India the source?

[Guest guest]

List Members,

 

Here is a post from the webring's list. I think that it is pertinent here.

 

Dharmapada/Dean

 

> The Hindu Webring -

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2066/webring/index.html

>

> Why can't one turn around and say that such and such

> item in India is really named after something/someone

> in Europe?

 

 

Aikya,

 

Now I think you're stumbling on to the " method of my madness." The article

I wrote about the Aryan invasion revisited is not just some cute connection

to the Hollow Earth Theory, I'm not taking advantage to put the HET in the

limelight. I really believe, and I state as much in that article, that India

is probably not the source of the Vedic culture, nor the point of contact on

the surface. As an example, although I accept the lilas which are narrated

in the Puranas, and though you might find some place in India where they say

the lila took place, that does not mean it is necessarily so. What if there

was colonization and they brought old names with them? How about York in

Great Britain and New York? I like to point out that in Sweeden, there is a

mountain chain called Sverge ( a point from P N Oaks ). Well, they are high

mountains and almost on the top of the world, also, so the name came from

Svarga Loka. The " loka " part probably fell off, and then the a changed to

e, which is not a big jump. Same race as in Northen India, same pantheon of

gods, more or less- Skanda, the god of war.

 

I imagine that India is just one point of the Vedic colonisation, the

colonisation started at some point by the prajapatis and demigods. The rest

seemed to have changed, gradually, after the end of the Mahabharat war. For

example, Rome, Greece, Scandanavia all are offshoots of that original

culture. But I am not saying that the culture originated in India. Just that

India seems to have conserved the tradtion well.

 

Why? Well, for geographical reasons, political reasons, etc. For example,

when the Christian armies went to Scandanavia, they were able to overwhelm

the culture. The great bulk of the literature of that region was wiped out,

along with the temples and deities. So the culture wasn't conserved- there

you have it, right there. Just the names of some mountains, some oral

traditions, the race of the people, etc.

 

On the India side of things, a lot was lost " absolutely," too. Afghanisthan

and Pakisthan were part of that culture, Persia was part of it too- now

there is practically no trace of the culture- IndoEuropean, Vedic, however

you want to call it. But you know, South India remained, the Himalayan

regions were difficult for conquerors to reach, and samples of the culture

remained which were able to reinforce the original culture after the Muslim

wars. But the culture is still being chipped away at, one way or the other,

and won't last forever on the surface.

 

 

At this point I'll bring up one of my typical points, the point of the Aryan

article, that I find it incongruent if one accepts one part of the

Vedic/Puranic statements and not others. If it is said that the Kalki avatar

will originate in the city of Shambala, in the interior, and that dharmic

culture will be renovated by men from the interior at the end of Kali Yuga,

then what would that imply. That India is the cradle of Vedic civilisation?

I think not.

 

 

The narration in relation to the sons of Sagara, Indra and the sacrificial

horse points out an opening into the interior " in the middle of a

Northern Sea ." And starting with Admiral Byrd, the Arctic explorers have

all noted warming phenomena near the Pole, Byrd making a comment about

Those warm lands beyond the pole." Warming, such as 50* winds in February,

warm-blooded mammals, typical air currents of volcanic ash which colors the

snow grey from horizon to horizon, pollen over vast stretches of Arctic ice,

too, all near the Pole, suggest that there might be more truth to the

statements that the Puranas make in regards to this " Northern opening

than we might imagine.

 

That would imply that Vedic culture did not originate in India at all, but

that it migrated out of the openings, and poured downwards from Scandanavia,

reaching, through that IndoEuropean race, script, culture, philosophy,

religious system, etc., as far across as India, at least.

 

If one is not comfortable with this perspective, ok, it might have been

different, but then we would have to address this business of Puranic

statements which say things that are hard to accept. I pretty much agree

with the rest of your statements; no need to reporduce them again.

 

I just want to reiterate that, in regards to Oaks, we don't want to throw

the baby out with the bath water. He makes connections, but I do admit that

he fights too much.

 

Dharmapada/Dean