Aryan Mummies

[Guest guest]

Why get surprised the aryan Race came from India.

[Guest guest]

i don't think there iz such thing as aryanz, even if there iz they probably orginated in india, and people say the aryanz came from eroupe, eroupeanz just wanna take all the credit, and the world believes them includin the indianz, i don't understand y indianz believe that.

 

[Guest guest]

Most Indians are aryans and the Aryan Race came from India:This is also from Bhagwad Gita: The reality is Bhagwad Gita says: With the preponderance of vice, Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of women, O descendent of Vrsni, there ensures an intermixture of castes. Bhagwad Geeta goes on: Adnixture of blood damns the destroyers of the race as well as the race itself. Texts 41-42

[Guest guest]

So why is it stated in the Bhagavad-Gita that a mixture of castes would be a bad thing?

 

 

I thought the caste system was based on the occupation of the person, and that a person could go from one caste to another in the same birth, but it had somehow gotten twisted into a case of karma and heredity over the years.

 

So what is the caste system really based on?

[Guest guest]

aryans as a race originated in Aryavarta

[Guest guest]

Of course people from the north, "eurasia", "europe" invaded india in times past. It's no secret. An 'indian' with any common sense accepts this as history. Did they introduce spiritual concepts into "india", which of course didn't exist then, of course 'they' did. Comparitive religion studies and 'genetics' all but prove this. A big part of the "problem" here is that people don't understand the 'invaders' culture. They didn't care about political concepts introduced by modern facsist and commie groups. Did these 'invaders' mix with other groups living in the areas? What do you think? Do you think an 'invader' who saw an attractive 'local' would have shied away because of the teachings of a danish or english propagandist? NOT LIKELY. The modern politics of 'invasions' are an ILLUSION.

[Guest guest]

The correct word is ARYA meaning noble. ARYAN is a british corruption of ARYA, just like Ganges is a corruption of Ganga and Benaras a corruption of Vanarasi.

 

Just another point, even BUDDHA also called his religion 'Arya' and told his followers to become Arya. So if it meant race how can you become a race? What he meant was to strive for noble qualities...which is exactly what the hindu also mean.

 

Sage Vyas and Sri Krishna were both of very dark complexion and they were also referred to as Arya.

[Guest guest]

you're preaching to the choir. I don't think 'aryan' is a 'race' either. I do however think there have been 'invasions' into india throughout history. As for "dark" or "light" complexion factoring in I never mentioned that and find it mostly arbitrary. There also could have been migrations out of 'india' into 'europe'.

[Guest guest]

I've read viewpoints on the Krishna "was dark" topic, and it seems there might be some confusion about the definition of "dark". Even if it means complexion, that doesn't tell us much. As I don't want to sidetrack this discussion I'll just mention that some gurus have gone into "detail" about this subject, and a lot of info can be found on the net.

[Guest guest]

I was explaining that to those people who think Arya's were a race of fair-skinned people.

 

"I do however think there have been 'invasions' into india throughout history." - tygre path

 

I agree with you that there has been a number of Invasions in India. More notebly Alexander's Greek soldier some of which settled in India others who raped, produced offspring of which at that time formed a subcaste. I remember seeing a programme of which described some features of North Indians being of Greek stock.

 

[Guest guest]

There is no room for any controversy the Aryans came from India.

[Guest guest]

Where's your proof?

 

I want to believe the Aryans did come from India, but there is no proof to suggest that.

[Guest guest]

"Tamil texts claim their country to be between Kanyakumari and Tirupati which is present day Tamil Nadu for your information"

 

Please give me the reference to support your claim thanks.

 

[Guest guest]

The idiot who suggests that Vedas and Eddas ae elated is trying a play on words. If you had researched the history of the two, you would have found that the Eddas were written in the thirteenth century based on the mythology of the Norse. Just because the two words sound similar, does not mean they are.

 

It would help the "Indian" cause a lot more if some correspondents learn't to write English properly and avoided using the style which seems to pass for English in India. Take that as a positive criticism because some English people don't know how to write in English either.

