Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previou

[Hellraiser007]

Really?
Does that book also say that because there was a river somewhere, all modern science is null and void?

This is about the denial of authenticity not about whose book is superior. No body is saying the scientific achievement done by the West.
Don't be ignorant and think others also behave like you when it comes to your rigid beliefs and your prejudices.

If you say so


Semantics? You clearly don't know what that means otherwise you would not be using it in such a hilariously wrong manner. but then again you are the guy who thinks everything is proven.

And refute the evidence? for what? you haven't given anything or even made a real argument.
All you said was that there was a river mentioned in the Vedas and thus the Aryan invasion was proven to false.

I don't know how to refute silly......if I did I would become so rich so fast



what are you on about?
The Aryan invasion does not hinge on the Vedas, there is plenty of evidence for it outside the vedas.

And no offeaunce but I don't have time to learn Sanskrit and read an ancient book just to make a point against Internet HIndus.

Aryans has nothing to do with Vedas or Indian civilization, The Aryans who are originally from Caucasus mountains as described by Indologists do not look like me or you.

 

[Rusty]

This is about the denial of authenticity not about whose book is superior. No body is saying the scientific achievement done by the West.
Don't be ignorant and think others also behave like you when it comes to your rigid beliefs and your prejudices.

Oh look the evil musalman is not believing me at face value when I make crazy claims that I can't back up with any evidence.
He must be an Islamist

 

[Developereo]

Yeah but that reference in Mandala 10 also suggests that the Indus is the main river. Acknowledged generally as the last mandala, it does refer to the rivers in order from east to west, regardless of whether that is important or not, it quite clearly refers to the Ganga. However as is known, the Ganga (Jahnavi) is also mentioned in mandala 6(45.31.), certainly among the oldest of the Rg veda, if not the oldest and in mandala 3(58.6.) another old mandala which also has reference to Sarasvati (23.4). Since Ganga is placed nowhere else, it follows that the Sarasvati mentioned in the same mandalas cannot be of a different location.

Are these earlier references to Ganga the same ones which are considered unreliable since they don't refer to it specifically as a river but, quite possibly, as a woman or deity?

I think most people accept that the Vedic peoples were settled in, or at least very familiar with, the Indus-Gangetic plains by the time the later mandala (10) was written. The controversy is about the earlier verses, especially since the Avestas refer to the Helmand river as Sarasvati, implying that the word was sometimes used as an adjective and was, thus, transferable to different rivers over time.

No but since we are talking if the Rg veda & the studies are referring to the Sarasvati supposedly drying up, it is pertinent to bring into the picture the references of the Sarasvati in the Rg veda. If the Sarasvati in question is the same (there is no reason why it is not because earlier theoies of the Sarasvati being outside were also based on the fact that Ghaggar was thought to be too small to be the Sarasvati). If as the evidence now seems to suggest, it was indeed a mighty river previously, the argument for the Sarasvati being any other river becomes extremely difficult to sustain. If that is the case, then the dates for the Rg vedic Aryans themselves is put in doubt and makes the case for a gap/seperation between the "Harappan" culture & the "Aryan" culture very tenuous.

The question is when the Ghaggar stopped being a mighty river. If the drying occurred too early, it becomes problematic for the indigenous theory. The link I posted claims the major rivers have not changed course for 30,000 years, which would be a certain death knell for the indigenous theory. If the drying of the Ghaggar gets pushed back before the Iron Age then, again, we have a problem since the Rig Veda mentions iron implements.

 

[Bang Galore]

what are you on about?
The Aryan invasion does not hinge on the Vedas, there is plenty of evidence for it outside the vedas.

Like what?

And no offence but I don't have time to learn Sanskrit and read an ancient book just to make a point against Internet HIndus.

None taken, especially since I asked you to read up about the Rg veda & not read it directly, something that I haven't done either. Did you just call me an Internet Hindu?

 

[Hellraiser007]

Are these earlier references to Ganga the same ones which are considered unreliable since they don't refer to it specifically as a river but, quite possibly, as a woman or deity?

I think most people accept that the Vedic peoples were settled in, or at least very familiar with, the Indus-Gangetic plains by the time the later mandala (10) was written. The controversy is about the earlier verses, especially since the Avestas refer to the Helmand river as Sarasvati, implying that the word was sometimes used as an adjective and was, thus, transferable to different rivers over time.



The question is when the Ghaggar stopped being a mighty river. If the drying occurred too early, it becomes problematic for the indigenous theory. The link I posted claims the major rivers have not changed course for 30,000 years, which would be a certain death knell for the indigenous theory. If the drying of the Ghaggar gets pushed back before the Iron Age then, again, we have a problem since the Rig Veda mentions iron implements.

The ice age itself ended some 10000 years ago how can rivers do not change course or dry up with the affects of ice melting.

 

[Rusty]

Like what?




None taken, especially since I asked you to read up about the Rg veda & not read it directly, something that I haven't done either. Did you just call me an Internet Hindu?

Linguistic, Sanskrit is part of the Indo-European family of languages.
Archaeological, Chariots were only mentioned in India after the Aryans, and there have been chariots found in central asia that match the description of chariots in India after the Aryans.

And what is the point of reading them in modern language?
If you want to use the science of linguistics, you need to use the source language and need to know that language to read it.

 

[pakistanmyblood]

hindu civilisation is nothing but swinging on trees

 

[curioususer]

This is about the denial of authenticity not about whose book is superior. No body is saying the scientific achievement done by the West.
Don't be ignorant and think others also behave like you when it comes to your rigid beliefs and your prejudices.



Aryans has nothing to do with Vedas or Indian civilization, The Aryans who are originally from Caucasus mountains as described by Indologists do not look like me or you.

Whatever came from Caucasus is/are not Aryans. That is Hitler's and West's propaganda.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Whatever came from Caucasus is/are not Aryans. That is Hitler's and West's propaganda.

Very true mate.

 

[Rusty]

Whatever came from Caucasus is/are not Aryans. That is Hitler's and West's propaganda.

Must be a really big propaganda since all leading linguists and archaeologists believe in it.
But hey like you said, British and German propaganda, like gravity and theory of relativity.

BTW, why does India have nukes? they are based on the theory of relativity which is obviously German propaganda.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Linguistic, Sanskrit is part of the Indo-European family of languages.
Archaeological, Chariots were only mentioned in India after the Aryans, and there have been chariots found in central asia that match the description of chariots in India after the Aryans.

And what is the point of reading them in modern language?
If you want to use the science of linguistics, you need to use the source language and need to know that language to read it.

Regarding Chariots we had a discussion earlier and Chariots are not know to Caucasians(Aryan myths) and they are used on plains not in nomadic steppies or rocky terrain.

Language alone cannot be the basis. You speak English and god forbid if you teach only English to your children and not urdu the future generations won't become Brits or Anglo Saxons.

 

[curioususer]

Must be a really big propaganda since all leading linguists and archaeologists believe in it.
But hey like you said, British and German propaganda, like gravity and theory of relativity.

BTW, why does India have nukes? they are based on the theory of relativity which is obviously German propaganda.

Linguists and archaeologist don't have a choice and most of them are unsure about it too. India has Nukes to deter Pakistan and China's aggression.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Must be a really big propaganda since all leading linguists and archaeologists believe in it.
But hey like you said, British and German propaganda, like gravity and theory of relativity.

BTW, why does India have nukes? they are based on the theory of relativity which is obviously German propaganda.

Who is rejecting western scientific achievements, We are pioneering in that also, but we are debating about the books and scriptures which were originally belong to us were denied by foreigners.

 

[Rusty]

Regarding Chariots we had a discussion earlier and Chariots are not know to Caucasians(Aryan myths) and they are used on plains not in nomadic steppies or rocky terrain.

Language alone cannot be the basis. You speak English and god forbid if you teach only English to your children and not urdu the future generations won't become Brits or Anglo Saxons.

Who said Aryans only lived in mountins?
once again you guys are just making stuff up and then point to made up stuff and jumping up and down loudly saying "ARYAN INVASION IS BRITISH PROPOGANDA"

And why can't language along be the basis?
Language is history, culture and communication.

Let me give you an example.
Let's say all humans went extinct on earth and aliens came an looked through our history. In an area called India they will find Hindu/Urud/bengali etc ebing spoken untill 1850, but then after that they found this starnage language in India that is very similar to this language spoken on an Island thousans of km away.

What can the Aliens conclude from this?

(hint: someone from that Island must have gone to India)

Linguists and archaeologist don't have a choice and most of them are unsure about it too. India has Nukes to deter Pakistan and China's aggression.

Don't have a choice about what?
Yes, they are unsure about it, but then again Science is still unsure about gravity.

Who is rejecting western scientific achievements, We are pioneering in that also, but we are debating about the books and scriptures which were originally belong to us were denied by foreigners.

oh boy...do you want me to get you your tinfoil hat as well?

you know science doesn't have a skin color right?
A white person is just as capable as a brown one when it come to finding evidence and making hypothesis.

 

[Developereo]

The ice age itself ended some 10000 years ago how can rivers do not change course or dry up with the affects of ice melting.

The link below (pg 5-6) explains the significance.

http://www.breakthrough-india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf