Guest guest Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 The Aryan Invasion Theory - BBC http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/ One of the most controversial ideas about Hinduhistory is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasionof India¢s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryansaround 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over thenext 120 years, and became the accepted history ofHinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, andthose who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological,linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence,or provided new evidence that combined with theearlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe thatsuch invasions had such great influence on Indianhistory. It¢s now generally accepted that Indianhistory shows a continuity of progress from theearliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are notdenied by modern historians, but they are no longerthought to be a major ingredient in the development ofHinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin ofIndia¢s predominant culture, but gives the credit forIndian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books ofHindu scripture are not actually Indian, and itdevalues India¢s culture by portraying it as lessancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from othercultures it implied that Hinduism was not an authenticallyIndian religion but the result of cultural imperialism it suggested that Indian culture was static, and onlychanged under outside influences it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith it suggested that indigenous peoples could onlyacquire new religious and cultural ideas from otherraces, by invasion or other processes it accepted that race was a biologically based concept(rather than, at least in part, a social construct)that provided a sensible way of ranking people in ahierarchy, which provided a partial basis for thecaste system it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial contextby suggesting that the peoples of Northern India weredescended from invaders from Europe and so raciallycloser to the British Raj it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier it downgraded the intellectual status of India and itspeople by giving a falsely late date to elements ofIndian science and culture Source URL:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml Related Stories David Frawley on Aryan Invasion @ http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A15 The aryan invasion @ http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html Motivated INDOLOGY @ http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/communal-clash-13-arrested/ Francois Gautier on Indian History @ http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2008 Report Share Posted June 17, 2008 Well, of late I too did happen to read a lot of articles which denied any such invasions as Aryans. I have a few doubts. Why did the chief minister of Tamil Nadu Karunanidhi change the Tamil calender? Its known that he is a Dravidian supporter. The change of calender was also on the same lines. The cultures the southern states are in many senses similar. But the very moment we cross south, we find an enormous change. Why is it so? However, one thing is to be noted. Tamil did not originate from Sanskrit. A composite language of mostly Tamil and Kannada was the origin of these four. Could any of you send me more details about the origin of languages? Sriharsha. S|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|I have often regretted my speech........ Never my silence.... WebXpurt <webxpurtWebxpurtSent: Monday, 16 June, 2008 9:36:45 PM ARYAN INVASION: BBC Article The Aryan Invasion Theory - BBC http://indiasecular .wordpress. com/ One of the most controversial ideas about Hinduhistory is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasionof India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryansaround 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over thenext 120 years, and became the accepted history ofHinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, andthose who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological,linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence,or provided new evidence that combined with theearlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe thatsuch invasions had such great influence on Indianhistory. It’s now generally accepted that Indianhistory shows a continuity of progress from theearliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are notdenied by modern historians, but they are no longerthought to be a major ingredient in the development ofHinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin ofIndia’s predominant culture, but gives the credit forIndian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books ofHindu scripture are not actually Indian, and itdevalues India’s culture by portraying it as lessancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from othercultures it implied that Hinduism was not an authenticallyIndian religion but the result of cultural imperialism it suggested that Indian culture was static, and onlychanged under outside influences it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith it suggested that indigenous peoples could onlyacquire new religious and cultural ideas from otherraces, by invasion or other processes it accepted that race was a biologically based concept(rather than, at least in part, a social construct)that provided a sensible way of ranking people in ahierarchy, which provided a partial basis for thecaste system it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial contextby suggesting that the peoples of Northern India weredescended from invaders from Europe and so raciallycloser to the British Raj it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier it downgraded the intellectual status of India and itspeople by giving a falsely late date to elements ofIndian science and culture Source URL:http://www.bbc. co.uk/religion/ religions/ hinduism/ history/history5 .shtml Related Stories David Frawley on Aryan Invasion @ http://www.mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A15 The aryan invasion @ http://www.gosai. com/chaitanya/ saranagati/ html/vedic- upanisads/ aryan-invasion. html Motivated INDOLOGY @ http://indiaview. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/26/communal- clash-13- arrested/ Francois Gautier on Indian History @ http://www..mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A16 Best Jokes, Best Friends, Best Food. Get all this and more on Best of . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008  IN THIS CASE I WILL TRY TO BE NON-SILENT BY ADVANCING 2 ADDRESS. DEEPAK BHATTACHARYA MEAN WHILE IF TIME PERMITS DO PLEASE VISIT THESE SITES 1 A - part - ii http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya2.php?p=7 1 - part - i http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/default.htm - 2 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya1.php About Stars & Temples 3 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya3.php 4 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya4.php A Unique Throne - dated to 11th AD http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya5.php The NATARJA ==================================================================== - sripathi sriharsha Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:03 AM Re: ARYAN INVASION: BBC Article Well, of late I too did happen to read a lot of articles which denied any such invasions as Aryans. I have a few doubts. Why did the chief minister of Tamil Nadu Karunanidhi change the Tamil calender? Its known that he is a Dravidian supporter. The change of calender was also on the same lines. The cultures the southern states are in many senses similar. But the very moment we cross south, we find an enormous change. Why is it so? However, one thing is to be noted. Tamil did not originate from Sanskrit. A composite language of mostly Tamil and Kannada was the origin of these four. Could any of you send me more details about the origin of languages? Sriharsha. S|.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.|I have often regretted my speech........ Never my silence.... WebXpurt <webxpurt >Webxpurt Sent: Monday, 16 June, 2008 9:36:45 PM ARYAN INVASION: BBC Article The Aryan Invasion Theory - BBC http://indiasecular .wordpress. com/ One of the most controversial ideas about Hinduhistory is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasionof India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryansaround 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over thenext 120 years, and became the accepted history ofHinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, andthose who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological,linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence,or provided new evidence that combined with theearlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe thatsuch invasions had such great influence on Indianhistory. It’s now generally accepted that Indianhistory shows a continuity of progress from theearliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are notdenied by modern historians, but they are no longerthought to be a major ingredient in the development ofHinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin ofIndia’s predominant culture, but gives the credit forIndian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books ofHindu scripture are not actually Indian, and itdevalues India’s culture by portraying it as lessancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from othercultures it implied that Hinduism was not an authenticallyIndian religion but the result of cultural imperialism it suggested that Indian culture was static, and onlychanged under outside influences it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith it suggested that indigenous peoples could onlyacquire new religious and cultural ideas from otherraces, by invasion or other processes it accepted that race was a biologically based concept(rather than, at least in part, a social construct)that provided a sensible way of ranking people in ahierarchy, which provided a partial basis for thecaste system it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial contextby suggesting that the peoples of Northern India weredescended from invaders from Europe and so raciallycloser to the British Raj it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier it downgraded the intellectual status of India and itspeople by giving a falsely late date to elements ofIndian science and culture Source URL:http://www.bbc. co.uk/religion/ religions/ hinduism/ history/history5 .shtml Related Stories David Frawley on Aryan Invasion @ http://www.mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A15 The aryan invasion @ http://www.gosai. com/chaitanya/ saranagati/ html/vedic- upanisads/ aryan-invasion. html Motivated INDOLOGY @ http://indiaview. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/26/communal- clash-13- arrested/ Francois Gautier on Indian History @ http://www..mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A16 Best Jokes, Best Friends, Best Food. Get all this and more on Best of . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 I would also recommend the relevent chapter in the book PRIDE OF INDIA. On 6/21/08, ODDISILAB <oddisilab1 wrote:  IN THIS CASE I WILL TRY TO BE NON-SILENT BY ADVANCING 2 ADDRESS. DEEPAK BHATTACHARYA MEAN WHILE IF TIME PERMITS DO PLEASE VISIT THESE SITES 1 A - part - ii http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya2.php?p=7 1 - part - i http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/default.htm - 2 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya1.php About Stars & Temples 3 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya3.php 4 - http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya4.php A Unique Throne - dated to 11th AD http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DBhattacharya5.php The NATARJA ==================================================================== - sripathi sriharsha Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:03 AM Re: ARYAN INVASION: BBC Article Well, of late I too did happen to read a lot of articles which denied any such invasions as Aryans. I have a few doubts. Why did the chief minister of Tamil Nadu Karunanidhi change the Tamil calender? Its known that he is a Dravidian supporter. The change of calender was also on the same lines. The cultures the southern states are in many senses similar. But the very moment we cross south, we find an enormous change. Why is it so? However, one thing is to be noted. Tamil did not originate from Sanskrit. A composite language of mostly Tamil and Kannada was the origin of these four. Could any of you send me more details about the origin of languages? Sriharsha. S |.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.||.~''~.| I have often regretted my speech........ Never my silence.... WebXpurt <webxpurt WebxpurtSent: Monday, 16 June, 2008 9:36:45 PM ARYAN INVASION: BBC Article The Aryan Invasion Theory - BBC http://indiasecular .wordpress. com/ One of the most controversial ideas about Hinduhistory is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasionof India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryansaround 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over thenext 120 years, and became the accepted history ofHinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, andthose who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological,linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence,or provided new evidence that combined with theearlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe thatsuch invasions had such great influence on Indianhistory. It's now generally accepted that Indianhistory shows a continuity of progress from theearliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are notdenied by modern historians, but they are no longerthought to be a major ingredient in the development ofHinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin ofIndia's predominant culture, but gives the credit forIndian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books ofHindu scripture are not actually Indian, and itdevalues India's culture by portraying it as lessancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from othercultures it implied that Hinduism was not an authenticallyIndian religion but the result of cultural imperialism it suggested that Indian culture was static, and onlychanged under outside influences it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith it suggested that indigenous peoples could onlyacquire new religious and cultural ideas from otherraces, by invasion or other processes it accepted that race was a biologically based concept(rather than, at least in part, a social construct)that provided a sensible way of ranking people in ahierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial contextby suggesting that the peoples of Northern India weredescended from invaders from Europe and so raciallycloser to the British Raj it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier it downgraded the intellectual status of India and itspeople by giving a falsely late date to elements ofIndian science and culture Source URL:http://www.bbc. co.uk/religion/ religions/ hinduism/ history/history5 .shtml Related Stories David Frawley on Aryan Invasion @ http://www.mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A15 The aryan invasion @ http://www.gosai. com/chaitanya/ saranagati/ html/vedic- upanisads/ aryan-invasion. html Motivated INDOLOGY @ http://indiaview. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/26/communal- clash-13- arrested/ Francois Gautier on Indian History @ http://www..mantra. com/newsplus/ aitmyth.html# A16 Best Jokes, Best Friends, Best Food. Get all this and more on Best of . -- Bhalchandra G. Thattey Shubham BhavatuSvalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.