Aryan Mummies

[Guest guest]

tocharian mummies: from Shambala ?

 

 

shambala was spoken of by tibetan monks long after

buddhism had come and gone in india,tibet because of its inaccessability was the last

buddhist kingdom to become so.

 

The legend goes that you must travel due north from lhasa, crossing the mountains,then crossing a desert, shambala was a city in a valley surrounded by mountains.

 

if you go north from lhasa you will hit a desert,

in the tarim basin.

 

until 4000 years ago the tarim basin was a fertile

paradise,lakes,rivers,animals, and because of

its location as the center of trade bewteen china and the east and india and points west,

the aryan,or vedic civilization there grew

very wealthy and they built great cities and empires.

 

the tarim basin was a fertile paradise valley,

surrounded by enourmous mountains.

 

4000 years ago the climate started to change,

it became drier and drier, when the aryan vedic

civilization underwent it's massive conversion

to buddhism,so did the kingdoms of the tarim,

this was around 300 b.c. and onward.

 

by the time buddhism reached tibet almost

1000 years later, the climate had created a large desert in the tarim surrounded by cities

with oasis cities also, but by then many of the great kingdoms had been abandoned and lost to the desert.

 

so the legend of shambala was about the great

kingdoms that had occupied the tarim basin,

drawing traders from europe to settle there

as well as from china and greater india,

the tocharian mummies found there from 4000

years ago that were european with blond and red

hair supports that, the other inhabitants due to

being vedic or buddhist cremated their dead,

so the caucasion mummies alone survived.

 

 

here are some links, about loulan and other

extinct kingdoms including the famous

dunhuang.

 

 

http://english.cri.com.cn/english/2002/Oct/73931.htm

 

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/weekly/aa010198.htm

 

 

here are stories about the search for shambala,also

called shangri-la

 

http://www.shambhala.mn/Files/csoma.html

 

this is some stuff at a ,

details about vedic peoples in the region

and alot of other great stuff.

aballonas/message/41

 

 

[Guest guest]

some of the ideas of a large sea combining the aral and caspian seas a long time ago at the link, as being around the area of the original home of the aryans, north to north east of india, is speculative, still the stuff there is good.

 

 

taking into account their theory of a great sea combining the caspian and aral seas,

in the past, it makes for some interesting ideas about shambala,shangri la,

and the original home of civilization

[Guest guest]

My question is if the aryans came from outside into India why don't we find versions of vedas, puranas etc outside India? Where are other varnashrama societies out of India? Can someone give me a link to them?

 

Vrindavan dharma ki jaya!

[Guest guest]

"My question is if the aryans came from outside into India why don't we find versions of vedas, puranas etc outside India? Where are other varnashrama societies out of India? Can someone give me a link to them?"

 

You may know that Sanskrit is closely relatd to Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavic etc. This is what we call Indo-european languages. And precisely, all the myths of various Indo-European people are closely related, Veda is closely related to Edda (Nordic mythology), Roman myths, Greek myths etc. You just need to read the main reference of Indo-European studies Georges Dumezil to be convinced.

 

Therefore you cannot talk about vedas as isolated pieces of work. The only difference is that India did not become christian and therefore old myths always remained an active part of your culture.

[Guest guest]

"To me these look like Indians from India. Not surprised."

 

My answer would be that your statement is half true/ half false. The DNA of these mummies has been analysed and the result is that they are related to modern European populations (apparently centrala and northwestern europeans). But somne Indians are also related to European populations, especially in the highest castes of Northern India, as revealed by other recent DNA studies.

[Guest guest]

''Veda is closely related to Edda (Nordic mythology)''

 

Could you please explain what the realtions youve found are?

 

Thanks

[Guest guest]

"You may know that Sanskrit is closely relatd to Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavic etc."

 

It's not that Sanskrit is related to Greek, Latin etc, but it's the other way round, Greek, Latin etc is closely related to Sanskrit.

 

And I would like to ask, why do people still go on about this aryan invasion theory when it is proven to be untrue!.

 

There was no aryan invasion!. end of story!.

 

If there was (which there isn't) then where did these aryans come from?!... exact locations please, not any central asia or eastern europe .!.... why isn't there any aryans left any more, why isn't there any sanatan dharma there anymore???, why dont the countries which these aryans came from speak no sanskrit?!.

 

Please drop this theory, there's was aryan invasion, the only people who still cling onto this idea are westerners, why?

 

Cannot they take it that darker skinned people actually did have a greater and better ancient civilisation than them.

 

maybe they can't, that might just be it!

 

Bharat Mata Ki Jai!

 

 

[Guest guest]

The Early Aryans

 

Around 30,000 years ago, though the date is by no means that fixable, an identifiable group of Caucasians - the Aryans - were living in the Caucasus region of Southern Russia. These people either from population pressure or sheer wanderlust started to spread out in all directions.

 

Around 20,000 to 12,000 years ago, the Aryan 'great folk wandering' began. Our early ancestors moved out from their ancestral homelands - North, South, East and West.

 

They arrived in Egypt around 10,000 BC and the Aryan chieftain Menes became the first Pharaoh of the first dynasty, thus beginning the Egyptian civilisation. To the South-West the Aryans moved into the lush river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates (modern day Iraq and Iran) and founded the Sumerian civilisation.

 

I have been brought to task about my using the word 'Aryan' to describe our early White ancestors. Why not just call them Whites? Well, that is because the term Aryan means much more - they were White people distinct from our present day for the most part flabby, disinterested WHITE populations of the world. To be Aryan, means to be a White man or woman who has a RACIAL awareness.

 

Secondly, I have Iranian National Socialists who believe that they as early Persians were the first Aryans and they point out correctly that the word "Aryan" is synonymous with Iranian. I have pointed out to them they are wrong in this and history proves the situation happened the other way around. The Aryans arrived in ancient "Irania" (Aryania), and established a culture and then civilisation from there. The present day Iranians, though the higher old Persian elite may have a lot of Aryan blood, have become very misceginated and can no longer be termed "Aryan" in the truest sense.

 

The Aryans went further East still and founded the Indus Valley civilization, with its caste system and Hindu religion to prevent the mixing of the Aryan people with the native Dravidian population. It has again been recently called to my attention that high caste Brahmins in India possess the features and looks of Aryans, but again I would state that many centuries of mixing has diluted the earlier Aryan blood.

 

Further East, the first Chinese cultures were founded by Aryan invaders, now thousands of miles from their ancestral homelands. Recent finds in China are uncovering red an fair haired mummies of distinctly Aryan appearance with all the apparatus of an advanced culture. These Chinese Aryans, the last vestiges of a lost culture that kick-started the Chinese civilisation are the last vestiges of the Aryans furthest push to the East. In saying that, there is some evidence that the Ainu, or aboriginal people of Japan, who are shunned by many modern Japanese, were in fact Aryans originally. They have some distinct non Mongoloid qualities about them.

 

It was in the Middle East, Turkey(Anatolia) and Egypt however that Aryan civilisation really flourished. Here the Aryan warriors crossed swords with the Hither Asiatics and Semites and were victorious. The Sumerian civilisation built the first pyramids (closely resembling the step pyramids of Central and South America - of which more later), and were followed in this monolithic work by the Egyptians.

 

Babylon, Persia, Media and Phoenicia were all Aryan cultures who battled with the Semitic Assyrian and Chaldean Semitic peoples for predominance in the region. As these civilisations fell into decline after hundreds and in some cases thousands (Egypt) of years, they were constantly refreshed by new infusions of Aryan blood. Decaying Persia and Egypt were revitalised by Alexander the Great's Aryan Macedonian and Greek troops. India from more Aryan invasions survived and the caste system, very watered down lives on today in the Aryan founded Hindu religion. Though today the Hindus are represented for the most part by the pre Aryan aboriginal people of India.

 

[Guest guest]

I am not sure whether you are trying to establish facts or whether you are promoting an agenda of some sort -- . let's assume that you are fair and looking for evidence but that you have been misinformed by dodgy literature about "Aryans".

 

"It's not that Sanskrit is related to Greek, Latin etc, but it's the other way round, Greek, Latin etc is closely related to Sanskrit."

 

Your point does not mean anything from a logical point of view: when I say a=b it is logically the same as b=a. But I assume you are trying to suggest that indo-European languages are derived from Sanskrit. Am I right? If this is what you are trying to suggest, and what early European observers believed in the XVIII century, it does not resist analysis. You should read some linguistic work -- use google there are many universities who are putting user-friendly material online. Sanskrit, Latin and Greek were at the same level of linguistic development, they were "cousins" in the indo-European family not "mothers and daughters". Just think of a family tree to figure out what process took place . It is estimated that a proto Indo-European language emerged about 5000 to 6000 years ago (Grimm and Jones laws of linguistic mutations help us and estimates are more and more reliable), then it is very likely that it spitted into a western branch (Centum group) and an eastern branch (Satem group), which includes Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and Indo-Iranian languages. Sanskrit is part of the Indo-Iranian sub-family of the satem group. Greek, Latin , Celtic etc. do not belong to the same sub- family.

 

"And I would like to ask, why do people still go on about this aryan invasion theory when it is proven to be untrue!."

 

Actually this is the other way around. Recent genetic studies have proved, thanks to the fascinating Genome project, that "the maternally inherited DNA [of most indo-European speakers in India ] more closely resembled that of Asians, although genetic similarities to Europeans were more common in members of the higher ranks. Among the paternally inherited DNA, however, they found an even greater likeness to European DNA. Thus, the scientists suggest that the western Eurasians who arrived in India were mostly men who placed themselves at the top of the social ladder and married only women in the highest castes.

 

 

An article about the topic:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E27F4-B639-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F

 

Of course a refined search would lead you to the original study.

 

"exact locations please"

 

It is a very difficult question but looking at the combination of linguistic, lifestyle, cultural artefacts, technological progress (horse domestication) etc. leads to a zone between the Rhine and the eastern part of Ukraine. That's where the horse was domesticated the wheel was invented and metallurgy was improved, giving a decisive technological advantage to the early indo-European tribes

 

 

"Please drop this theory, there's was Aryan invasion, the only people who still cling onto this idea are westerners, why?"

 

Because modern science emerged in the western world and that's where cutting-edge research is still done. The fact that the invasion theory was used for political purposes does not necessarily imply that it is not valid. But many westerners tend to ignore this theory on the basis of ideological reasons, mainly because of the horrible legacy of ideological instrumentalisation of the indo-European legacy during WWII

 

"Cannot they take it that darker skinned people actually did have a greater and better ancient civilisation than them."

 

I think you are making a value judgement about what is superior or inferior. Some light skinned people who were most probably not indo-European had very high levels of cultural achievements (e.g. megalith culture of western Europe). Others, including darker-skin non indo-European people have also produced high cultures including of course in India. All depends on how you are defining "civilisation" and what is the basis of your value judgement. On the basis of linguistic and archeological findings what was the "culture" of Early indo-European? We see a warlike people, with a good ability to produce military devices and a great expertise in horse riding. A rural people able to breed and raise cattle, and also able to maintain some sort of itinerant agriculture. A people with a good ability to manufacture textile. A people obsessed by cosmic order and law. A hierarchical society divided in three orders: priests, warriors and food producers. The existence of a form of writing is a question still open. Their aggressive behaviour gave them a comparative advantage over less aggressive more peaceful sedentary civilisations (not all actually there were not invincible). But I agree that in returned these earlier sedentary civilisations tended to "civilise" them (in the very sense of the term, bringing them to urban life).

 

India is a mix of Indo-European (Aryan) and earlier settlers, just like Europe where agricultural civilisation developed before the invasion. It is form this mix that our civilisations have developed.

 

A personal statement: The quest of "purity" is the most dangerous thing and no doubt it could lead India to civil war.

[Guest guest]

It would be a bit long to detail but there are actually lots of parallels (myths of creation, roles of the gods etc.). Not only between Edda and Veda but between most Indo-Euroepan religions and myths. The best is to look at the work of Georges Dumezil

[Guest guest]

The true and purest Aryans live in India.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There was Tamil, Aryan in Korea too.

 

And they finally became Korean so u guys all be Korean okay?

[Guest guest]

If this can please you why not... And in a sense it is true, since "Aryan" is the way "Indo-Europeans" (1) from India and Iran referred to themselves when they came in contact with foreign people. So, I definitely agree that the original Aryan is "the pure conqueror of Iran and India" and the Aryan of today ought to be the "pure offspring of the hybridation of indo-European conquerors and natives in what is now Iran and India" . Do feel pure enough now?

 

(1) A conventional term because we do not know how they called themselves 7000 years back. They may have had no generic term for themselves just like the Germans today (deutsch, the German term for "German" meaning only "the folk").

[Guest guest]

The myth that the aryans came from outside of india is based on lies from the missionaries who wrote the history-books. The missionaries have also in letters to their wifes and relatives aqknowledged the FACT that what they wrote was not the truth, but another version of it!!

 

So plz forget the myth that the aryans came from outside of Aryavratha.

 

Hare Krishna!

Winand.

[Guest guest]

This is no controversy only foreign created one. Most of India pure aryan of race. no dravid race i say dravid just means south. most desis pure aryan in evey corner

[xxvvii 0]

In some cases they may benefit you, & in other cases they may harm you.

[Guest guest]

It is actually totally the opposite! If you read the early specialists of Indo-European studies, they thought that indo-Europeans were coming from India -- or the Himalaya -- to be exact. This is precisely for this reason than they used the term "Aryan" to speak about the Indo-European family as a whole. Especially the most racists (starting with Gobineau) did so. In the Christian society of the XIX Century the dogma of "ex oriente lux" could not cope with the idea that any civilisation could have started in Europe (although we now know for example that sophisticated megalithic cultures of Western Europe go back 4000 years BC!). It had to be in Asia to conform with Greco-roman views of the barbaric north and with biblical dogma. Even during World War II Nazis were organising trips to Himalaya...

 

The development of comparative linguistics and archaeology has totally dismissed the idea of an Asian homeland of the Indo-Europeans. The main discussion is no whether Indo-Europeans emerged in Northern/central or in eastern Europe, or even in a larger area including both regions. The Asian homeland is ruled out by any serious scientists working in the field, although you can also find a lot of politically motivated rubbish on the net supporting this view. Read the updated version of Mallory's "In search of the Indo-Europeans" for more details

 

Concerning the Aryas or Aryans, a sub-branch of the Indo-Europeans it is most probably between the Ukraine and the Caspian sea that they evolved as a distinct sub-group (for instance, names of rivers, which are very stable through time, provide a reliable source), before splitting into branches (mainly contributing to the ethno-genesis of Iranians and Indians)

 

Talking about missionaries, I am not sure that they ever promoted anything about Aryans. spiritually Christianity is drawing on the Semitic world view and has be very reluctant to acknowledge any other legacy.

 

It just takes you five minutes to realise that India is a place full of diverse physical types and cultures. You see people who look European and others almost Australia or Mongoloid. India has been subject to so many human changes, has suffered so many invasions in historic times that pretending to find any "pure" group on its soil is just laughable. Why do you want to reduce that to a pseudo-concept of "purity" with no scientific basis? Just to pursue a misplaced nationalistic agenda I presume.

 

[Guest guest]

The difference between Indo-aryan and Dravidian is a linguistic fact. The two languages belong to different families and there is no North South divide: part of the North speaks Dravidian and parts of the South speak Aryan tongues.

