Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Aryan Invasion Theory Posted: 06-Oct-2010 at 02:23 |
Originally posted by balochii
^ no, thats not the point. But i am sure my ancestors were using it, way before you |
Prove it....
And please stop your superiority debate and try to contribute to this thread and the topic here is the smilarity & relations of different petroglyphs
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Oct-2010 at 02:26 |
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar
[QUOTE=balochii]^ no, thats not the point. But i am sure my ancestors were using it, way before you |
Prove it....
And please stop your superiority debate and try to contribute to this thread and the topic here is the smilarity & relations of different petroglyphs and their time line which is dispproving the so called Aryan Invasion theory
Lets stop this my ancestor your ancestor debate the whole world had its ancestors from Africa.. Me ,You and all are included.So lets give a break to this India pakistan thing and return to the topic
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Oct-2010 at 02:28 |
Originally posted by balochii
just go look at russian aryan cities discovered, nothing seems hindu/indian about them, clearly this means aryans were not indians like you claim |
By the way I didnt see you providing any proofs or Photos with timeline of the so called "Russian Aryan cities".Kindly provide the proofs for the same so that we can understand the genuinety of your claims.
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2010 at 23:38 |
Collapse of Aryan Invasion Theory
Abstracts of Speakers International Seminar on “How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? An Archaeological and Historical Perspective” -- Vivekananda Intl. Foundation, Nov. 25 - 27, 2010
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2010 at 20:34 |
^ indians are not aryans
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2010 at 22:35 |
Prove yourself.. ie provide proof instead of repeating yourself.
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2010 at 23:43 |
^ 80% of indians are not, just look at why i said in the other thread and agian thanks for the map, it clearly proves me and cyrus correct
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 02:22 |
There is no use in repeating your claims .you need to prove it.Provide proofs for your claims.Dont refer to others names to hide your incapability. And kindly clarify the adoption of culture & language theory too. And what does the map say..? If you are proposing something then prove it.Otherwise you are just wasting our time.You were refering to Rigveda time and again saying Rigveda proves this & that.Just give referances to where it proves and what..?
Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 09-Dec-2010 at 02:24
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 02:50 |
^ the map shows where the aryans were when they came to south asia, they only stayed in the northern part of subcontinent, mostly todays pakistan, 80% of india is not included in the map nor it is mentioned in Rig Veda, so 80% of indians of today have nothing to do with aryans. There is reason why for example punjabies look different from south indians, south indians are mostly pure dravdians, while punjabies are a mix of dravdians and aryans, you can clearly see that from there faces.
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 02:56 |
You are wrong about the Map.Sarasvati ried up in 2000BC. And the map shown here is having all rivers which were prominent during the live sarasvati ie much before 2000BC.So when did this Aryan invasio/migration/culture adoption take place...?
Prove your claims..? What is mentioned in Rigveda about whom..? You are beating around the bush but justifying nothing..? What is Rigveda saying ../ tell me..?
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 03:01 |
^ so are you telling me south indians and south india are mentioned in rig veda??? i read rig veda many times and never found any reference to south india. Your acting as if all of india is mentioned in rig veda, my point is only northern parts of subcontinent is mentioned, where the aryans stayed, prove me wrong, is south india mentioned? please prove it. I stand by that 80% of indians are dravidians and not aryans, again answer me, why do think north indians punjabies look different from south indians if they are same? why do pashtuns of pakistan look completly different from south indians? they are not the same, it should be clear to you, Pashtuns and northern pakistanis are probably the closest to orginal aryan tribes, punjabies are mix of aryans and dravdians
Edited by balochii - 09-Dec-2010 at 03:02
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 03:13 |
Well where did this south India come into picture..?what did i tell you about South Indians..?Well I dont understand what have you with South Indians..?
If you are familiar with Rigveda then why this shilly shallying..? just explain the Rigvedic geography with the help of its verses.. and povide proofs for your Pakistani rigvedic origin..? And apart from that what does Rigveda say..?
And along with that kindly explain the adoption theory with its time line..?
well come on..
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 03:36 |
^ you keep going around in circles, your not even answering my question, i have already answered yours by using the map you provided. Rig veda only mentions the rivers and places in the northern part of subcontinent, the whole world knows, it doesn't mention anything about rest of india.
Edited by balochii - 09-Dec-2010 at 03:37
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 03:46 |
Well Balochii if you dont have information about Rigveda ,admit it, dont bring the whole world generalizations it the debate. the whole world knows what..? What is your question and what is its relevance in this topic..? What did you prove..? You are not even able to explain what you are proposing.. say the adoption thing.. What cultureadoption are you proposing..? When did it take place..? What was the original culture before that..?and what was their language..?what was their religion..? Above all why did they adopt when they already had a culture,religion and language of their own..?
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 04:16 |
^ what information do you want from rig vida, speak proper english so i know, i will provide any information you want, its clear you are just avoiding what i keep saying
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 04:37 |
also what i believe is northern part of the
subcontient, present day northern pakistan and areas like kashmir were part of
the orginal aryan lands, but most of what you call india today wasn't,
dont forget that sanskrit and early vedic culture developed in very
extreme northern parts of the subcontinent, like peshawar pakistan where
panini lived
^ lets say even if you are correct of location
of sarasvati (pak/indianborder), it doesn't include most what is india
today. It is clear from Rig Veda that it was written on the pakistani side of
the border, mostly northern pakistan or today's northern punjab area,
also ganga and yamuna are mentioned very few
times in rig vide and perhaps only the northern parts of yamuna/ganga are
mentioned, which are near the himalayas These were your posts in the other treadNow justify it with your knwledge and proficiency in rigveda.
|
 |
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 08:40 |
The Geography of the Rig Veda, from Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rigvedic_geography.jpg
Perhaps this will help?
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 13:26 |
^ thanks for that map, i dont have time to go through every passage of rig ved to prove it was written in the northern part of the subcontinent, it is simple knowledge that every one knows, that it was written in the northern parts, so i really dont know what this ranjith guy wants me to prove? that it was written in south india? i am not understanding his english
Here is that map, every thing in Rig veda is in northern part of the subcontinent, mostly pakistan and extreme northern india of today, i dont see any south india, central india, east india in there:
Edited by balochii - 09-Dec-2010 at 13:27
|
 |
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 13:30 |
^ the fact these were aryan lands, the aryan culture streched from central asia all way to northern part of the subcontinent, so again i really am not understanding what ranjith wants me to prove, can anyone help me understand what he means?
|
 |
ranjithvnambiar
Colonel
Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Dec-2010 at 22:35 |
What an escape Balochii..?  Wikipedia instead of Rigveda..? and no rigvedic proof for your claims..? And your incapability to answer is because of my english..? If opuslola and others can understand me then what is wrong with you..?
|
 |