 

One final note, you should avoid relying heavily on quotes from the Gita. It is fine if you are trying to convince a co-religionist by using many quotes from the Gita. However, the English/Christians are just not convinced. You might ask why and my answer is below.

 

It is exactly the same as Christians trying to convince "heathens" of the "divinity" of Jesus. They say he must be God, because it says so in the Bible. That is a self-defeating claim. It would be very easy for me to write a book, in which I claim to be God. How can I prove my "divinity"? Well, it says I am God in my book.

 

If you didn't understand the above example, then don't worry. It will not make one iota of difference to your life

[Raguraman 0]

 

"Tamil texts claim their country to be between Kanyakumari and Tirupati which is present day Tamil Nadu for your information"

 

Please give me the reference to support your claim thanks.

 

 

The text is called Tolkappiyam. The text is a Tamil grammar book written supposedly around 500 B.C. and the oldest surviving Tamil text. It is very advanced in nature and is supposed to have been written from several other older tamil texts which do not exist anymore. It is also assumed by Tamil researchers that Tamil literature and culture is atleast 1000 to 2000 years older than this text called Tolkappiyam. Having said this, archaeology shows that they have found cities, mentioned in other later Tamil texts, off the coast of Tamil Nadu drowned as mentioned in those older texts. The city is poompugar which is supposed to be about 7000 years old.

 

TolKappiyam:

 

It begins with a description of Tamil Land and its borders.

 

If you know to read and understand Tamil

 

http://www.infitt.org/pmadurai/mp100a.html

 

The very first line of the Tamil text Tolkappiyam starts like this.

 

Vada Vengadam Then Kumari

Aaedai Tamil Kurum Nal Ulagathu.....

 

Word for word:

 

Vada = North

 

Vengadam = The land of Venkateshwara = Tirupati

 

Then = South

 

Kumari = Kanyakumari

 

Aaedai = Inbetween these

 

Kurum = Spoken

 

Nal = Good

 

Ulagathu = World or Land(more appropriate)

 

Approximate translation:

 

The good land where Tamil is spoken is inbetween Tirupati in North and Kanyakumari in the South .....

[Guest guest]

If i remember correctly the Aryan race was around before the age of Kali, so the pure race was destroyed when the age of Kali started.

 

It is a symptom of Age of Kali that we are obsessed with being pure race - the pure race is by defintion not concerned with reciting their own purity because by being pure, they simply recite the purity of the Vedas.

 

 

[Guest guest]

If we preach from the Gita, it is because it truely is science...the description of the universes, of the creation and destruction of worlds of the insignificance of time on earth compared to the time of Brahma (Brahma's day is something like 400,000,000 years) - is more than the Bible will ever be able to express...this is because the Bible is meant for a certain type of people - hence Jesus says 'I have so much more to tell you etc...'

 

The Gita should be consulted by those scientists wishing to find out the ultimate cause of universes - because its all there - ages b4 any nasa nerd looked at space...

[Dravidian 0]

Let me put an end to this discussion once and for all. I am tired of people throwing the term Aryan around and bastardizing the true meaning of it. The term "Aryan" refers to the noble class of the Dravidian peoples. Krishna and Rama were both Dravidian....dark skinned. The Dravidians are a Black people with straight to curly hair. Some Tamils are still very much pure Dravidians. Aryan simply refers to the nobility who have an understanding of dharmic principles. It really has nothing to do with the skin colour. I mention skin colour here with Aryan to refer to perhaps the oldest people we know of to originally use the term, the Dravidians. As people of lighter skin immigrated into India, they also became apart of the peoples who accepted dharmic laws. The mingling of skin created a variety of skin colours from dark brown or black to lighter brown to the lightest brown or white. Those who can accept dharmic law and be noble by it's standards are Aryan. End of story! My Aryan brothers and sisters are not of one skin colour, but of those that express the virtues of dharma. DOn't let white supremacy full one into thinking that being white is aryan....that is utter nonsense and an insult to the Aryan heritage.

 

We meditate on the glory of the Creator;

Who has created the Universe;

Who is worthy of Worship;

Who is the embodiment of Knowledge and Light;

Who is the remover of all Sin and Ignorance;

May He enlighten our Intellect.

[Guest guest]

To say that the only vedic people are dravidians, with "white" people coming in from "europe" to explain 'euro types' in india is insulting to fair indians, not to mention vedic people outside of india.

[Dravidian 0]

I as a respectfull reply to your claim, I would like to ask why you think that we have fair Indians as well as dark ones then? As far as our history can interpret, it was dark skinned people that lived in India before lighter skinned peoples, mostly southern. Dark people come from hot places, that is just the way it is. I did not say that the Dravidians are the only Vedic people. The Dharma handed down through the vedas have been given to people of all colours in religions that have come and gone for infinity. It seems that in India that Dravidians are some of the earliest people that have attained it in India, as far as history can tell. I don't see why it would be an insult, we are all Indians regardless. If one follows Dharma that is all that matters. Skin colour is irrelevant.

 

We meditate on the glory of the Creator;

Who has created the Universe;

Who is worthy of Worship;

Who is the embodiment of Knowledge and Light;

Who is the remover of all Sin and Ignorance;

May He enlighten our Intellect.

[Guest guest]

There are fair and also dark people in south and north india, how did you come to the conclusion that the 'dark' people were there first? What is your definition of 'dravidic'? You say that Krishna is portrayed as black, and yet dieties in the south are often portrayed as fair, so what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? Perhaps dark people displaced earlier fair people in the south. All i'm saying is that there is actual history, and then there are funky personal opinions. Present linguistic or archeological evidence to back up your claims. If this is not available at least present a corraborating opinion from a wise guru.

[Guest guest]

Nice researched article

Vivekananda Kendra, Kanyakumari

June, 1984

 

 

 

Kashmir's Contribution to Indian Culture

by Dr. ( Mrs. ) Bimla K. Munshi

Some scholars in the Centre of Central Asian Studies of Kashmir University are probing in the direction of establishing the thesis that First man appeared in the Kashmir Valley. This has reference also to the Burzahom excavation and the remains of the so called pit-dwellers found there. All scientists agree that the earliest Homo Erectus named as Ramapithecus Panjabicus appeared in the Northern parts of India situated just south of Kashmir. In my opinion, all these facts point to the inescapable conclusion that Kashmir is the original home of the Aryans and that Aryan and Vedic Culture spread out to other parts of the country from Kashmir Valley itself. We should not forget that there was a time when Gandhar Pradesh ( present Afganistan and N. W. F. P. of Pakistan ) included Kashmir also. There are certain symbols and sacred things of Hinduism which were and are, found in Kashmir only. I mean to say that Kashmir Valley is the only place where all of them are found. Some of them are: Srichakra Fish ( Sacred as Matsyavatora and worshipped here even now ) Lotus ( connected with Brahma, Vishnu and Lakshmi ) Bhoorjva ( Bhoj-Patra on which ancient scriptures were etched ), Devadaru Tree, Kesar, Kustoori, Snow, The Snow white God Shiv ( Him-Rund-Endu-Karpur-Varna ), Mountains, Water, Nag and Sarp, (not only in Humun form ), Som ( it is being proved now that it was found in the mountains of Kashmir towards Sharada teerth ), Kesar Dhatura ( Used in Shiv Worship) and Kasturi these all have an essential place in our ancient traditions and also in present religious rituals.

The boat of Manu, when it was floundering in the floods of the Khand-Pralaya had found its final resting ground at a place called Manoravsarpan, which is situated in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Manu was the Adi Purush from whom sprang the modern human race and Kashmir was the place where the first human of the present civilisation originated.

 

The seals of the Sindh-Valley Civilisation have been deciphered and it has now been proved that they contain the picture of the Aryan God Shiv in Makhanasan Mudra. Foreign scholars have been trying to squeeze the Vedic, Ramayan and Mahabharat periods between 1500 B.C., (when Sindh Valley Civilisation was destroyed) to 600 B. C., to prove that the movement of Aryans had been from the west to the east, the time of Buddha ( 600 B. C. ) a historically confirmed fact. If the Sindh Valley civilisation is a vedic civilisation and/or it was destroyed earlier than 1500 B. C. then the movement of Aryans will be proved to have been from the East (from India ) to the west ( to Iran and other parts of Europe ). The creation of Vedas, their reduction into writing and the spread of their oral tradition, the spread of Aryan Culture to the eastern parts of India, the time-lag between the Vedic and Ramayana period, the Ramayan and Mahabharat periods, the Mahabharat and Buddha periods and the gradual evolution (or degeneration) of the Vedic language into Sanskrit, and of Sanskrit into Pali could not have taken place during only 900 years ( between 1500 B. C. to 600 B. C. ). Thus, when it has been proved that the Sindh Valley Civilisation is post Vedic ( not pre-vedic as some foreign scholars have been trying to project ), the movement of the Aryans had surely been from the east to the west and their original home was Kashmir. It is a different matter that more than 80% of the people of the Aryan stock in Asia are now muslims and they inhabit the areas of Kashmir, Pakistan, Afganistan and Iran.

 

There is another point of importance. The Jews who migrated from the city of Or to their present country of Israel in about 4000 B. C. have a mention of this movement in their scriptures but nowhere in the Vedas is a mention that the Aryan had come from anywhere outside India.

 

The Kashmiri language which is the only Apabhransha ( degenerate form ) of the Vedic language ( not of Sanskrit ) also proves that the original home of the Aryans was this sacred valley of Kashmir of noble traditions.

 

This is a very big subject to discuss, hence I am only listing below the other factors which prove that Kashmir has contributed to Indian culture more than any other ' Pradesh ' of the Country:

 

1) There is a tradition that Bhagwan Ramchandra had come to Kashmir in search of Devi Sita.

 

2) Lord Krishna himself had come to Kashmir to put on throne the widow ( Yashomati ) of the Kashmiri King defeated by him. There are hints in the Mahabharata that the forces of the King of Kashmir had taken part in great Indian war though they were on the side of the Kauravas, and that Takshak (Nag), who belonged to Kashmir later killed Raja Parikshit.

 

3 ) During the Buddhist period, Kashmir was a great centre of Buddhism and it was from Kashmir that this faith spread ( through Khotan) to China, Mangolia, Japan and Turkey (from where it was eliminated later). The last Buddhist Congress during the times of Kanishka was held in Kashmir.

 

4 ) Pantni the great grammarian of Sanskrit was also from Kashmir. Gandharadesh ( present Afganistan) and Kashmir were part of the same region in olden times.

 

5 ) It is a well known fact that even today the old Vedic rituals of marriages and Yajnas are followed only by the Brahmans of Kerala, Kashmir and Karnatak.

 

6) When Jagatguru Shankaracharya eliminated the impossible religion of Buddhism from India he came to Kashmir also. The Shankaracharya temple still stands as a monument of his visit.

 

7) After Takshila and Nalanda, the Centre of Sanskrit studies shifted to the Sanskrit University Brajbihara in Kashmir, which was, along with its huge library, later destroyed by Sikander Butshikhan.

 

8 ) A majority of the major poets and scholars of Sanskrit of India were Kashmiris: - Kalidas, Kshirswamin, Kalhan, Bilhan, Mammat, Anand Vardhan, Vaman, Kshemendra, Abhinav Gupta, Rojanak Shitianth and others. The first historically viable book of history in Sanskrit is Rajtarangini.

 

9) The Kashmiri Shaivism and Tantra Schools are also distinct contributions to the ethos of India. Even Vamachar is sort of a contribution of Kashmir to Indian rituals.

 

Thus Kashmir has been the home of Vedic Culture and religion, Buddhist faith, Sanskrit scholarship, Shaivism, Islam, Sufism ( Kashmiri Sufism is a little different from the Sufism which developed in other parts of the country ) and Sikhism.

 

Strategically also the contribution and importance of Kashmir after partition of the country has been of a notable nature. It seems certain that this importance of Kashmir in its modern political context will remain alive as long as India and Pakistan survive as seperate nations

 

[Guest guest]

I had nothing to do today and I was randomly searching on google and I came to this site.

 

Before I begin I have to say I am an Iranian and I was quite interested about reading an Indian forum. Now I have to admit, no offense to most people posting in this thread, that it seems most of you lack a clear understanding of who the Aryans.

 

Let me clarify myself:

 

Most people keep posting "Aryans originated from India." This is completely wrong.

 

Let me justify my claim:

 

a)Aryan is a term only associated with the Indo-Iranian people.

 

The people now speaking Iranian or Indo-Aryan all originated from one area. This area is not in current Iran NOR in India. It's rather in "Eastern-Iran" or current central asian steppes. There is literal evidence that the "Aryan" people originated from there both in the Avesta and Regvedia.

 

b)Iran literally means land of the Aryans.

 

Iranians have always called themselves Aryans. From the texts of Avesta in the Yasht related to Mithra, the people pray to Mithra to protect Aryamatta (iran).

 

c) Indians similar to Iranians have a significant population of Aryans.

 

Northern Indians are clearly of Aryan descent. But just like the Iranian population they have mixed with the indegenious popluations.

 

d) As an Iranian I can clearly see phsyical/facial similarities among the Iranian and Northern Indian populations that is non existant among Iranian and Southern Indian populations.

 

e)Finally Aryan most likely never refered to a RACE, but rather a cutlure and a language. So no matter how you want to define Aryan, Iranian and Indians are related.

 

f)Aryan or not, we're all equals. The race of a person makes no difference unless we decide to make it an issue.

 

Thanks Guys, Awesome Site, and please refute any of my claims and I would be glad to defend them.

 

A related cousin /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

You said you can provide textual evidence from the Rig Veda that points to their origin being from the steppes or "East-Iran". Well, if you can cite that evidence, I would appreciate it.

 

 

As for North Indians resembling Iranians much more than the South Indians do, India has been subjected to numerous invasions by Islamic and European forces over the centuries. It's only logical that the appearance of a North Indian would resemble Europeans and Iranians more than the South Indians would (if South India was relatively protected from such invasions).

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well first of all let me put this link up http://rbedrosian.com/Imyth.htm .

 

Then this site: http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703c.txt

 

Now there's clear evidence in both the Iranian and ancient Indian texts that they originated from the same source. Not only are Avesta and Sanskrit similar but the deities and gods are related as well.

 

Now it's clear that both Sanskrit and Avesta branched off one language. If the Sanskrit branched off Avesta or vis-versa we could assume the homeland of the Aryans were either in Iran or India. But this is not the case, since they're just extentions of a former dead language.

 

Now in the Avesta in the yasht for Mithra the texts refer to the large planes where he flys over. It explicitly refers to "Mithra of wide pastures." These wide pastures are a hint of where the original location of the Aryans.

 

Furthermore, "Airyanem Vaejah/Eranvej" appears in Avestan text but I'm not sure if it does in Rigvedia (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). But in this location there's a large mountain with a lake surrounded by vast planes. As a matter of fact, the old Iranian setting of the world was just exactly that which matches two locations, one in current day Iran and one in central asia (next to the ural sea).

 

But it's clear that the Aryan people did not migrate from Iran to India or vis-versa due to their linguistic differences. Thus, it can be speculated that the origin of the Aryan people is somewhere in "East-Iran."

 

Now for the similarities among Northern Indians and Iranians, Islamic invasions did not accompany a large migration of people, nor did the European invasions. For a population to significantly change there needs to be a massive migration. This is further proof of some sort of a migration of nomads into civilized India.