 

An accurate and simple description of the Dravidian languages for beginners "The Dravidian language came into India centuries before the Indo-Aryan. It split into three branches in the Indian'subcontinent-(I) The NORTHERN branch comprises Brahui spo ken in Baluchistan and Kurukh and Malto spoken in Bengal and Orissa. Kurukh is also spoken in Biharand M.P. (ii) The central brand is composed of Telugu and a number of dia lects spoken in Central India - Kill, Khond Holanl, Konda, Gondi, Naiki, Parji, Koya and others, (iii) The southern branch is maoe up of Tamil, Kannade, Malayalam, Tula, Badaga Toda, Kota and Kodagu. "

 

"The Indian languages now in use have evolved from different languag families corresponding more or less to the different ethnic elements that have come into india from the dawn of history. They may be put into 6 groups :

 

1. Negroid

2. Austric

3. Sino-Tibetan

4. Dravidian

5. Indo-Aryan

6. Other Speeches."

 

 

You see India is a multi-racial country by essence.

 

http://www.all-indiatravel.com/languages/

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

From a BBc forum:

 

 

 

New Light on the Mahabharata Date

Amod Kumar - 201st post - 17 Nov 2003 15:57

New light has been thrown on the date on the Mahabharata war. Previously , the commonly held view was that the war took place between 3000 B.C. to 600 B.C. The above finding has been carried out by a Bangalore based Scientist.

The eclipses and the planetary observations of the Mahabharata should belong to 1493 B.C. to 1443 B.C. of the Indian history. The war should have taken place in 1478 B.C. with an error bond of one year. Dr. R. N. Iyengar from the department of civil engineering at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore undertook this work of exacting the date of the Mahabharata war.

 

The analysis was made by calculating the planet and star positions described in detail in the epic in modern astronomical terms using three software including a German-made one used widely by the USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration for recreating historical events.

 

The exercise undertaken by Dr. Iyengar , a civil engineer of international repute who is a Sanskrit scholar as well , had resulted in 12 possible dates for the war. " Out of the 12 solutions for the war , the period 1478 B.C. fits the bill almost perfectly ," he told News Agency after his findings.

 

Dr. Iyengar went through six versions of the Epic - four in Sanskrit and one each in Kannada and English. In his words " In a text as large as the Mahabharata ( its the longest epic in the world ) its no wonder that chronological ordering of the events and observations might have got mixed up due to transmission errors. But everything falls into place as in a puzzle and an almost unique epoch emerges from celestial observations when 1478 B.C. is taken as the year of the war". The above findings have been included in the Indian Journal of History of Science published by the Indian National Science Academy.

 

Three solar eclipses depicted in the Sabha Parva , Bhishma Parva and Mausala Parva and the description of a lunar succeeding or preceding at least two solar eclipses within a month , helped Dr. Iyengar narrow down his search. Dr. Iyengar said that the dates mentioned in the epic also helped in fine tuning the period.

 

A major limitation of earlier studies was that they did not show how to reconcile inconsistencies such as Saturn being said to be with star Aldebaran as well as being near star Alpha-Librae in the Bhishma Parva. He pointed out that new studies have bridged the above gaps.

 

" NOW WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY ".

 

Cheers

 

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Sriram Rao - 423rd post - 18 Nov 2003 12:47

 

Hi Amod,

 

There have been many such attempts at fixing dates based on astronomical/astrological references over the centuries. Unfortunately, none of them are conclusive. Even Mr.Iyangar's has been refuted by some other scholars a few weeks back. This sort of thing will go on. I don't think we will ever know.

 

The widely accepted date today is around 1300 BCE, which is'nt too far off the date given by Iyengar. So, nothing much changes. Pl refer to some books on this, available with Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

 

The aryans are believed to have come down from central Asia around 2500 BCE. Most parts of the Rig veda are placed between 2000-1500 BCE and the Mahabharata around 1300 BCE. The actual written forms that have come down to us are believed to be later.

 

Though David Frawley and Rajaram, besides others, have been trying to brush off the aryan invasion theory, their ideas are not considered authoritative. Nor do they have a very plausible alternative theory.

 

We should also take into account broader aspects such as the aryan migrations from central Asia into eastern Europe, the branching off of one group into Persia and the birth of Zoroastraism, similarities of vedic gods to Zoroastrian gods, similarities of early sanskrit to many early European/persian languages and so on.

 

It would be nice if the Indian government sets up a team of experts, both Indian and international to go into all the archeological, textual and other data to re-examine the issue and come up with something authoritative. Too many people are shooting off their mouths with very little conclusive evidence.

 

Cheers.

 

Sriram

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Amod Kumar - 201st post - 18 Nov 2003 15:15

Hi Sriram

To tell you frankly , as a student of history , I had difficulty accepting the theory of Aryan invasion. The way we are taught in our schools and colleges , it appears as if this Aryan invasion theory is a proved fact of history , beyond any reasonable dought. The Aryan invasion theory is as much a false propaganda , in my honest opinion , as , say , the theory of Evolution by Darwin.

 

What we have been taught , is that , the Indus Valley Civilisation came to an end around 1500 B.C. around the same time that the Aryans invaded India. To put it other way round , the Aryans also invaded India around 1500 B.C. If we accept this time ( of 1500 B.C. ) as correct , then , subsequently , the date of Mahabharata war as 1478 B.C. will be incorrect because in a short span of 22 years Aryans could not have formed empires in India which went to war in the Mahabharata war. Also in that short span of 22 years they could not have moved eastward and penetrated as deep as Rajgriha ( modern Bihar ) which was the Kingdom of Jarasandh.

 

I have tough time accepting the theory that Aryans invaded India. For me they were as much original inhabbitants of India as say , Dravidians , Santhals , Bhils and Mangoloid people.

 

NASA satellite pictures of the bed of Saraswati river also disputes this invasion theory. On the basis of those pictures , it has been conclusively established that the mighty river Saraswati ( which is mentioned so many times in the Rig Veda ) actually dried up in 1900 B.C. River being lifeline in those days , the Aryans ( if they invaded India in 1500 B.C. ) could not had settled on the banks of a dried up river and they could not have composed hymns in praise of a dried up river.

 

Anyway , this will always remain debatable. There will be group of historians saying that Aryans invaded India and another group saying that they were original inhabitants of India. Till such time as it is proved beyond reasonable doubt , people should have the liberty of believing either one of them .

 

Cheers

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Kenneth Anderson - 263rd post - 18 Nov 2003 14:12

The so-called Aryan invasion theory has long been challenged by serious scholars. It hinges on the flimsiest of "evidence", which basically amounts to little more than some highly speculative linguistic theorising. There is not a shred of archeaological evidence supporting it, nor a single written document of any kind.

The American archeaologist Jim Shaffer pretty much sums up what is all about in his book "Indo-Aryan Invasions: Myth or Reality"

 

"The Indo Aryan concept was never subjected to rigorous validation beyond the field of historical linguistics. Linguistic reconstructions were used to interpret archeaological materials, which in turn were used to substantiate cultural reconstructions.

 

The Indo Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of that period… What was theory became unquestioned fact that was used to interpret and organise all subsequent data.

 

Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic times.”

 

“Indigenous cultural developments”. That too is the view of Jonathan Kenoyer of Wosnconsin University, a specialist on Indus Valley Culture and head of the Harappa excavations, which are producing some pretty challenging evidence for more than a few current theories.

 

The Aryan Invasion is simply a concoction of Western imperialists intent on asserting the superiority of their culture over that of India. Don’t buy it. It won’t last much longer as a credible theory, for sure.

 

Best wishes

 

Ken

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Amod Kumar - 202nd post - 18 Nov 2003 15:33

Hi Ken

A good post indeed. I must get to read this book - " Indo - Aryan Invasions - myth or reality ". However it will be difficult for me to accept that this theory was put forward by the Europeans because of their imperialist mind set. European Historians has done a lot to recreate India's past . Let us give the devil its due.

 

Cheers

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Kenneth Anderson - 263rd post - 18 Nov 2003 19:49

well, they did colonise you, pillage many of your treasures, try vigorously to impose christianity on you, discredit the vedas, impose partition, incite inter-religious antagonism, as well as create a theory that took away your entire history.

mmm... maybe not imperialism though :-)

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Kenneth Anderson - 263rd post - 18 Nov 2003 19:49

well, they did colonise you, pillage many of your treasures, try vigorously to impose christianity on you, discredit the vedas, impose partition, incite inter-religious antagonism, as well as create a theory that took away your entire history.

mmm... maybe not imperialism though :-)

 

re: New Light on the Mahabharata Date Kenneth Anderson - 261st post - 17 Nov 2003 20:35

>" NOW WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY <

Where it belongs

 

 

 

 

[REASWARAN 0]

Truly has it been said that the devil may quote the scriptures for his own purpose. Let us not forget that the verse quoted are not the words of the Lord but those of Arjun, who admittedly is in a state of major mental disarray and is advancing arguments to defend his stance of avoiding battle.

[Guest guest]

Excuse me, I know it doesn't exactly fit in with the conversation, but I noticed you certaintly know what you are talking about when you write about the Indo-European language. You say it developed 6000 years ago. Do you know if at this time it was spoken in Central America or South America? I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I need the information for a project, and my recent efforts to find research on this aren't proving very succesful.

[Guest guest]

The fact is Aryans originated in India and most of us in India are pure Aryans.

[shambu 0]

Gauracandra, why in the first place did you use the term "Aryan Mummies"? You could have said just as well "European Mummies" or "Celtic Mummies." Now the result is that you stirred up this whole confusing debate around "Aryans" having invaded India or not, where the word Aryan simply denotes a certain racial/cultural/ethnic identity, as opposed to the original intrinsic Vedic meaning of the word, namely Noble (=spiritually advanced & progressive). My opinion is that Aryans in the true meaning of the word are to be found amongst all peoples and races of the world, basically (and I think you would agree). Were the Nazist Germans who popularized the word Aryan to simply mean fair-skinned, blond-haired and blue-eyed actually Aryans themselves? Rather they displayed characteristics of an outspoken Asuric nature - so what value does their definition of Aryan actually have? It's simply a childish and erroneous, material

designation. So why "Aryan Mummies"? What signs of nobility does a mummy display?

 

I saw the documentary about these desert mummies on TV - very interesting. These Chinese scientists were visibly embarrased with these findings on their supposedly Mongoloid soil. They were unmistakably Celts - their looks, textiles, horseriding gear etcetera. Quite amazing they got that far into Central Asia. But I would say these findings form no proof whatsoever for an Indian Aryan invasion theory.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The Aryan culture has been the sole torchlight of civilization. All respectable sub-cultures pursuing progress and invention are fathered by the Aryan.

All other people, notably the continental Africans, have failed to outperform the natural challenge of establishing supremacy over the forces of the Earth, and have been assimilated under Aryan allowance. The Aryan is the son of the proverbial Prometheus,the bringer of light into the dark worlds.

The mastery of beautiful yet virile recessive properties over an unfriendly and harsh terrain is the fundamental embodiment of civilized existence, and all Aryans and sub-Aryans reflect this understanding in their forms, features, and practices.

The greatest depository and forge of Aryan wisdom lies in India, and its fair and tan sons and daughters extend all the way to North Europe and North Africa. Finally, it is the Aryan's superior moral philosophy that has tolerated and assisted the inferior and degenerate elements (even to the present day) instead of allowing them to be lost to history completely as another dead-end link in human evolution.