Hindus in India
» Why Hindus are angry at Muslims in India
» Owaisi speech on Hindus and India
» Now Muslims cannot point fingers at Hindus in India
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum