History of the South Asian subcontinent: Abrahams Origin in India?

Abrahams Origin in India?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14957
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 16:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Abrahams Origin in India?

Posted By: Boreasi
Subject: Abrahams Origin in India?
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 01:43

By Gene D. Matlock, B.A, M.A.

http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html - http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html

In his History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), wrote that the Greek philosopher Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." (Book I:22.)

Clearchus of Soli wrote, "The Jews descend from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called in India Calanians and in Syria Jews. The name of their capital is very difficult to pronounce. It is called 'Jerusalem.'"

"Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

Martin Haug, Ph.D., wrote in The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religions of the Parsis, "The Magi are said to have called their religion Kesh-�-Ibrahim.They traced their religious books to Abraham, who was believed to have brought them from heaven." (p. 16.)

There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai, that are more than mere coincidences. Although in all of India there is only one temple dedicated to Brahma, this cult is the third largest Hindu sect.

In his book Mois�s y los Extraterrestres, Mexican author Tom�s Doreste states,

Voltaire was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman priests who left India to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of Ur, land of the patriarchs, was near the border of Persia, the road to India, where that Brahman had been born.

The name of Brahma was highly respected in India, and his influence spread throughout Persia as far as the lands bathed by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The Persians adopted Brahma and made him their own. Later they would say that the God arrived from Bactria, a mountainous region situated midway on the road to India. (pp. 46-47.)

Bactria (a region of ancient Afghanistan) was the locality of a prototypical Jewish nation called Juhuda or Jaguda, also called Ur-Jaguda. Ur meant "place or town." Therefore, the bible was correct in stating that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans." "Chaldean," more correctly Kaul-Deva (Holy Kauls), was not the name of a specific ethnicity but the title of an ancient Hindu Brahmanical priestly caste who lived in what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Indian state of Kashmir.

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, was expelled from or left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)

"The Persians also claim Ibrahim, i.e. Abraham, for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham.(p.85) ...We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, Abraham, or Abram, or Brahma, and his wife Sara or Sarai, or Sara-iswati, left their father's family and came into Canaan. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries."(Vol. I; p. 387.)

In Hindu mythology, Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)

But the anomalies don't end here. In India, a tributary of the river Saraisvati is Ghaggar. Another tributary of the same river is Hakra. According to Jewish traditions, Hagar was Sarai's maidservant; the Moslems say she was an Egyptian princess. Notice the similarities of Ghaggar, Hakra and Hagar.

The bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India. "...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin... They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur." (Genesis 25:17-18.) It is an interesting fact that the names of Isaac and Ishmael are derive from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu = "Friend of Shiva." (Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal = "Great Shiva."

A third mini-version of the Abraham story turns him into another "Noah." We know that a flood drove Abraham out of India. "...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan." (Joshua 24:2-3.)

Genesis 25 mentions some descendants of his concubine Ketura (Note: The Moslems claim that Ketura is another name of Hagar.): Jokshan; Sheba; Dedan; Epher. Some descendants of Noah were Joktan, Sheba, Dedan, and Ophir. These varying versions have caused me to suspect that the writers of the bible were trying to unite several different branches of Judaism.

About 1900 BC, the cult of Brahm was carried to the Middle and Near East by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers. The classical geographer Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. "Aristobolus says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper bed." (Strabo's Geography, XV.I.19.)

"The drying up of the Sarasvati around 1900 BCE, which led to a major relocation of the population centered around in the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys, could have been the event that caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p.14)

Indian historian Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He states that the Aryans, unable to defeat the Asuras (The mercantile caste that once ruled in the Indus Valley or Harappans) spent so many years fighting covertly against the Asuras, such as destroying their huge system of irrigation lakes, causing destructive flooding, that Abraham and his kindred just gave up and marched to West Asia. (See Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism.) Therefore, besides being driven out of Northern India by floods, the Aryans also forced Indian merchants, artisans, and educated classes to flee to West Asia.

Edward Pococke writes in India in Greece,

"...in no similar instance have events occurred fraught with consequences of such magnitude, as those flowing from the great religious war which, for a long series of years, raged throughout the length and breadth of India. That contest ended by the expulsion of vast bodies of men; many of them skilled in the arts of early civilization, and still greater numbers, warriors by profession. Driven beyond the Himalayan mountains in the north, and to Ceylon, their last stronghold in the south, swept across the Valley of the Indus on the west, this persecuted people carried with them the germs of the European arts and sciences. The mighty human tide that passed the barrier of the Punjab, rolled on towards its destined channel in Europe and in Asia, to fulfill its beneficent office in the moral fertilization of the world.the distance of the migratory movement was so vast, the disguise of names so complete, and Grecian information so calculated to mislead, that nothing short of a total disregard of theoretic principles, and the resolution of independent research, gave the slightest chance of a successful elucidation."

(p. 28.)

If all these refugee ruling peoples were exclusively of Indian heritage,
why doesn't History mention them?

The exodus of refugees out of ancient India did not occur all at once but over a period of one or more thousand years. If all these refugee ruling peoples were exclusively of Indian heritage, why doesn't History mention them? Indeed they are mentioned as Kassites, Hittites, Syrians, Assyrians, Hurrians, Arameans, Hyksos, Mittanians, Amalekites, Aethiops (Atha-Yop), Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and many others. But we have been wrongly taught to regard them as ethnicities indigenous to Western Asia. Our history books also call them "Indo-Europeans," causing us to wonder where they were really from. "The people of India came to realize their social identity in terms of Varna and Jati (societal functions or caste); not in terms of races and tribes." (Foundations of Indian Culture; p. 8.)

Here's an example of how the ancient Indians identified people: The leaders were called Khassis (Kassites), Kushi (Kush*tes), Cossacks (Russian military caste) Caesars (Roman ruling caste), Hattiya (Hittites), Cuthites (a dialectical form of Hittite), Hurrite (another dialectical form of Hittite), Cathay (Chinese leaders), Kasheetl/Kashikeh among the Aztecs, Kashikhel/Kisheh by the Mayans, and Keshuah/Kush by the Incas. The Assyrians (in English), Asirios (in Spanish), Asuras or Ashuras (India), Ashuriya, Asuriya (Sumer and Babylonia), Asir (Arabia), Ahura (Persia), Sur� in Central Mexico, etc., were people who worshipped Surya (the Sun).

Naturally, in areas where this religion prevailed, they were known as "Assyrians," no matter what the real names of their respective kingdoms were.

Another problem that western scholars have in identifying the Indo-Europeans as Indians is that India was not then and never was a nation. Furthermore, it is not "India." It is Bharata, and even Bharata is not a nation. Bharata is a collection of nations, just as Europe is a collection of nations, presently held together by the real or perceived threat of Moslem expansionism. Indian scholars have told me that when and if this expansionism ever disappears, the "Bharata Union" will again splinter into many smaller nations.

"The Arabian historians contend that Brahma and Abraham, their ancestor, are the same person. The Persians generally called Abraham Ibrahim Zeradust. Cyrus considered the religion of the Jews the same as his own. The Hindoos must have come from Abraham, or the Israelites from Brahma..." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 396.)

Was our Abraham Really the Hindu Deity Ram?

Ram and Abraham were possibly the same person or clan. For example, the syllable "Ab" or "Ap" means "father" in Kashmiri. The prototypical Jews could have called Ram "Ab-Ram" or "Father Ram." It's also conceivable that the word "Brahm" evolved from "Ab-Ram" and not vice-versa. The Kashmiri word for "Divine Mercy," Raham, likewise derives from Ram. Ab-Raham = "Father of Divine Mercy." Rakham = "Divine Mercy" in Hebrew; Ram is also the Hebrew term for "highly placed leader or governor." Indian historian A. D. Pusalker, whose essay "Traditional History From the Earliest Times" appeared in The Vedic Age, said that Ram was alive in 1950 BC, which is about the time that Abraham, the Indo-Hebrews, and the Aryans made the greatest India-to-the-Middle East migration since the Great Flood.

"One of the shrines in the Kaaba was also dedicated to the Hindu Creator God, Brahma, which is why the illiterate prophet of Islam claimed it was dedicated to Abraham. The word "Abraham" is none other than a malpronunciation of the word Brahma. This can be clearly proven if one investigates the root meanings of both words. Abraham is said to be one of the oldest Semitic prophets. His name is supposed to be derived from the two Semitic words 'Ab' meaning 'Father' and 'Raam/Raham' meaning 'of the exalted.' In the book of Genesis, Abraham simply means 'Multitude.' The word Abraham is derived from the Sanskrit word Brahma. The root of Brahma is 'Brah' which means - 'to grow or multiply in number.' In addition Lord Brahma, the Creator God of Hinduism is said to be the Father of all Men and Exalted of all the Gods, for it is from him that all beings were generated. Thus again we come to the meaning 'Exalted Father.' This is a clear pointer that Abraham is none other than the heavenly father Brahma."

(Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia; Part VI; p.2.)

Several word-meanings can be extracted from "Abram," each of which points directly to his exalted position. Ab = "Father;" Hir or H'r = "Head; Top; Exalted;" Am = "People." Therefore, Abhiram or Abh'ram can mean "Father of the Exalted." Here's still another: Ab - � - Ram = "Father of the Merciful." Ab, also meaning "Snake," could indicate that Ab-Ram (Exalted Snake) was a Naga king. All the meanings that can be extracted from the compound word "Abraham" reveal the divine destiny of his followers. Hiram of Tyre, Solomon's close friend, was "Exalted People" or Ahi-Ram (Exalted Snake).

In ancient India, the Aryan cult was called "Brahm-Aryan." The Aryans worshiped multiple gods. Abraham turned away from polytheism. By so doing, he could have become "A-Brahm" (No longer a Brahman.) The Aryans called the Asuras "Ah-Brahm." Therefore, we can logically assume that the fathers of the Indus civilization were probably prototypical Jews.

Jerusalem was a Hittite (Indian hereditary leadership caste) city at the time of Abraham's death. In Genesis 23:4, Abraham asked the Jerusalem Hittites to sell him a burial plot. The Hittites answered, "...thou art a prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee." (p. 6). If Abraham was revered as a prince by the Hittites, he, too, was a highly regarded member of India's hereditary ruling and warrior caste. The bible never did say that Abraham wasn't a Hittite. It just said, "I am a stranger and a sojourner with you." (Genesis 23:4.) As the Hittites said, they recognized Abraham as being even above them. Just as the Hittites were not a unique ethnicity, neither were the Amorites or Amarru. Marruta was the Indian caste name of commoners. The word "Amorite" (Marut) was the first caste name of the Indian Vaishyas: craftsmen, farmers, cattlemen, traders, etc.

G. D. Pande writes in Ancient Geography of Ayodhya, "Maruts represented the Visah. The Maruts are described as forming troops or masses. Rudra, the father of the Maruts, is the lord of cattle." (p. 177.) Malita J. Shendge states: "...the Maruts are the people." (The Civilized Demons; p. 314.) We should not be surprised to find the Khatti (Hittites) and Maruts (Amorites) functioning as the fathers (protectors) and mothers (helpmates or assistants) of Jerusalem.

In India, the Hittites were also known as Cedis or Chedis (pronounced Hatti or Khetti). Indian historians classify them as one of the oldest castes of the Yadavas. "The Cedis formed one of the most ancient tribes among the Ksatriyas (the aristocratic class made up of Hittites and Kassites) in early Vedic times. As early as the period of the Rgveda the Cedi kings had acquired great reknown... they are one of the leading powers in northern India in the great epic." (Yadavas Through the Ages, p. 90.) Ram or Rama also belonged to the Yadava clan. If our Abraham, Brahm, and Ram are the one and the same person, Abraham went to Jerusalem to be with his own people!

Ram's congregations segregated themselves in their own communities, called Ayodhya, which in Sanskrit means "The Unconquerable." The Sanskrit word for "fighter" is Yuddha or Yudh. Abraham and his group belonged to the Ayodhya (Yehudiya, Judea) congregation who remained aloof from non-believers and Amalekites (Aryans?).

Melchizadek... the sage of Salem

If what I have said thus far isn't convincing enough, maybe the word "Melchizedek" will be. Melchizedek was a king of Jerusalem who possessed secret mystical and magical powers. He was also Abraham's teacher.

Melik-Sadaksina was a great Indian prince, magician, and spiritual giant - the son of a Kassite king. In Kashmiri and Sanskrit, Sadak = "a person with magical, supernatural powers." A certain Zadok (Sadak?) was also a supernaturally-endowed priest who annointed Solomon. Why does the Kassite (of royal caste) Melik-Sadaksina, a mythical Indian personage, suddenly appear in Jerusalem as the friend and mentor of Abraham? According to Akshoy Kumar Mazumdar in The Hindu History, Brahm was the spiritual leader of the Aryans. As an Aryan (Not of Yah), he naturally believed in idols. The bible says that he even manufactured them. Upon seeing how increasing idol worship and religious guesswork were contributing to the further downfall of his people, Brahm backed away from Aryanism and reembraced the ancient Indian (Yah) philosophy (Cult of the MaterialUniverse) even though it, too, was foundering in manmade evils. He decided that mankind could save himself only by dealing with what was real; not the imagined.

Shocked at the barbarism and blind selfishness of the people, the wise men and educated people among the proto-Hebrews isolated themselves from the masses. Dr. Mazumdar wrote, "The moral fall was rapid. The seers and sages lived apart from the masses. They seldom married and were mostly given to religious contemplation. The masses, without proper light and leader, soon became vicious in the extreme. Rape, adultery, theft, etc., became quite common. Human nature ran wild. Brahma (Abraham) decided to reform and regenerate the people. He made the chief sages and seers to marry and mix with the people. Most refused to marry, but 30 agreed." Brahm married his half sister Saraisvati. These sages became known as prajapatis (progenitors).

"Northern Afghanistan was called Uttara Kuru and was a great center of learning. An Indian woman went there to study and received the title of Vak, i.e. Saraisvati (Lady Sarah). It is believed that Brahm, her teacher (and half brother), was so impressed by her beauty, education, and powerful intellect, that he married her." (The Hindu History; p. 48, in passim.)

From the holy community in Southern Afghanistan, similar communities spread all over the world: the whole of India, Nepal, Thailand, China, Egypt, Syria, Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Persia, Greece, Laos, Iraq, - even the Americas! The linguistic evidence of Brahm's presence in various parts of the world is more than evident: Persian: Braghman (Holy); Latin: Bragmani (Holy); Russian: Rachmany (Holy); Ukranian Rachmanya (Priest; Holy); Hebrew: Ram (Supreme Leader); Norwegian From (Godly). A sacred word among the Hindus was and is the mystic syllable OM. It is associated eternally with the earth, sky, and heaven, the Triple Universe. It is also a name of Brahm. The Aztecs also worshiped and chanted the syllable OM as the dual principal of all creation: OMeticuhlti (Male Principle) and OMelcihuatl (Female Principle). The Mayan priestly caste was called Balam (pronounced B'lahm). Had an "R" sound existed in Mayan, it would have been Brahm. The Peruvian Incas worshiped the sun as Inti Raymi (Hindu Ram).

Names that undeniably derive from Rama literally pepper Native-American languages, especially the languages of those tribes extending from our American Southwest, to Mexico, and all the way to South America, beyond Peru. The Tarahumara Indians of Chihuahua are an ideal example. Their real name is Ra-Ram-Uri. As in Sumeria and Northern India, the Ra-Ram-Uri "Uri" = "People." Because the Spanish "R" is trilled, this "Uri" could also be Udi or Yuddhi, the Sanskrit name for "Warrior; Conqueror." Many Mexican tribes mention that a foreign race of Yuri once invaded their part of the world. The Ra-Ram-Uri sun god is Ono-R�ame. In Kashmiri, Ana = "Favorite Son;" The Ra-Ram-Uri moon goddess, the consort of Ono-R�ame, is Eve-Ruame. Kashmiri Hava = "Eve, or The Female Principle."

A Ra-Ram-Uri governor is called Si-Riame. In Sanskrit/Kashmiri, Su-Rama = "Great Rama." According to ancient Mexican legends, the Yoris belonged to a tribe called Surem (Su-Ram?) Before the conquest, Central Mexico and the American Southwest, as far as Eastern Colorado, were known as Sur�. Sur� = "Sun" in Kashmiri. The Tarahumara cure doctor or spiritual guide is an Owi-Ruame. In Sanskrit, Oph = "Hope." Their devil is called Repa-Bet-Eame. Kashmiri: Riphas (Appearance) + Buth (Malignant Spirit) + Yama (Angel of Death). Many other astonishing Kashmiri/Sanskrit correspondences appear in the Ra-Ram-Uri language. Their relation to ancient Phoenicia, Sumeria, and Northern India is beyond question.

The Phoenicians... global navigators.

Most people think of the Phoenicians as a tribe of sailor-traders that inhabited what is now Lebanon. However, the Pancika or Pani as the Hindus called them, or Puni, by the Romans (a name also derived from Rama), were, like gypsies, scattered all over the globe.

The Spaniards called the land of the Ra-Ram-Uri Chiahuahua, pronounced as Shivava by the natives themselves. In Sanskrit, Shivava = "Shiva's Temple." According to Hindu religious scholars, Ram and God Shiva were once the same deity. Shiva and Yah's (the same one we read about in the Bible) name are also prominent in Native-American religious practices and can be found inscribed as petroglyphs all over the American Southwest. (Refer to my book India Once Ruled the Americas!)

Ayodhya was also another name for Dar-es-Salam in African Tanzania and Jerusalem (Judea). It is true that the Jerusalemites were known as Yehudiya or Judeans (Warriors of Yah), a fact making the Jews' Indian origins incontrovertible.

There was no part of the ancient world, including China, that wasn't influenced by Ram's religious views. For example, Christians and Jews have been brainwashed to believe that Mohammed copied his teachings from Jewish sources. The truth is that in Mohammed's time, Ram or Abraham's theology was the foundation stone of all religious sects. All Mohammed did was to purge them of idol worship.

"...the Temple of Mecca was founded by a colony of Brahmins from India.it was a sacred place before the time of Mohamed, and.they were permitted to make pilgrimages to it for several centuries after his time. Its great celebrity as a sacred place long before the time of the prophet cannot be doubted." (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, p. 421.)
"...the city of Mecca is said by the Brahmins, on the authority of their old books, to have been built by a colony from India; and its inhabitants from the earliest era have had a tradition that it was built by Ishmael, the son of Agar. This town, in the Indus language, would be called Ishmaelistan." (Ibid, p. 424.)

Before Mohammed's time, The Hinduism of the Arab peoples was called Tsaba. Tsaba or Saba is a Sanskrit word, meaning "Assembly of the Gods ". Tsaba was also called Isha-ayalam (Shiva's Temple). The term Moslem or Moshe-ayalam (Shiva's Temple) is just another name of Sabaism. The word has now shrunk to Islam. Mohammed himself, being a member of the Quaryaish family, was at first a Tsabaist. The Tsabaists did not regard Abraham as an actual god, but as an avatar or divinely ordained teacher called Avather Brahmo (Judge of the Underworld).

At the time of Jesus, the respective languages, religious symbolism, and traditions of the Arabs and Jews were nearly identical. If we could take a time machine to the past, most of us would not see any real differences between the Arabs and Jews. History tells us that the Arabs of Christ's time worshiped idols. So did the lower class and rural Jews. For this reason, the Middle Eastern squabble between the Jews and the Moslems and the hate between the Moslems and Hindus in India are ridiculous. The Moslems are fighting the Jews and Hindus, or vice-versa, over nothing. All three groups sprang from the same source.

The Kashmiri-Sanskrit equivalent of Hebron (Khev'run in Hebrew) screams out the Indian origins of Jerusalem's earliest inhabitants: Khab'ru (grave; tomb). (See Grierson's Dictionary.; p. 382.) Even in Hebrew, Kever = "Tomb."

Indian linguist and orientalist Maliti J. Shendge's The Languages of Harappans welds together, once and for all, West Asia and the Indus Valley civilization. Not only does she prove that Harappa was Akkadian and Sumerian, she also proves that the first "Abraham" was none other than Adam before Eve was created from one of his ribs.

"...it may be said that the region from Tigris-Euphrates to the Indus and its east was inhabited by the Akkadian speaking Semites who later called themselves as Asshuraiu. Their Indian name as known from Rgveda is 'Asura' which is not far removed. That this region should be inhabited by different clans of the same ethos is not very surprising. It would however be wrong to think that it was a racially homogenous group. As our linguistic evidence shows it was a mixed population of the Akkadians and Sumerians. The other ethnic groups also may have been present, whose traces may be looked for in future work. This mixed composition of the population is not inconsistent with the present state of knowledge, as the presence of these ethnic elements in the Indus valley only confirms and extends an identical demographic pattern, which was in existence probably from the earliest times of prehistory and civilization.

"If these Akkadians were the same as the West Asian clan, there should have been an equal preponderance of this primaeval couple in the Vedic mythology. However, beyond one cryptic reference, there is no reference to them. This was baffling. It seemed unlikely that this clan was without the primaeval parents, though their god was Asura. The predominance of Brahman in RV as the primaeval father is there which is also inadequate as he is male principle alone. A close look at Brahman revealed its ancestry to be made of two words Abu + Rahmu which is the primaeval pair in the Semitic mythology. The Akkadian counterpart of Rahmu is Lahmu which later became goddess Laksmi, born in the sea and courted by both gods and demons. Lahmu is a dragon in Akkadian but in Ugaratic Rahmu is the lass of Abu. Brahma (abu + rahmu = abrahma = brahma) all the changes postulated here being covered in the above correspondences, or lass of Abu, the supreme Semitic godhood, has undergone many transformations and has many counterparts in the Indian pantheon, amongst whom is Laksmi one of the important ones being worshipped as the goddess of all material creation. Thus the Asura clan of the Indus valley worshipped Abu-Rahmu as the primaeval couple."

(pp.269 - 270.)

Ms. Shendge's research really strengthens my conviction that the remains of Abraham and Sarai in Hebron may really be those of the real Brahm and Saraisvati. Our Abraham was evidently a priest, perhaps even the founder, of the Abu-Rahmu (Adam and Eve) cultus, who brought his monotheistic religion to West Asia. Though he and Sarai were deified in various forms back in their native India, they remained as humans in Judaism.

http://www.viewzone.com/gene.comments.html - Read Comments Here http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html - http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Replies:

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 18:11

TACITUS ON

HEBREW'S ORIGIN

Tacitus the best of the Roman Historian presents the Egyptian account of the Hebrew's origin. His conciseness of style has through imitation influenced a majority of prominent writers in Europe, up to this century.

HISTORY 5.2-5: THEORIES OF JEWISH ORIGINS
Moses Hadas, translation

Evidence of this is sought in the name [for the origin of the Hebrew people]. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idi, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the j poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.

3. Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to them selves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all I directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.

4. Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swines flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Ideai, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven.

5. This worship, however introduced~ is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart. and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are mortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom, bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the belief about the lower world. Quite different is their about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape of perishable materials. They believe that Being to supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation or decay. They therefore do not allow any images to their cities: much less in their temples. This flattery paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some thought that they worshipped Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean.

6. Eastward the country is bounded by Arabia; to the south lies Egypt; on the west are Phcenicia and the Mediterranean. Northward it commands an extensive prospect over Syria. The inhabitants are healthy and able to bear fatigue. Rain is uncommon, but the soil is fertile. Its products resemble our own. They have, besides, the balsam and the palm. The palm-groves are tall and graceful. The balsam is a shrub; each branch, as it fills with sap, may pierced with a fragment of stone or pottery. If steel is employed, the veins shrink up. The sap is used by physicians. Libanus is the principal mountain, and has, strange to say, amidst these burning heats, a summit shaded with trees and never deserted by its snows. The same range supplies and sends forth the stream of the Jordan. This river does not discharge itself into the sea, but flows entire through two lakes, and is lost in the third. This is a lake of vast circumference; it resembles the sea, but is more nauseous in taste; it breeds pestilence among those who live near by its noisome odour; it cannot be moved by the wind, and it affords no home either to fish or water-birds. These strange waters support what is thrown upon them, as on a solid surface, and all persons, whether they can swim or no, are equally buoyed up by the waves. At a certain season of the year the lake throws up bitumen, and the method of collecting it has been taught by that experience which teaches all other arts. It is naturally a fluid of dark colour; when vinegar is sprinkled upon it, it coagulates and floats upon the surface. Those whose business it is take it with the hand, and draw it on to the deck of the boat; it then continues of itself to flow in and lade the vessel till the stream is cut off. Nor can this be done by any instrument of brass or iron. It shrinks from blood or any cloth stained by the menstrual of women. Such is the account of old authors; but those who know the country say that the bitumen moves m heaving masses on the water, that it is drawn by hand to the shore, and that there, when dried by the evaporation of the earth and the power of the sun, it is cut into pieces with axes and wedges just as timber or stone would be.

7. Not far from this lake lies a plain, once fertile, they say, and the site of great cities, but afterwards struck by lightning and consumed. Of this event, they declare, traces still remain, for the soil, which is scorched in appearance, has lost its productive power.

http://skeptically.org/oldtestament/id8.html - http://skeptically.org/oldtestament/id8.html

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 20:12

this was unknown to me.............

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 14:44

Yes, to me as well - until these and other recent repports started arriving. Comparisions between early Indian and Semittic languages seems to point to an indian-aryan (!) origin. The island of Socotra seem to be a key-point in this, since it seems to establish a very early semittic relation of trade between the Indian coast (Pune/Poona-Cambay), the Persian Gulf, Akabay, Eritrea and the (later) Punic area.

Pune/Poone relates to the famous color that made the Pho(e)-nicians famous as traders, long before they entered the Mediterranean areas - to conqer and rule its major trade-cities. Later their indo-aryan cousins seem to have conquered Ur/Uruk already before Abraham, before they expanded to conquer Babylon (building "New Babylon, etc.), Samara and so on - as far west as the Nile. Thus we may have an explanation for the help they got from the "Sea Peoples" - in conquering Heliopolis and other ancient capitols.

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 01:34

No thats quite wrong. It makes several mistakes that destroy its credibility. I think this is another attempt to indianify everything. Ibrahim was quite certainly from the middle east.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 04:43

how is it that indo-european = indian? Angry

-------------

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 19:07

Omar,

"Ibrahim was quite certainly from the middle east."

Definitly. But from where did his ancestors come?!

Leonidas,

How did you get that

equation?!

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 19:39

Originally posted by Leonidas

how is it that indo-european = indian? Angry

Well there is the "out of india" theory (which I don't believe in), the writter of the article must believe it I guess.

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 00:34

The matter of this thread is NOT the "origin of man" - as some seem to think. The only issue is to get a better understanding of origns of the Semittic people(s). Wheter they're named Assyrian, Punic, Sefardian, Hebrew or Phoenician, Arab or Jews is relevant - but secondary. This historic question has nothing to do with religion, per se. Although it may help to explain the origin of monoteism, as well.

So far the oldest traces are found to reach back to the period where the Arians had reached India. These "Indo-Arians" are known to have introduced various aspects of culture to the Indian sub-continent, such as shipping and trade. Thus there are substantial reasons to relate the Phoenicians - as well as the later Jews - as off-springs of this culture.

If the semites developed came out of a Indo-Arian culture they were obviousluy an off-spring from the (even) older Arians. From what I have learned it was these Arians who (pro-?)created the Indo-European culture, all around the Kurgan steppes. The Semittic tribes seem to have developed IN the Indian area - before they later set out to trade with the their "cousins" up north and west - becomming known as "Phoenicians". Later we also see other Semittic tribes leave this area over land - to conquer the southern area of Asia Minor - from the Perisan Gulf to Egypt.

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 01:15

Originally posted by Boreasi

By Gene D. Matlock, B.A, M.A.

http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html - http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html

In his book Mois�s y los Extraterrestres, Mexican author Tom�s Doreste states,

"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)

Edward Pococke writes in India in Greece,

(p. 28.)

If all these refugee ruling peoples were exclusively of Indian heritage,
why doesn't History mention them?

Naturally, in areas where this religion prevailed, they were known as "Assyrians," no matter what the real names of their respective kingdoms were.

Was our Abraham Really the Hindu Deity Ram?

(Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia; Part VI; p.2.)

Melchizadek... the sage of Salem

The Phoenicians... global navigators.

"...the Temple of Mecca was founded by a colony of Brahmins from India.it was a sacred place before the time of Mohamed, and.they were permitted to make pilgrimages to it for several centuries after his time. Its great celebrity as a sacred place long before the time of the prophet cannot be doubted." (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, p. 421.)
"...the city of Mecca is said by the Brahmins, on the authority of their old books, to have been built by a colony from India; and its inhabitants from the earliest era have had a tradition that it was built by Ishmael, the son of Agar. This town, in the Indus language, would be called Ishmaelistan." (Ibid, p. 424.)

(pp.269 - 270.)

Ms. Shendge's research really strengthens my conviction that the remains of Abraham and Sarai in Hebron may really be those of the real Brahm and Saraisvati. Our Abraham was evidently a priest, perhaps even the founder, of the Abu-Rahmu (Adam and Eve) cultus, who brought his monotheistic religion to West Asia. Though he and Sarai were deified in various forms back in their native India, they remained as humans in Judaism.

http://www.viewzone.com/gene.comments.html - http://www.viewzone.com/abraham3.html -

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 20:33

Vivek,

Tx!

Could you please give me/us some link to your former postings on this?

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 03:37

Originally posted by Boreasi

Vivek,

Tx!

Could you please give me/us some link to your former postings on this?

I said "WE". meaning the Indians. The similarity between Abraham & Brahama may be a new thing for some people, but Indian's have always belived in this. The ancient Ashurs whom the west calls Assryians were nothing but the Asurs of Indian history. The Egyptians called their country Khem, Khem is still to this day a common name in India with the same meaning, as it was in ancient times. The original iranians worshipped Ahura Mazda, The Indians still worship Asura Mahadev as one of their biggest gods, The ancient so called Aryan / Indo European / Indo Aryan people from Europe, Egypt to India & central Asia, worshipped Mitra / Mithra as thier chief God, Indians continue to do so till date.

We are afraid sort off to be to vocal about these things, because others start labelling you a nationalist, which is a politically uncorrect thing these days, unless it is muslim nationalism. But if you study Indian history without any bias, you will find answers to many old mysteries which all show that almost the whole world was one at a time in its beliefs & faiths & origins in ancient past.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 09:23

well saying the indo-european influence started in or mainly came from india, tends to lend itself to being nationalist and self serving. In another thread a greek was saying the same about the greek language. really you should all sit down and have a coffee and talk about how the indo eurpoean roots is really sanskrit or greek or maybe iranian either way its the same unproven BS that no seroius linguist or historian would dare to claim. This is mistaking the branches for the roots just because they sound the same.

many archiasm in our languges that can be universalised within the broader IE family are recorded and remembered in our languages in a way that, lets say other IE languages like gothic or baltic, didnt do long ago. We wrote them down . Remember we had done so waaeey before everyone else and before the languages or words could change...

-------------

Posted By: Yekta
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 11:58

Maybe I am wrong but shouldn't this topic be in: South and SE Asia (The Indian sub-continent and Southeast Asia)?

-------------
The fire that never dies burns in our hearts.

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 15:42

Leonidas,

"many archiasm in our languges that can be universalised within the broader IE family are recorded and remembered in our languages in a way that, lets say other IE languages like gothic or baltic, didnt do long ago. We wrote them down . Remember we had done so waaeey before everyone else and before the languages or words could change... "

Who are "We" ?! Please substantiate.

Yekta,

Or maybe both?

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 01:14

Originally posted by Yekta

Maybe I am wrong but shouldn't this topic be in: South and SE Asia (The Indian sub-continent and Southeast Asia)?

It ought to be in general history, since the horizons are a lot wider.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 06:00

boreasi by we i mean people/ IE language groups like greek - iranic or sanskrit. Apologies

-------------

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 15:44

Leonidas,

That takes us back to the Aryans - that seem to have brought sanskrift through Persia to India. From where did they come?

And - btw; who brougth writing to Crete, and thus the entire Mediterranean? If the Phoenicians as well as other Semits where a returning branch from the Aryans of India ("Indo-Aryans") we cant blame them anymore for the origin of the Greek and Roman alphabeths...!

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 01:24

No there is a difference. In India there is this concept of Braham & Abraham. A person who follows the righteous ways (read the mainstream religion) is a Braham. the one who does'nt is Abraham. "A" suffix denotes negativity signifying the opposite.

the wester people like to play with theis theory of an aryan race. Indians don't. The word Arya means a noble person. anybody who is a Braham is Arya. A person who was not considered as noble by the mainstream population was called Anarya (not an arya) & his philosophy was called Abraham. An Abrhaham person could become a Braham if he returned to the mainstream religious path.

Indian history is full of infighting between these two sects called Braham & Abraham. For example the Asurs /Ashurs (known to the west as assryians) were predominantly Abrahamic people. So also were the people of South India & Sundaland. The Highest seat of the brahamic faith was Tibet & in south easter central asia.

Another example is of the Madra community (known to the west as the Medes who formed the median empire) These peole are said to have been Brahamic initially, but later becme Abrahamic.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 16:59

Most of this stuff is so inaccurate, it boggles the mind... The whole article is pure fantasy, drawing upon words from civilizations separated by thousands of years and tens of thousands of kilometers; ignoring all archeological, linguistic and documentary evidence. I don't even know where to start refuting it: I could write a darn book on it! Compared to this, Daniken appears composed and methodical...

Okay, so some of you may say now that I'm racist or eurocentric. But it's not that at all: it's a matter of being objective and a good historian. To claim that all civilizations had a common homeland from which they spread civilization throughout the world in the not too distant past is not only fictional, it is actually denigrating to most of humankind, because it is in fact saying that the rest of humankind is incapable of creating a civilization of their own. Whether that supposed civilizing influence is situated in Europe for Eurocentrics, in Africa for Afrocentrics, or in India for proponets of this particular theory is irrelevant. The point is that there is enough evidence (archeological, documentary, linguistic and otherwise), to establish that civilization arose separately and more or less independently in several areas of the globe.

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 00:05

Originally posted by Boreasi

Leonidas,

That takes us back to the Aryans - that seem to have brought sanskrift through Persia to India. From where did they come?

non-sense, the ancient aryans did not bring sanskrit through iran. Sanskrit is a indic deviation not a root language and there is no proof of that branch of IE preceding the aryan invasions or being used in Iran or anywhere else before india

It is widely belived that Sanskrit devolped in south asia from a outside IE precursor. A proto language that eventually split between indo - and iran would be more likely, look at very isolted tribes like the kalash in a linguistic way and you my find traces of it their.... (BTW they speak a Iranic language)

Also, semites are not indo-european.

The cretans (i assume you mean Minoan) used a script that, as far as i know, was not from phoenicia (rather that would be our greek alphabet),
Further the greeks , it seems had trouble using the minoan script this would suggest completly different languages (it is assumed phonetics)....

-------------

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 16:31

Leonidas,

I expect that the "Aryans" were "Caucasians".

http://www.answers.com/topic/caucasian-race-1 - http://www.answers.com/topic/caucasian-race-1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caucasian - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caucasian
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/015.html - http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/015.html

If so, the caucasian Aryans that arrived in India would ONE off-spring, both etnically and culturally, from the same "proto-arians" - who ALSO sent their off-springs to the lands of Persia and Greece.

Developing regional characteristics these different groups were still in inter-action with each other via travel and trade. The traces of trade between Myanmar, India and Peria goes back several millenias. So does the traces from trade between Persia, Greece, Rome and northern Eurasia. According to the recent repports rom Oxford, etc. (Barry Cunliffe et al) there were well-established trade going between the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean areas already 7.000 years ago. The famous amber-trade, between the Baltic and Greece/Egypt as well as Caucasia/Persia was even OLDER.

A stable trade is based on local production, regional interaction and national management - to become inter-national. Thus language and all other cultural expressions had to be exchanged - over inter-continental disctances - long before a specific tribe, from which Abraham belonged, (had to?) split from India, to move west - in search for a "promised land".

Btw.: The Romani-people - often called Gypsies - are another, related group of people who hit the road out of India. (Wheter they are aryans, caucasians or something else doesnt matter really, unless we care about the research of the Jews and Gypsies - and their true roots and origin.)

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 01:10

The Gypsies were till late a separate identity in india, so were the Indian jews who resided in the same part of the country.

And the so called aryans may have invaded other places from somewhere, but in india we don't have any aryan race. If there was an invasion / migration, they surely didn't come to India.

The ancient Assryian / babylonian / egyptian civilizations are of mu / polynesian / melaynasian / dravid origin.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 14:36

Vivek,

The etnologists - as well as the Gypsies themselves, seem to agree that their etnic origin was in the NW of India. Perhaps they even set out to emmigrate simultaniously of the first Rabis and Bramanis, that eventually took new setlements in the west - eventually starting the Semittic branches of Arabia and the Levant.

---

The origin of both these peoples seem to have been Aryan, - as in Indo-Aryan. Presuming that the NW India was populated by an Aryan/Caucasian culture that spread as ice-time ended, when the new continental culture spread all over the globe. Viewing the archeological results form the last 100 years it seems fair to conclude that the period from 8.500 to 10.000 BP seem to be the "Time of Civilisation" - not only in India, but all around the equator. Which seems to benefit the "theory" of an cultivating impulse reaching India, as well. Wetter those are called "Aryans" or "Atlanteans" or "Lemurians" doesnt matter that much. If we follow classical etnology we should call them "Caucasians".

Wiki, quote;

The term Caucasian http://www.answers.com/topic/race-1 - race , Caucasian or Caucasoid is used to refer to people whose ancestry can be traced back to http://www.answers.com/topic/europe - Europe , http://www.answers.com/topic/north-africa - North Africa , http://www.answers.com/topic/southwest-asia - West Asia , http://www.answers.com/topic/indian-subcontinent - Indian subcontinent and parts of http://www.answers.com/topic/central-asia - Central Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation - [1] , a region known as the http://www.answers.com/topic/caucasus-1 - Caucasus .

Reading Indian sources on Indian history we get a confirmation of this axiom, were the term "aryans" again are exclusively used - to explain the cultures of ancient India.

Quote;

http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html#INDUS - The Indus Civilization 3000-1500 BCE

http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html#ARYAN - Aryan Civilization Daily Life 1500-500 BCE

http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html - http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html

So what is it gonna be; Caucasian> Aryan> Indian - or not?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

http://phoenicia.org/hittitephoenicians.html -

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 14:37

Language and etnicity in the Asia Minor;

http://phoenicia.org/hittitephoenicians.html - http://phoenicia.org/hittitephoenicians.html

**************************************************************************************************************************************

"I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage."

(In ca.521, the Persian king http://www.livius.org/da-dd/darius/darius_i_0.html - Darius I the Great ordered that a new alphabet, the http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/aryans/alphabet.html - Aryan script , was to be developed. This was used for a small corpus of inscriptions, known as the http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/achaemenians.html - Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions. An overview of all inscriptions can be found http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/inscriptions.html - here .)

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 02:29

Dear Boreasi,

Most of what you said is correct except for the following :

The Gypsies & the Jews resided in the North East of India not the North West.

No Indian literature, custom, culture or tradition or folklore or mythology speaks about an invasion or migration into India by anybody.

The word Arya means noble in India. It doesn't denote any race & has never done so. Any noble person could be called an Arya. Those who were not noble were Anarya (An = not)

The aryans may have been fair & caucasoid in other countries, but the most heroic persons referred to as arya in India, including most of the prominent gods are black.

I don't say that Aryas were not white elsewhere, but the so called Indian aryas were not white / fair.

Indian's don't even qualify as Arya in the western meaning of the term as all our tradition is contrary to what is stated in the west about our tradition.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 02:06

Abraham (Abram+ham) ham meaning darkness and majesty. remember god told him to change his name to Abramham and shari to shara. if the is from India is must be of dravidian descent, because the where around at that time an where located onthe southern side of India. also the Dravidians are said to have migrated tothe south nofter the Aryan invasion and out to the pacific Island and Austrialian. If you did not Know by now the Dravidians orignated from the Nile valley as did the Sumerians. Egtians sy they orignated from the end of the nile witch is Tanzania, at Mount Kilmujaro. Egytians (kimit=land of the blacks) are said to originated fom Nubia. the staues don't lie black. to sugest this means that what you write might

be correct

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 02:09

Your on point. I just look at how whites of today try claim everything (Columbus) as well as in the past (Alexander the Great) why not India

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 02:19

if there was a such thing as a Aryan Hitler never found any evidence of that. he sent out 100's of expeditions looking for Swatikas next or on someting to potray whites where aryans.

Besides the indegious dravidans are the true originaters. all the the oldest statues look like them and the gods. Black not fair skined

People gods look like them Osiris=black (Egypt)

modern picture of Budda =Chinese (old staues black)

modern picture of Jesus as painted by Micheal Angelo=White. bible describes as brassed skined and wolly hair; black

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 02:48

Originally posted by Boreasi

Leonidas,

I expect that the "Aryans" were "Caucasians".

that what im saying. Basically sanskrit is just one offshoot rather than the root language of IE

Originally posted by Boreasi

Developing regional characteristics these different groups were still in inter-action with each other via travel and trade.

well alot of the regionlism would be IE invaders/ elite incorperating the already established cultures they took over. Cross pollination. The greek IE's would of become, well, greek (as we know it) by taking on some of the more unique local culture and translating it their own way, or more likely vise versa, the locals translating the IE culture their own way. Sansrkit/indian culture is not unique or different to this proccess.

Originally posted by Boreasi

A stable trade is based on local production, regional interaction and national management - to become inter-national. Thus language and all other cultural expressions had to be exchanged - over inter-continental disctances - long before a specific tribe, from which Abraham belonged, (had to?) split from India, to move west - in search for a "promised land".

it plausible that there is a connection between brahmin and abraham but i need to see real evidance nor do i see the brahmin as a subsitute for some concieved mono-block indian infleunce. did the brahimn influence or define india in its entirilty that long ago? i doubt it

-------------

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 01:55

Originally posted by dhardin

if there was a such thing as a Aryan Hitler never found any evidence of that. he sent out 100's of expeditions looking for Swatikas next or on someting to potray whites where aryans.

Besides the indegious dravidans are the true originaters. all the the oldest statues look like them and the gods. Black not fair skined

People gods look like them Osiris=black (Egypt)

modern picture of Budda =Chinese (old staues black)

modern picture of Jesus as painted by Micheal Angelo=White. bible describes as brassed skined and wolly hair; black

Right, the persons presently called dravidians were the most advanced civilization in the ancient world. Even to this day most Indian Gods are black not white as the supporters of the Aryan invasion theory would like us to belive.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 03:01

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Besides the indegious dravidans are the true originaters. all the the oldest statues look like them and the gods. Black not fair skined

People gods look like them Osiris=black (Egypt)

modern picture of Budda =Chinese (old staues black)

modern picture of Jesus as painted by Micheal Angelo=White. bible describes as brassed skined and wolly hair; black

On this, this actually supports Aryan theory. The Aryan Gods were all mentioned in the Rig Veda and were a creation of the Aryan invaders(?) into the Pakistan Indus area (Indra). Some of these Aryan tribes then moved to the Gangetic areasand mixed in and other Gods were created, this time darker ones (Krishna etc).

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 04:18

Yes it supports the fact that the so called pakistan is a 50 year anpmaly waiting its rightfull return to where it belongs, to the mainstream !!!

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 16:45

Tele

Does the rig veda have its root in present day pakistan?

-------------

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 19:22

Originally posted by malizai_

Tele

Does the rig veda have its root in present day pakistan?

Yes, the Rig Veda was written by the Aryans (Vahikas) in ancient Pakistan. Sanskrit was also evolved by the ancient Pakistanis.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 00:04

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by malizai_

Tele

Does the rig veda have its root in present day pakistan?

Yes, the Rig Veda was written by the Aryans (Vahikas) in ancient Pakistan. Sanskrit was also evolved by the ancient Pakistanis.

TeldeInduz get your facts straight. The rig veda was memorised and not wriiten down for the first 2 thousand years, the sacredness is in the in the sound of the Mantras.

It mentions all the rivers of Punjab, last time i checked Pakistan did not have the Beas river and the Sutlej also goes through india, the Vedas also mention the Kabul, Ganges and Yamuna rivers, and most importantly Sarasvati which i didn't know were all in Pakistan!!!

The most famous and important tribe of the Vedas were the Bharatas, and they with the Kurus, PanchalAs, and Yadus, also very prominent tribes moved eventually into the Ganges-Yamuna area.

Pakistan is a new nation part of India until 60 years ago.

Tell you what go into a bookshop and see if they have 2 different books, one saying "Ancient India" the other saying "Ancient Pakistan", that you keep going on and on about

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 01:02

Cool down Vedam. It's a tragic situation. What will a person who doesn't have any history do when he sees others talking about their glorious ones. The only solution left is to appropriate / encroach upon someone's history franatically.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 01:45

Leonidas,

Originally posted by Boreasi

A stable trade is based on local production, regional interaction and national management - to become inter-national. Thus language and all other cultural expressions had to be exchanged - over inter-continental disctances - long before a specific tribe, from which Abraham belonged, (had to?) split from India, to move west - in search for a "promised land".

Quote Leonidas;

" it plausible that there is a connection between brahmin and abraham but i need to see real evidance nor do i see the brahmin as a subsitute for some concieved mono-block indian infleunce. did the brahimn influence or define india in its entirilty that long ago? i doubt it"

I think the civilisation found in Harappa is one of the oldest found in the Indian subcintinent (incl. Pakistan and Bengal). The traces found in Cambay seem to prove ages as of 10.000 yrs BP.

Until this time it seems that the entire area has a Dravidian population, language and culture. At some point the Aryan arrived, contributing with agriculture, architecture and litterature. The Go-vind-as and Guptas seem to have initiated the Sanskrift that later produced the Vedas, Upanishads and other annals.

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 08:01

Originally posted by Vedam

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by malizai_

Tele

Does the rig veda have its root in present day pakistan?

Yes, the Rig Veda was written by the Aryans (Vahikas) in ancient Pakistan. Sanskrit was also evolved by the ancient Pakistanis.

TeldeInduz get your facts straight. The rig veda was memorised and not wriiten down for the first 2 thousand years, the sacredness is in the in the sound of the Mantras.

The Rig Veda mentions the Indus, Gomal, Kurram and Kabul and Swat Rivers. The center of the Rig Veda is in Punjab. The Indus is the most commonly mentioned River in it, and the Sutlej is a tributary of the Indus that flows through the Punjab. The Jamuna River is also mentioned, but it is clear from the Rig Veda that these people were centred on the area of Pakistan (Punjab). They were an Indus Valley people. Only later are hymns added that include the Ganges..this is no doubt hymns that were added on after some Aryan tribes migrated from Punjab to the Gangetic areas.

The most famous and important tribe of the Vedas were the Bharatas, and they with the Kurus, PanchalAs, and Yadus, also very prominent tribes moved eventually into the Ganges-Yamuna area.

Pakistan is a new nation part of India until 60 years ago.

Tell you what go into a bookshop and see if they have 2 different books, one saying "Ancient India" the other saying "Ancient Pakistan", that you keep going on and on about

A couple of tribes did move from the Indus to the Ganges area. They moved at the end of the Rig Vedic period. But the Rig Veda is a collection of hymns from the area of ancient Pakistan, not India.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 08:47

Originally posted by Boreasi

Leonidas,

Quote Leonidas;

I think the civilisation found in Harappa is one of the oldest found in the Indian subcintinent (incl. Pakistan and Bengal). The traces found in Cambay seem to prove ages as of 10.000 yrs BP.

Later these annals tells of Krisna and the great convulsions that followed his regime, as described in the Mahabarata. The shattering effect of warfare seem to have produced refugees of some sort, - that chose to flee the country. Many of these could perhaps be high-ranked noblemen from a loosing army. Migrating to the north-west - and their old trade-camps in the Persian Gulf - would be a logic option. This background may also explain the royal titles worn by the wandering descendants of Ibrahim...

You are right. There are these instances to support the outward migration, when the persons defeated migrated in many cases. But their are no records or instances to show that their was an Aryan invasion. There was nothing called as an aryan race invading. It was a clash of beliefs not races.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 10:25

[/QUOTE]

A couple of tribes did move from the Indus to the Ganges area. They moved at the end of the Rig Vedic period. But the Rig Veda is a collection of hymns from the area of ancient Pakistan, not India.

[/QUOTE]

So teldeInduz what exactly is your point??? The Brahmana texts that explain the Vedic rituals and significance were composed in the Ganges-Yamuna area. So what do you make about that? Did the "ancient Pakistanis" compose the Vedas, and the ancient indians compose the manuals explalning them.

I can argue that throughout history the Greeks, Scythians, kushanas, Arabs, Mughals, and Pathans entered the Punjab . The new groups found that Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism were easier to assimilate into then the Vedic religion. So Brahmins were found less and less around the Indus area,and they took their religion with them, wherever they went, ie the Vedas which is known as BRAHMINISM, incase you care to look it up, perhaps you should

But according to your theory the Vedas have nothing to do with Hindus and is not their heritage but rather you have this "ancient Pakistani" theory, as if Punjab has not been in a continous state of influx, even though it is the gateway to India. Arabs took over Egypt and Persia with the rise of Islam, so tell me were the "Ancient Arabs" responsible for the ancient civilastions of Egypt and Persia????? Enough Said!!

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 20:41

Originally posted by Vedam

So teldeInduz what exactly is your point??? The Brahmana texts that explain the Vedic rituals and significance were composed in the Ganges-Yamuna area. So what do you make about that? Did the "ancient Pakistanis" compose the Vedas, and the ancient indians compose the manuals explalning them

Yes

I can argue that throughout history the Greeks, Scythians, kushanas, Arabs, Mughals, and Pathans entered the Punjab .

No you can't actually. The Greeks did not enter Punjab (or at least settle there, some did settle in the Greek settlements but this was in Gandhara, and it's pretty certain that Greek genetics have a very small influence in Pashtun history). The Punjabis themselves are a clear mix of these ancient Aryans and the inhabitants of ancient India. Pathans also did not move into Punjab.

The new groups found that Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism were easier to assimilate into then the Vedic religion.

Sikh religion was invented very recently, there was no Vedism around this time. Ancient Pakistanis were probably practitioners of the Veda till Buddhism came along, and then Islam later. Buddhism was probably a religious reaction to Vedism from what I read, so it was probably that the people of ancient Pakistan did not agree with what the Aryans said in the Veda.

So Brahmins were found less and less around the Indus area,and they took their religion with them, wherever they went, ie the Vedas which is known as BRAHMINISM, incase you care to look it up, perhaps you should

This is a big myth. Again a play with words. Brahminism and Vedism are in reality not the same thing, but modern day Brahmins have tried to associate Brahmins with the Vedas. It's a complete myth. The Brahminical Gods were Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma..all Gangetic, none from the Veda. Brahminism arose from when the Aryan tribes lost power and the colour based system was replaced with the caste system based on Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Untouchables etc.

Vedism was an earlier religion. Hinduism was one that appeared later. Hinduism evolved from Vedism. So, no, Vedism is not Indian heritage, but Hinduism is.

The Arabs might or might not have taken over Egypt and Persia, butt they did not rename Persia as Mesopotamia and then claim Mesopotamian heritage as theirs.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 00:54

Funny, how desperation leads to hypocrisy.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 04:17

Teldeinduz do some more research

Brahma, Visnu and Shiva are all deities in the Vedas, and the caste that you are an expert in are also first mentioned in the Vedas.

Hindu ceremonies are VEDIC rituals, perhaps you should go to a few Hindu functions. For example during a Hindu marriage with the Sacred fire, it is Agni, Indra, Soma that are invoked.

To say that "Vedism is not part of Hinduism" is not worth my energy, and i'm not going to comment anymore

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 04:52

Originally posted by Vedam

Teldeinduz do some more research

Brahma, Visnu and Shiva are all deities in the Vedas, and the caste that you are an expert in are also first mentioned in the Vedas.

Hindu ceremonies are VEDIC rituals, perhaps you should go to a few Hindu functions. For example during a Hindu marriage with the Sacred fire, it is Agni, Indra, Soma that are invoked.

To say that "Vedism is not part of Hinduism" is not worth my energy, and i'm not going to comment anymore

Vedam, you would be able to understand telde's posts if you appreciate the intentions. He wishes to appropriate the Indian culture minus its what he thinks negative elements & term them as Pakistani. His posts have very good english & you will be able to enjoy them if you put yourself in the shoes of a person who is about 50 years old, but desperately trying to extend his age to thousands of years, when he sees many persons around older & much older than him.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 05:01

I never saw so much nonsense spouted in such a short time.

Decebal, a good attempt to try and stem the flood.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 06:02

can we seperate the vedism vs hinduism in another thread? this i want to get better attention

-------------

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 06:25

Originally posted by Leonidas

can we seperate the vedism vs hinduism in another thread? this i want to get better attention

Yes this discussion vedism vs hinduism is a non issue. I wonder why people want to call it a subject. Their is nothing called vedism vs hinduism.

We should discuss the subject of the thread which is a very interesting & informative analysis.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 08:25

in your logic judism and christianty are the same religion.

hinduism was based of vedism as far as ive learnt, which makes them linked but that doesnt mean they are the same

-------------

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 08:48

Originally posted by Leonidas

in your logic judism and christianty are the same religion.

hinduism was based of vedism as far as ive learnt, which makes them linked but that doesnt mean they are the same

This analogy is not correct, because Jesus is not thought of as a Messiah/saviour in Judaism, hence the split.

By contrast to be a Hindu you have to believe in the santity of the vedas, which in effect are Hindu religious rituals.

Basically you cannot have Hindu ceremony such as a wedding or funeral without the vedas as these are the hymns that are used (ie mantras are chanted from the vedas)

The comparison of Judaism and christianity is more comparable to Hinduism and Buddhism.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 09:12

Leonidas there is no difference in vedism & hinduism. This is a differentiatio sought to be created pakistani historians, who are anxious to creat a rich history of their own due to their nation being only 50 year old. They say vedas were born in Punjab & therefore belong to Pakistani origin. At the same time they also want to keep their distance from anything Hindu as their state istself was formed on an anti hindu platform. So they will say that the ancient vedas have no relation to Hinduism which belongs to India. This sounds funny, but is true.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 09:44

Originally posted by Vedam

This analogy is not correct, because Jesus is not thought of as a Messiah/saviour in Judaism, hence the split.

By contrast to be a Hindu you have to believe in the santity of the vedas, which in effect are Hindu religious rituals.

Basically you cannot have Hindu ceremony such as a wedding or funeral without the vedas as these are the hymns that are used (ie mantras are chanted from the vedas)

The comparison of Judaism and christianity is more comparable to Hinduism and Buddhism.

really? he was their "savoiur" and from their god, but many didnt agree and remained jewish. Jesus was a jew and his beliefs and many within christianity came out of that religion. The new testament cant be read without the old one which is almost the same book as the jewish torah. hence the split isnt complete, and definatly not like what your saying, yet they are two religions.

wasn't indra number one in the vedism? did the brahman-vishnu-shiva trinity exists in the earliest writings (rig-veda)? because i was led to belive the gods of the earliest vedas were different to the ones of today and the vedic gods now are not so important.

So please if your show me where in the rig-veda are these hindu gods, because i keep getting Indra, agni, maruts , rudra and so on.

if so ill shut up, promise Big smile

.

Vivek, they are related, but to say they are the same thing would not make sense either. Hinduims has evolved , to say it has remianed static in all this history would go agianst anything that is subject to time.

-------------

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 10:46

No you were saying that "Vedism and hinduism are not the same just as Judaism and Christianity are not even though they are linked" but i put this to you:

There are some groups in Hinduism who only follow the Vedas and nothing else they are called the "Arya Samaj" but they are as Hindu as someone who worships Rama or Krsna. Tell me can someone only follow the old testament and be a christian?

My point is in Hinduism there are many deities but all Hindus accept the authority of the Vedas, and the Vedas are used in at every major stage of life.

The vedas have not dissapeared from Hinduism, but it is true that Hinduism has evolved from the Vedic period, but the vedas are still a major part of Hinduism.

With regards to Brahma, Visnu and Shiva, Brahma is Brahmanaspati, Visnu is mentioned 93 times the most famous hymn being book 1, hymn 154 and Shiva actually evolved from Rudra in the vedas, who is also called Tryambakam meaning "the 3 eyed" which is the main characteristic of shiva, the third eye being the eye of destruction. The necklace that shiva wears is called Rudraksh meaning the eyes of Rudra.

I think this all points to continuity

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 14:07

Originally posted by Vedam

Teldeinduz do some more research

Brahma, Visnu and Shiva are all deities in the Vedas, and the caste that you are an expert in are also first mentioned in the Vedas.

This is not true. The Rig Veda has 191 verses, over 100 of these verses speak on only 2 Gods, both of the Aryan..Agni and Indra (see the Rig Veda http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi01.htm - here ). The Hindu Gods you refer to like Vishnu there is 1 verse each out of the 191. This is most likely some extra verses that were added in later when the Veda was written and simply corrupted.

The Caste system is not mentioned in the Veda at all. The first time it is mentioned is in the Bhagavada Gita by Krishna while talking about the need for Brahmins to be knowledgable, Kshatriyas to be good warriors etc. Vedic people did not use the caste system. When a couple of the Vedic Aryan tribes moved to the Ganges, different forms of the caste system were created.

Hindu ceremonies are VEDIC rituals, perhaps you should go to a few Hindu functions. For example during a Hindu marriage with the Sacred fire, it is Agni, Indra, Soma that are invoked.

Why is this surprising? Vedism was brought to the Ganges by the Aryans and then the Gangetic people were first brought under control by it, then they took control of it. Hinduism developed out of Vedism. In fact, the Hindu Gods sometimes slay the Vedic Gods in the Hindu theology books. Indra (Aryan) is slain by Krishna (Hindu) in the Mahabharta.

By contrast to be a Hindu you have to believe in the santity of the vedas, which in effect are Hindu religious rituals.

This statement is not true according to Hindus themselves who say they are free to reject anything in the Vedas.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 15:13

OK teldeInduz, i have caught you out, you have obviously done just a bit of research, probably on the internet, and then you have the audacity to tell me about what you think you know although you have shown your lack of knowledge and obviously NEVER read the Rig veda. A comparison could be me telling you about the Koran.

All of your comments about the Rig Veda are only refering to the 1st book, because you obviously didn't realise you were just on the first book with your "Link". The Rig Veda actually has 10 books, of which the 2nd and 9th are the oldest parts.

The "Rig veda has 191 verses" according to you, well firstly i think you mean hymns and it has 1028 hymns, and it actually has over 10,000 verses. The first and the last books have 191 hymns each. The caste system is mentioned in book 10, hymn 90 and is called the Purus-sukta hymn or hymn of Man, a very famous hymn.... The mouth became Brahmin, the arms Kshatrya etc.

I am not going to debate about this with you anymore because i realise you have not actually read the Rig Veda or you would not have made such an INCORRECT comment but just tried to read up about it, and speak as if you are so knowlegeable about it, a complete waste of my time. Thankyou and Byebye.

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 15:55

Originally posted by Vedam

OK teldeInduz, i have caught you out, you have obviously done just a bit of research, probably on the internet, and then you have the audacity to tell me about what you think you know although you have shown your lack of knowledge and obviously NEVER read the Rig veda. A comparison could be me telling you about the Koran.

Click on each book one by one. It's still the same. They're 90% about Indra and Agni, with very little reference to anything else.

The caste system is just nonsense. The caste system was not a part of the culture or religion of the Vedic people. There's quite a bit of evidence for this. At the very least Vedic society was not like the caste system of today.

You're claiming that the Vedism and Hinduism are similar but they're clearly not. Why does Agni (Vedic God) eat cows, and then later as Hinduism develops, it's forbidden?

11 Let us serve Agni with our hymns, Disposer, fed on ox and cow,
Who bears the Soma on his back.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08043.htm - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08043.htm

Also, you talk of the Arya Samaj as being Vedic followers and they are not. They follow Hinduism, but they do reject Brahmin domination. They're also monists, Vedas are not monistic.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 02:12

Vedam, you have stated the correct facts, but since it may conflict with some evolving hypothesiss, it may not always be accepted as the truth, predicatably.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 04:54

TeleInduz, quote;

"Vedism was brought to the Ganges by the Aryans and then the Gangetic people were first brought under control by it, then they took control of it. Hinduism developed out of Vedism. In fact, the Hindu Gods sometimes slay the Vedic Gods in the Hindu theology books. Indra (Aryan) is slain by Krishna (Hindu) in the Mahabharta."

The Mahabarata seem to be the first description we have from a revolutionary change - in an established state with advanced political, social and cultural institutions. The old nobility of the Aryans seem to have been the big loosers in the war that broke out. Thus the highest amongst them would be able to assemble a large amount of people and resources - and emigrate them, rather than risking their lives at home. The semittic immigrants to Mesopotamia and the Levant could very well be refugees from the Aryan nobility that lost out in the great warfare of Krisha.

Krishna is supposed to be a historical person, existing some 4.000 years ago. The first battles known from Mesopotamia is known from Ur - are supposed to be some 3.800 years old. Could that be the results of a conflict between the immigrating Indo-Aryans (semites) and the native Sumerians ("Suleimans")?

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 05:34

Boreasi, You are right. There were migrations & they are recorded.

Mahabharat was fought in 3150 B.C. That was also the time of Krishn.

The MADR (Known to the west as Medes, Medeians while they later called themselves the MAD people) community migrated North West.

The PRITHU people (known to the west as Parthians) who served in the army of the King PARTH migrated to west replacing the MADR people in their lands.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 19:33

Originally posted by Boreasi

TeleInduz, quote;

What war?

Thus the highest amongst them would be able to assemble a large amount of people and resources - and emigrate them, rather than risking their lives at home. The semittic immigrants to Mesopotamia and the Levant could very well be refugees from the Aryan nobility that lost out in the great warfare of Krisha.

Where do you get the date of 4000 years ago from? And what is the battle of Ur. This all seems to be total speculation. Hinduism was not in existence by 4000 years ago, neither was any of its predecessors.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 01:05

Hinduism prospered very much much earlier than 4000 years ago. But off course the pakistanis won't like to beilve that.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 03:29

That Krishna was a historic person some 4,000 years ago is about as likely as Abraham was around the same time. Or Noah a bit earlier. Or Adam 6,000 years ago.

I have nothing against studying mythology and religion as subjects in their own right - in fact it can be interesting and I've written a book in the field myself - but claiming to treat any of it as historical verges on the insane.

-------------

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 05:13

Krishn's era was 3150 BC. He was a historical figure.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 19:20

no proof of it

just saying so doesn't make it happen

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 23:53

Quote;

"Most scholars prefer to concentrate on the Mahabharata war where a significant cluster of astronomical events occurred, before zooming onto their own set of dates that binds down the life of the eighth avatar of Vishnu in a specific time-frame. But the dates, while drawn from the same source, strain in opposite directions.

At a colloquium organised by the Mythic Society in Bangalore in January last year, dates as wide as 1478 BC to 3067 BC were proposed. Contributors included S. Balakrishna (from NASA, US), using Lodestar Pro software, who proposed 2559 bc as the start of the war. Prof R.N. Iyengar (from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore) brought the event closer historically, suggesting the date 1478 bc, while B.N. Narahari Achar (Department of Physics, University of Memphis, US) after "critically examining" the astronomical events in the Mahabharata pointed to 3067 BC."

http://www.dalsabzi.com/enlight_info/lord_krishna.htm - http://www.dalsabzi.com/enlight_info/lord_krishna.htm

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 00:42

Originally posted by Boreasi

Quote;

http://www.dalsabzi.com/enlight_info/lord_krishna.htm - http://www.dalsabzi.com/enlight_info/lord_krishna.htm

And what happened to the flying aircraft and nuclear devices that were used during the Mahabharata wars? I think all those dates are based on some computer simulation of the most likely time that sort astrological event took place that was mentioned in Mahabhrata when it was written (around 400 BC).

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 06:14

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Krishn's era was 3150 BC. He was a historical figure.

So you can quote me the historical texts that confirm this? If the culture was literate in 3150 BC, then how was it written down? You have what? Contemporary inscriptions? Tablets? Steles?

Religious stuff doesn't count, any more than Genesis does. Neither do oral legends.

(And for that matter since when have physicists been aithorities on history, any more than historians on physics? Would anybody pay attention if I organised a conference on string theory addressed by the professors of ancient history at Cambridge and Harvard plus the curator of the Imperial War Museum?)

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 06:36

Originally posted by Vedam

There are some groups in Hinduism who only follow the Vedas and nothing else they are called the "Arya Samaj" but they are as Hindu as someone who worships Rama or Krsna. Tell me can someone only follow the old testament and be a christian?

well define 'hindu' beyond a label, i suspect your labeling everything from a static point of veiw.

As for people that follow only the old testament; rearrange the books within in it and call it the torah, you will have something very close to the jews. Whats the point? hindus really on the vedas and christains rely on old testament. Jewish books dont become exclusivley christain, if christains believe in them.

Originally posted by Vedam

My point is in Hinduism there are many deities but all Hindus accept the authority of the Vedas, and the Vedas are used in at every major stage of life.

So? all christains accept the authorty of the old testament. all your saying is that the vedas were very influletial in the formation of hinduism. They mix and match different gods and newer ones get formed from older ones. Even the Rig-veda combines them, mitra-varuna

Originally posted by Vedam

The vedas have not dissapeared from Hinduism, but it is true that Hinduism has evolved from the Vedic period, but the vedas are still a major part of Hinduism.

Bravo! one evolved from the other. i never said that the vedahs are dead or missing in hinduism is just that their inclusion doesnt make them exclusivley hindu.

If it has evolved as you agree, then there is difference, hence they are not the same. Its not rocket science Ermm

Originally posted by Vedam

With regards to Brahma, Visnu and Shiva, Brahma is Brahmanaspati, Visnu is mentioned 93 times the most famous hymn being book 1, hymn 154 and Shiva actually evolved from Rudra in the vedas, who is also called Tryambakam meaning "the 3 eyed" which is the main characteristic of shiva, the third eye being the eye of destruction. The necklace that shiva wears is called Rudraksh meaning the eyes of Rudra.

I think this all points to continuity

ok wrong about visnu, though he is not an important god but secondary one, nor is he fully developed into what is belived today.

As for rudra becoming shiva, i know about that connection, but it doesnt make a diffrence to my arguement, hec it strengthens it, nor does it make shiva appear in the Rig-Veda. It is not the same thing. You also have prajapati who somehow gets joined as shiva prajapati. Rudra evolving into shiva doesnt make Rudra Shiva all along, same with everything we are talking about Vedam.

Now im not convinced with the brahmanaspati = brahma the creator, please tell me how they are the same rather than the similar names.

-------------

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 23:50

Originally posted by Boreasi

In his History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), wrote that the Greek philosopher Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." (Book I:22.)

Just like to add an Aelian quote I found:

�It is worthy to praise the end of Kalanos the Hindu; one might say even to marvel at it. It happened as follows. Kalanos the Hindu sophist, having bid Alexander, the Makedonians and life a long fair well, wanted to release himself from the chains of the body. A pyre arose in a very beautiful suburb of Babylon. The wood of cedar, thyia, cypress, myrrh and laurel was dry, good for smelling and well chosen. Having stripped in the gymnasium manner, there was even a walkway; he mounted to the middle of the pyre and stood crowned with a wreath of reed. When the rising sun struck him and he bowed down to it, this was the signal to the Makedonians to light the pyre. And it was done. But he stood engulfed by flame unmoved and did not roll over before it went out. They say that Alexander was astonished and said that Kalanos had defeated greater adversaries than he had. He had striven against Poros, Taxiles and Dareios, but Kalanos had against pain and death.� Aelian, Varia Historia, 5.6

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 00:30

The similarities in all these regions are too hard to miss, it's another thing that nationalistic fervour prevents most persons from admiotting their links with India.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 19:42

I don�t know if anyone else realizes the significance of Aelian�s text but it places Hinduism in Babylon in the time of Alexander the Great (330 BC).

That is, if the text has been correctly translated from Aelian�s Greek to modern English.

Also, since this event recorded by Aelian is said to have occurred while Alexander was still alive, it therefore predates the quote from Megasthenes:

� "Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

because Seleucus Nicator was the Macedonian army general who founded the Seleucid kingdom after the death of Alexander the Great.

Hence, both Aelian�s quote and Megasthenes�s quote verify each other.

What has also interested me is the part where Kalanos the Hindu sophist is said to have �stood crowned with a wreath of reed�.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 23:38

It is true, but the west likes to belive otherwise, it would indicate an eastern origin to Christianity, which the Europeans would not have liked to belive.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 00:49

(Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

um........

The work of Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis, is quite nearly as hard to find as two-headed chickens, and it is nearly as normal as one.

I had little hope of actually getting a copy of it by special library loan, but lo and behold, it came. And once I saw it, I knew I wouldn't be able to do much with it -- this monstrosity is composed of two volumes larger than a New York City phone book, with type as dense as the entries. It cites few sources for its claims, but those it does cite are the sort of things you won't find down the street either -- anyone wishing to back-check all of Higgins' comments will be in for a real lifetime chore, even if they live in the UK. There is no telling whether the bulk of Higgins' sources are credible or not (though we do have some hints). And to make matters worse, I could only secure it by loan for two weeks.

So what to do? Thankfully, all that needs to be done is exactly what I had time for. I went through as much of Anacalypsis as I could, writing down the most clearly ridiculous and easily refutable propositions. Not that there were not other oddities that could be so refuted; but it runs down to that Anacalypsis is full of assertions that are either undocumented or come from sources whose credibility is completely unknown in this time, so our goal will merely be to show what sort of nonsense Higgins promoted throughout his work, so that those who use him as an authority (like Acharya S and Tom Harpur) will be compelled (if they are interested in the truth, which they are not) into defending his worth and explain why we ought to find Higgins a credible authority on the grounds that they do use him for. It is also, furthermore, that Higgins is so outdated that any arguments he makes based on dating, language, and so on, require at this time a full re-argument before they can be accepted. And now, we proceed to our "spot check" of Higgins.

Of particular embarrassment to anyone who uses Higgins is his endorsement of the idea that the world was once ruled by an ancient, advanced civilization. "Druidical and Cyclopaean buildings scattered over the world, in almost all nations, which I soon became convinced were the works of a great nation...." [viii] All of Asia was once ruled by black people who were Buddhists [255] and these Buddhists were colonizers of Egypt and "worshipers of the Sun in Taurus". [267]

Higgins' ideas about linguistics would also bring howls of laughter from those competent in that field. He says: Hebrew is the oldest language [x]; Latin is the same language as Sanskrit [2] (though Higgins also says, "I am ignorant of the Sanskrit language" [12!].

Did you know that trees give us a clue about languages and their origins? "...[C]areful comparison of the names of different letters in Irish, Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek alphabets make it 'appear almost certain that they have all been called after the trees which now grow in the latitude of England, or else that the trees have been named after them." For example, A = ailm in Irish, or elm. Also M = mu, mem, or vine. But where's the M in vine, then? It was, um, "dropped for some unknown cause." [13] But the Asiatics nevertheless "called their sixteen letters after the Irish names of trees." [14]

Higgins does anthropology, and tells you that sunburn makes you dumb: "...the angle at which the plane of the eclipse makes with the plane of the equator was much larger than it is at this moment: the effect of which would be to increase the heat in the polar regions, and render them comfortable places for their inhabitants." Thus "the northern climes were probably the birth-place of man." [210] "Now I suppose that man was originally a Negro, and that he improved as years advanced and he travelled westwards, gradually changing from the jet black of India, through all the intermediate shades of Syria, Italy and France, to the fair white and red of the maid of Holland and Britain. On the burning sands and under the scorching sun of Africa, he would probably stand still, if he did not retrograde. But the latter is most likely to have happened; and accordingly, we find him an unimproved Negro, mean in understanding, black in colour." [284] One "Dr. Pritchard" has "successfully proved" that "blackness of skin is not cause by heat alone" but "is to be ascribed more to civilisation". (The irony here is that Higgins is used as a source by Massey and Kuhn, and they in turn are often used by African-American "revisionsist" writers like Yosef ben-Yochanon who seem to be unaware of Higgins' racist sentiments.)

Also, the Jews were actually "a tribe of Hindoo or Persian nomades or shepherds." [367] Abraham is Brahma and Sara is Saraiswati.

Remember that "medal" alleged to have been found in the pre-Christian ruins of Citium? We have more on that [219]. It was drawn by a "Dr. Clarke" who "shews [it] is Phoenician, and therefore of great antiquity" (how, is not explained). We'd still like to know where this medal is now. The "Dr. Clarke" is actually Daniel Clarke, who was a mineralologist and thus no one who may be trusted to assess ancient artifacts.

The common use of chants, music, and pilgrimages are taken as evidence that Tibetian Buddism is the same religion as Christianity [233]. Also, "Every part of Christianity refers back to Abraham, and it is all Freemasonry." [790] So Tibetian Buddhism is also Freemasonry.

"Buddha was Bacchus, Christna was Hercules, in reality, one 2160 years after the other." [254]

When the evidence doesn't back Higgins, it's not because he is wrong but because someone is hiding something: "I cannot believe that the Brahmins did not know the meaning of the word Agnus; their wish for secrecy can be the only reason that I can imagine for the signification of it not being found in their dictionaries." [263]

"Mr. Faber" says that Jesus was not originally called Jesus Christ, but "Jescua Hanamasiah." "Ham" is the same as "Om" in India. [315]

Higgins on church architecture: "...[O]ur churches were built in the inconvenient oblong form, instead of square or round, in imitation of mystic ships called Argha from mysteries of Egypt." This is why they have a section called a "nave". [344-5]

That Rome, Constantinople, and Troy were all built on seven hills "tends to shew that one secret system was at the bottom of them all." [360]

The Twelve Caesars of Rome recorded by Suetonious are the 12 signs of the Zodiac. Their title is after the Celtic god of war, Aesar. [369] No, there were not actually 12 such leaders in history, because "judicial astrology has corrupted almost every history which we possess."

Matt. 16:17-19 needs a new exegesis. Peter son of Jonas? The latter is the same as Janus (the Roman god) and Ioni, "the generative principle". "Stone" or Peter is an "emblem if the make generative principle" and is the same as a sacred stone found "in India at every temple" and obelisks in Egypt, and the "single stone found near every Gilgal or Druidical circle" as well as the stone found at Westminster Abbey. [644-5]

If you think Higgins might make sense somewhere, let me provide the following as typical babble-speak of his, all of it provided without a shred of corroborative documentation:

As Jesus was IXOYE with the mystic monogram, I, prefixed, I-IXOYE, and the deity of Egypt was Omtha with the mystic monogram M, prefixed, M-OMtha, so may Ixion, divine one crucified, have been X-ion with the mystic X prefixed, and again, Caesar X-aesar and the Iokn may have been the Ione of Spiritus Mundi, the Dovem the crucified Semiramis, who flew away in the form of a Dove." [658]

Say WHAT?

Higgins uses the Kabbalah, medieval Jewish occult material, to interpret the pre-Christian Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach as occult documents. [712]

Freemasonry originated in ancient Hindustan [725].

Jesus was black and went to Italy, which is why we see black infant Christs in Italy. [751]

Trying to prove mystic significance to the number 72 is a chore for Higgins. "The rabbis maintain that the angels who ascended and descended Jacob's ladder were seventy-two in number." "The Kabalists found seventy-two names of God" in Exodus 14:13-21. "In Numbers xxili.9, Exod. xv.27, we read of seventy palm trees. Of course the number ought to be seventy-two." The Greek king Solon made monetrary adjustments so that the value of a mina was changed from 72 drachma to a hundred. [780-2]

Higgins has something for all you Muslims out there, too. "Mohammed was called a Saca of Saceswara, as well as a Vicramaditya. These are all descriptive epithets. And from the fact named above we find the reason why the Mohamedens spared the statues of Buddha in India: It strongly confirms the doctrine of the secret religions of the Mohamedens. Mohammed was thought to be a renewed incarnation of divine wisdom, and of course of Buddha, in his tenth avatar." [v2, 2]

The book of Esther is part of the annals of the kings of Persia [17].

Mormons may like this one: The gods of India and Mexico are the same [23]. "Mexico" is Mesi-co, and since Hebrew msih = Messiah, "Mexico" is the "country of the Messiah."

As noted, we don't know much about Higgins' sources, but one he does use we know about: The unreliable Robert Taylor, who may have been the first to use the bogus Pope Leo X quote, and who confused a hymn to Jesus with one for Prometheus.

John the Baptist was a Mithraist, as were the Essenes. The place he baptized, Aenon, is "sacred to the sun." [66] His reference to being baptized by fire is to be connected to a rite in Scotland in which baptized children are swung over a fire three times. [67]

The Jews had a "secret doctrine" of crucified avatars. [115]

And need we say more? Higgins' editor admits that Higgins was criticized by scholars who "felt that amateurs had no place in their special fields" [459], so even in his day he was obviously considered off the wall. How much more so today in light of what we know now? Anyone using Higgins as a source had best explain themselves as well as Higgins.

SOURCE: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/higginsg01.html

-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 20:37

thank god some one can uncover such ridiculuos conclusions as proposed by such a source. (thanks Janus)

no one ever answered my questioning of the (so far) weak arguement that vedism = hinduism. Geek

-------------

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 21:30

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

It is true, but the west likes to belive otherwise, it would indicate an eastern origin to Christianity, which the Europeans would not have liked to belive.

This is true.

There's no doubt much of what is today labelled as Christianity, Judaism and even Islam originated from the regions and religions of ancient India.

However, in my view, there are a few aspects of modern Christianity which have a Western European origin whereby this smaller portion is usually called pagan.

I say about 5% of the bible books, mainly Revelation, contains genuine Christian European religious literature.

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 21:34

To http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=4388&FID=5 - Vivek Sharma :

Came across this site and would like to have your opinion(and anyone else's) on it.

http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Abraham.htm - http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Abraham.htm

The information on it seems to be properly referenced.

Posted By: Boreasi
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 23:40

World,

Awesome old news. Tx!

-------------
Be good or be gone.

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 02:04

Their seems to be one small difference. Tibet is not shown as a part of the ancient India. Tibet is the most important place in Indian religion / mythology / culture. It is the home of Indian gods.

Earlier in this century, before being usurped by China, tibet wanted to become a part of India rather than China, but our stupid prime minister Nehru wanted to forward his own stupid principles. So it was lost to chinese.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 07:53

Originally posted by Worldhistory

To http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=4388&FID=5 -

Elohim; Elokhim (God intellectualized) Lakhimi(Goddess of Prosperity); Lokhi; Lukh(Shiva)

wrong. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html -

El Shaddai (God of the Mountain)

God almighty

Ha-Kadosh (The Holy One)

translation is correct. its 'hakkadosh', how its connected to "Hakh-e-Kheda (God�s Duty)" is beyond me. Maybe the maori 'hakka' is gods dance

Yesoda (Dual Sexual Nature of Life)

um jehova? find me a jewish text with that name please.......

Yahve; Jahve; Tseeva (God)

its YHWH, ok.just 4 letters so it shouldnt be hard to spell it correctly. No vowels

no one can say for certain what and how to pronounce the vowels, its too sacred to be writen and spoken of which i suspect is not the case for hindus and their gods.

1530, Tyndale's erroneous transliteration of Heb. Tetragramaton YHWH, using vowel points of Adhonai "my lord" (see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Yahweh - Yahweh ). Used for YHWH (the full name being too sacred for utterance) in four places in the Old Testament in the K.J.V. where the usual translation lord would have been inconvenient; taken as the principal and personal name of God. The vowel substitution was originally made by the Masoretes as a direction to substitute Adhonai for "the ineffable name." European students of Heb. took this literally, which yielded L. JeHoVa (first attested in writings of Galatinus, 1516)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=jehovah&searchmode=none - etymonline.com

Aramaic, a language as similar to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese, originated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan were once part of India. Afghanistan seceded from Indian in the 1700s. Pakistan was cut out of India when the two nations were partitioned after World War II. Aramaic also is the source of modern Hebrew�s square alphabet, used in Israel today.

The source of the 'square' alphabet lies in babylon during their captivity, and aramiac is a semetic language from the syrian part of the M/E.

looks like the Great Indian Nationalist Wet Dream

-------------

Posted By: Aktufe
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 13:19

hey at least they didn't claim china, so it's a pretty decent map. LOL

Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 14:05

Leonidas

Y did u even bother.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 14:40

Originally posted by gcle2003

(Vivek Sharma) Krishn's era was 3150 BC. He was a historical figure.(end)

So you can quote me the historical texts that confirm this? If the culture was literate in 3150 BC, then how was it written down? You have what? Contemporary inscriptions? Tablets? Steles?

[/QUOTE]

Good point!

All religions usually like to set dates well into the past. That does not mean the books were written at those dates, though.

In the case of India, I perceive a tendency by some to exagerate the antiquity of the writings. As far as I know, classical Indian religious literature was put on writing since the late first milenium B.C., and perhaps later.

Now, India traditions, stories and believes could be a lot older than the literature, transmitter orally, but then there is not hope dates are precise.

Pinguin

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 19:12

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Their seems to be one small difference. Tibet is not shown as a part of the ancient India. Tibet is the most important place in Indian religion / mythology / culture. It is the home of Indian gods. Earlier in this century, before being usurped by China, tibet wanted to become a part of India rather than China, but our stupid prime minister Nehru wanted to forward his own stupid principles. So it was lost to chinese.

I didn't know that about Tibet.

What's your opinion on the below extract where Havilah is supposed to be India? Do you agree with this?

"The Bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India.

Genesis 25:17-18 �...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin...They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur.�"

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 19:25

Since when was India close to Egypt but Asshur (in Iraq) far away?

-------------

Posted By: Worldhistory
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 19:28

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Since when was India close to Egypt but Asshur (in Iraq) far away?

Could be that in those days it was faster to travel by boat to India from Egypt, than to travel by caravan from Egypt to Iraq.

That is, if Asshur refers to Iraq.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 21:55

Originally posted by malizai_

Leonidas

Y did u even bother.

im just having some fun Smile

-------------

Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 00:09

Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by gcle2003

(Vivek Sharma) Krishn's era was 3150 BC. He was a historical figure.(end)

So you can quote me the historical texts that confirm this? If the culture was literate in 3150 BC, then how was it written down? You have what? Contemporary inscriptions? Tablets? Steles?

Good point!

All religions usually like to set dates well into the past. That does not mean the books were written at those dates, though.

So what ? Did I say anything to the contrary.

In the case of India, I perceive a tendency by some to exagerate the antiquity of the writings.

& I notice a tendency by others to try to surpress the indian antiquity out of some fear of god knows what or some complex or vested interests.

As far as I know, classical Indian religious literature was put on writing since the late first milenium B.C., and perhaps later.

But unfortunately you do not know much about the subject. Just because you have not been exposed to it.

Now, India traditions, stories and believes could be a lot older than the literature, transmitter orally, but then there is not hope dates are precise.

Again the same complex at work.

Pinguin

[/QUOTE]

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn

Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2012 at 20:19

Abraham an Indian? I thought he came from Ur?

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!