What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No I did not agree.

The Vedics clearly worshipped Gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni etc and they are as much part of the Hindu pantheon today as it was yesterday.

The rest of the post is based on this primary [incorrect,fallacious] assumption and hence I am ignoring that.

My knowledge of Vedic culture/religion and Hinduism is rudimentary, mostly picked up through debates such as these, so I will leave it, hopefully, to individuals like Joe Shearer to clarify and correct - this excerpt from Wiki reflects my interpretation of Vedic Religious beliefs and modern day Hinduism:

Vedic religious practices

The Vedic forms of belief are the precursor to modern Hinduism. Texts considered to date to the Vedic period are mainly the four Vedas, but the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the older Upanishads as well as the oldest Shrautasutras are also considered to be Vedic. The Vedas record the liturgy connected with the rituals and sacrifices performed by the 16 or 17 Shrauta priests and the purohitas.
The rishis, the composers of the hymns of the Rigveda, were considered inspired poets and seers (in post-Vedic times understood as "hearers" of an eternally existing Veda, Śrauta means "what is heard").

The mode of worship was performance of sacrifices which included the chanting of Rigvedic verses (see Vedic chant), singing of Samans and 'mumbling' of offering mantras (Yajus). The priests executed rituals for the three upper classes (varna) of Vedic society, strictly excluding the Sudras[citation needed]. People offered for abundance of rain, cattle, sons, long life and gaining 'heaven'.

The main deities of the Vedic pantheon were Indra, Agni (the sacrificial fire), and Soma and some deities of social order such as Mitra–Varuna, Aryaman, Bhaga and Amsa, further nature deities such as Surya (the Sun), Vayu (the wind), Prithivi (the earth). Goddesses included Ushas (the dawn), Prithvi and Aditi (the mother of the Aditya gods or sometimes the cow). Rivers, especially Saraswati, were also considered goddesses. Deities were not viewed as all-powerful. The relationship between humans and the deity was one of transaction, with Agni (the sacrificial fire) taking the role of messenger between the two. Strong traces of a common Indo-Iranian religion remain visible, especially in the Soma cult and the fire worship, both of which are preserved in Zoroastrianism. The Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice) has parallels in the 2nd millennium BC Andronovo culture, in Rome and old Ireland, was continued in India until at least the 4th century AD and revived under Jai Singh II of Amber in 1716 AD.

Vedic religion evolved into the Hindu paths of Yoga and Vedanta, a religious path considering itself the 'essence' of the Vedas, interpreting the Vedic pantheon as a unitary view of the universe with 'God' (Brahman) seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara and Brahman. These post-Vedic systems of thought, along with later texts like Upanishads, epics (namely Gita of Mahabharat), have been fully preserved and form the basis of modern Hinduism. The ritualistic traditions of Vedic religion are preserved in the conservative Śrauta tradition, in part with the exception of animal sacrifice, which was mostly abandoned by the higher castes by the end of the Vedic period, partly under the influence of the Buddhist and Jain religions, and their criticism of such practices[citation needed].

Ignoring Bang Galore's earlier argument of atheism/agnosticism, the excerpt above clearly paints a picture of a Hinduism evolving distinctly from Vedic religious beliefs, and therefore would appear to be more along the lines of the evolution of the Abrahamic religions.

Islam had never any relation to Judaism.

Never.

It is not relevant to the thread but we may discuss it elsewhere.

There was no evolution.

Again, a topic for elsewhere.

I fail to see why not, though we can continue this on another thread once/if you return.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Not true. For us, IVC is just one point in a long continuum. It may not be even the starting point for all we know.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not true. For us, IVC is just one point in a long continuum. It may not be even the starting point for all we know.

Sorry, but what are you referring to as 'not true'?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Read the posts before the current post and then reply back.

LaBong, had made a very good point. There are two different histories. History of land and History of the people. IVC is the history of the land, may or may not be the history of the people.

What I find ironical is one of your most vociferous or thankiferous supporters, Joe Shearer, is an ardent supporter of the AIT [last time I checked :/] which actually nullifies the claim modern day Pakistanis have to IVC and showers us "South Indian dravidian" with the exclusive rights to it.

If you take the trouble to read my comments, that is precisely the situation. I have pointed out that the language spoken in the IVC was probably Dravidian; I have pointed out that VSDOC's position about a clash of civilisations is partly supported by genetic studies showing that there was an infusion of external genes in the people of north India between 3500 BC and 1200 BC, and this fits well with the surmise of Indo-Aryan speakers having encountered Dravidian speakers.

I have also supported Pakistan's claims to the IVC, for the simple reason that the ruins lie within the territory of that nation. Also, the local people are probably the descendants of the original individuals belonging to that civilisation, since genetic results (taking VSDOC's idea to it's logical end) show that there was an immigrant segment which mingled with an autochthonic segment. Unless the entire population marched away to south India, their descendants must still be living thereabouts. What was replaced was the language, not the people.

What is bothering you? The fact that I made my points without raising my voice?

 

[RAJPUTAANA]

My knowledge of Vedic culture/religion and Hinduism is rudimentary, mostly picked up through debates such as these, so I will leave it, hopefully, to individuals like Joe Shearer to clarify and correct - this excerpt from Wiki reflects my interpretation of Vedic Religious beliefs and modern day Hinduism:

Vedic religious practices

The Vedic forms of belief are the precursor to modern Hinduism. Texts considered to date to the Vedic period are mainly the four Vedas, but the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the older Upanishads as well as the oldest Shrautasutras are also considered to be Vedic. The Vedas record the liturgy connected with the rituals and sacrifices performed by the 16 or 17 Shrauta priests and the purohitas.
The rishis, the composers of the hymns of the Rigveda, were considered inspired poets and seers (in post-Vedic times understood as "hearers" of an eternally existing Veda, Śrauta means "what is heard").

The mode of worship was performance of sacrifices which included the chanting of Rigvedic verses (see Vedic chant), singing of Samans and 'mumbling' of offering mantras (Yajus). The priests executed rituals for the three upper classes (varna) of Vedic society, strictly excluding the Sudras[citation needed]. People offered for abundance of rain, cattle, sons, long life and gaining 'heaven'.

The main deities of the Vedic pantheon were Indra, Agni (the sacrificial fire), and Soma and some deities of social order such as Mitra–Varuna, Aryaman, Bhaga and Amsa, further nature deities such as Surya (the Sun), Vayu (the wind), Prithivi (the earth). Goddesses included Ushas (the dawn), Prithvi and Aditi (the mother of the Aditya gods or sometimes the cow). Rivers, especially Saraswati, were also considered goddesses. Deities were not viewed as all-powerful. The relationship between humans and the deity was one of transaction, with Agni (the sacrificial fire) taking the role of messenger between the two. Strong traces of a common Indo-Iranian religion remain visible, especially in the Soma cult and the fire worship, both of which are preserved in Zoroastrianism. The Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice) has parallels in the 2nd millennium BC Andronovo culture, in Rome and old Ireland, was continued in India until at least the 4th century AD and revived under Jai Singh II of Amber in 1716 AD.

Vedic religion evolved into the Hindu paths of Yoga and Vedanta, a religious path considering itself the 'essence' of the Vedas, interpreting the Vedic pantheon as a unitary view of the universe with 'God' (Brahman) seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara and Brahman. These post-Vedic systems of thought, along with later texts like Upanishads, epics (namely Gita of Mahabharat), have been fully preserved and form the basis of modern Hinduism. The ritualistic traditions of Vedic religion are preserved in the conservative Śrauta tradition, in part with the exception of animal sacrifice, which was mostly abandoned by the higher castes by the end of the Vedic period, partly under the influence of the Buddhist and Jain religions, and their criticism of such practices[citation needed].

Ignoring Bang Galore's earlier argument of atheism/agnosticism, the excerpt above clearly paints a picture of a Hinduism evolving distinctly from Vedic religious beliefs, and therefore would appear to be more along the lines of the evolution of the Abrahamic religions.


I fail to see why not, though we can continue this on another thread once/if you return.

The knowledge of vedas is still very much part of hinduism............ concept of vedas which are still a part

1. The concept of energy...... energy is neither created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed.......better known as REINCARNATION..... it forms the basis of hinduism

2. worship of natural forces......prayer to surya......... most hindus offer water to surya and pray.... CHHAT POOJA is a great example.... festivals to mark various seasonal variations

3. GAYATRI MANTRA still a part of every ritual...... most essential part

4. YAJNA or YAGYA are performed during any ritual...... worship of fire still practised before any yajna...

5. VARNA system still practiced, however the social inequalities fading away with the time

THE BASICS OF HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARMA ARE INTACT...... and yes ashwamedha yagya was not about the horse sacrifice... IN INDIA....

 

[Rig Vedic]

This is amusing.

Agastya is nowhere claimed to be an author of any of the Vedic Samhitas; such claims are interpolations, largely by southern Brahmins seeking to elevate their own positions.

Very convenient, what fails to fit, call it an interpolation. Anyway, the fact that Agastya's name occurs in the Rig Veda illustrates the point that the evolving Indic world-view, at that early date, received contributions from various regions.

Ah, a recurrence of the never given a fair hearing by the establishment. We have been through this, I think.

Ah the Aryan invasion again? You are doubtless aware that there is zero evidence for that thesis, either from Indic literature or from the latest genetic studies. In fact the genetic studies very strongly show that the direction of movement was precisely opposite to what you want to believe.

When coteries of eminent chaps refuse to face facts then they are best left to their own devices. What to do?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The knowledge of vedas is still very much part of hinduism............ concept of vedas which are still a part

1. The concept of energy...... energy is neither created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed.......better known as REINCARNATION..... it forms the basis of hinduism

2. worship of natural forces......prayer to surya......... most hindus offer water to surya and pray.... CHHAT POOJA is a great example.... festivals to mark various seasonal variations

3. GAYATRI MANTRA still a part of every ritual...... most essential part

4. YAJNA or YAGYA are performed during any ritual...... worship of fire still practised before any yajna...

5. VARNA system still practiced, however the social inequalities fading away with the time

THE BASICS OF HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARMA ARE INTACT...... and yes ashwamedha yagya was not about the horse sacrifice... IN INDIA....

What does your answer have to do with the original post?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Sorry Agnostic Muslim for the previous post. As the forum's resident idiot I am still trying to figure out how to use the quote function. The previous post is evidence that I have not yet quite mastered it. So do please excuse me. Perhaps you guy's need to have a forum for idiot's like me where we can fire blank posts until we master the functional aspect of this board.

One of the posters mentioned the IVC as one part of the continuum, which is another neat way of saying 'continuity' and I imagine he meant 'civilizational continuum'. I would like to point out if this was indeed true then IVC would not be 'just part' but would be the start of the continuum. This makes IVC very significant.

May I proffer a analogy which sums up my feeling about this civilizaational continuity:-

History of the Tata Cars.

The Tata Nano is the new Tata car and represents the latest evolution in a long line of Tata cars going back to 1894 bc. The remains of a intact 4 wheel car with what appears to be a internal combustion engine have been found in a mound in Bavaria, Germany and carbon dated to circa 1894. Automobile researchers from Indian Society of Motor Manufacturers and other international acclaimed experts surmise that this vehicle is a Proto Tata car because it has 4 wheels as found on the Tata Nano.

In addition the car found in the site has a internal combustion engine which appears to be very similar to the modern Tata Xtech series engines. There have been some so called experts with suspect agenda who do not agree with the research findings and claim that having 4 wheels and a internal cumbustion engine does not by itself make this find a Tata car. They argue it might a ancient Mercedez benz but most experts do not agree with this and cite the Indian Auto Club's manuscripts which show it was a Tata car.

But Tata say their cars are unlike others, they have no particular size, no shape or colour and because of this flexibility there is much diversity to be found in their model range, which is very unlike others who have a very fixed recognizable product line. So at one extreme even a 3 wheeler can be considered a car within the Tata universel range.

After the find in Germany Tata are building a Museum in Delhi to honour the Tata 'Velo Model 1894'. The Germans who have refused to hand over the Tata heritage to Delhi despite the fact that the Germans have gone green and banned all internal combustion engined cars. Tata spokesperson said the Velo Model 1984 was a Tata car because there was direct design continuity between the Tata 'Velo Model 1894' and Tata Nano 2012 and that it even had proto seats as found on modern Tata cars, a sort of bench for occupants to sit on.

The Nano was the latest in a continuum from the Velo 1894. When questioned about the fact that Tata as it exists now was not even in existance then the spokesperson replied that whilst that was strictly true bit people had to take into account evolution ( as we all know Tata are very amorphous ) and that at any rate researchers have found traces of Proto Tata in the design of the Velo 1894 as seen in Image A - Velo Model with 4 wheels. Image B - Nano 2012 Model with 4 wheels which suggests design continuity.

The German claim is entirely fallacious. Frst the German's have gone Green and banned internal combustion engines and at any rate Germany is a false construct of a power hungry Prussian Otto Von Bismark. Therefore because of design continuity it is considered the Velo Model is the heritage of India and in particular Tata.

Tata are proud to be the inventors of the first car in the world.

And Joe some of your posts are almost at a point where I can see myself arriving at compromise. Our position is naturaly not going to be accepted by most Indian's. We are not going accept what most of the Indian's are saying. Your skirting a area where I think we could just about find a compromise and be at peace with.

The biggest is your prepared to accept the term South Asian which goes a long way to soothe our anger. I think the rest can be easily resolved in time once the label South Asian comes into common use. At root of everything is the fact that by using this term your accepting us as a independant state with it's own identity

 

[Bang Galore]

So, no, just as the contemporary Indian Republic's 'constitutionally secular identity' (distinct from a religious Vedic identity, as you claim) does not affect the argument of 'civilizational continuity' for Indians, Pakistan's theocratic identity does not affect the argument of 'civilizational continuity' for Pakistanis, since, as you argued above, it is 'culture' we are concerned with, and not the 'Political/Constitutional State'.

Fair point. I guess it's yours if you want it though I'm not sure how that sits with many in your country who look westward for their origins & those who would deny any commonalities with those on the other side of a fairly recently drawn political border. I don't think most Indians would deny your point, only those that would seek to deny us a part of the cultural inheritance by referring to 20th century boundary line.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

"fairly recently drawn political border"

Bang Galore are you talking about the political border drawn by our slave masters, the British in 1843 ( Sindh ) and 1849 ( Punjab ) - A border drawn by using British gun's against the natives who fought and spilled blood to avoid being members of the enslaved club known as 'British India'.

"20th Century boundary line"

Would this be the line drawn because we refused to accept the line drawn in 1843 and 1849 by the British and in 1947 we chose to undo the work of British imperial greed and plunder.

Please don't tell me you regard the lines drawn by the British at gun point as sacred but find our chosen line as regretable and wrong?

If this is the case you are a apologist for the British imperial greed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very convenient, what fails to fit, call it an interpolation.

First, the only Vedic links that Agastya has are his membership of the Saptarshis; if you look closely, all detailed references to his Vedic role are in latter-day Upanishads, the kind still being generated as late as 1926 and 1940. There are no mentions in the earlier, contemporary Mukhya Upanishads.

I hope you know this.

Do you still maintain that there is any original text supporting his association with the Vedas? If so, could you cite the passages?

Beating the old AIT drum again? You are doubtless aware that there is zero evidence for that thesis, either from Indic literature or from the latest genetic studies. In fact the genetic studies very strongly show that the direction of movement is precisely opposite to what you want to believe.

As far as the relative status of AIT and OOI are concerned, OOI is promoted by a professor of mathematics, by a post-graduate in alternative healing systems, specialized in acupuncture, an ex-banker and a loose cannon who promotes ultra-Hindu theories on the general principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend. Koenraad Elst is the closest to an academician that that movement for the betterment of history by re-writing it in line with the thinking of the masses has. He has such a politically compromised position in the politics of his own country that his support for this line probably damages it more than it helps.

Your comments about the lack of support for the AIT in Hindu literature (not Indic literature - neither the Jains, the Buddhists nor the Sikhs or their scriptures have any bearing on this matter, so using the term Indic here is nothing more dignified than a use of cuttlefish ink, for the same reasons ad the cuttlefish) are surprising. They are probably based on an amateurish reading of the arguments of the promoters of the OOI line. The hymns of the Vedas are full of references to the entry into an alien land, to conquest and domination of a darker, different-looking race, of battles between the chariot people and the defenders of walled citadels and of the imposition of an alien rule over this new land. Detailed analysis of the Vedas and the Puranas shows the slow penetration of different tribes and their settlement in different regions. The sequences are clear, and the directions are clear.

So much for references in literature.

As far as genetic studies are concerned, many ill-informed or half-informed people jump to conclusions from published accounts without noticing the dates.

The mtDNA haplogroups M, R and U split away from its root stock and these were disseminated over the Middle East and eastern Europe as the women carrying them moved along with their migrating groups of people.

Geneticists are not decided whether this split occurred in central Asia or in India. The question is still undecided.

That is not the most important part, however. What is important is that this took place between 50,000 and 100,000 years from now.

These were not sacred thread wearing, Veda-chanting, kurmi-wearing priests from a southern river delta. Let me now have the painful honour of indicting you into evolutionary biology.

Contrary to what Indic literature tells you, and also contrary to what other sacred books tell their adherents, Human beings evolved. Primates evolved about 50 to 80 million years ago. Hominids - the great apes - diverged about 15 to 20 million years ago; orang utans separated out soon after, within a couple of million years of that, followed by gorillas and chimpanzees, the latter about 5 million years ago. Finally, within the remaining line of humans, Hominins split from Australopithecenes about 2.5 million years ago. Shortly after, these primitive hunter-scavenger groups started wandering. This wandering was From Africa To other parts of the world. The process was complete, although the movement was very slow, and along the banks of natural water-bodies initially, in about 100,000 years.

These were extremely primitive human beings, early Homo Sapiens. They lived in groups, typically in caves where they could find them, and hunted, foraged and scavenged for food. They wore animal skins, produced primitive cave art, and used tools. These were Stone Age, extremely primitive people from the Palaeolithic Age.

In case this exodus from India seemed to have been the harbinger of civilisation to the rest of the world, please let us not waste time. There was nothing these groups of nomads could do other than staying alive.

It was between 3500 BC and 1200 BC that there was an event where migrant groups from central Asia encountered settled groups within India. Genetic analysis supports that, the reverse movement, which is being denied so hotly.

When coteries of eminent chaps refuse to face facts then they are best left to their own devices. What to do?

I wouldn't go so far, even though I am kind-hearted.

I wouldn't call you eminent.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agree.



Here I disagree. Even in the non-Empire periods, political boundaries were not relevant to the civilizational identity. Something like the situation of Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece.

In fact, cultural habits and patterns were identical.

From birth to death, the customs and rituals were identical. Clothes were identical, until first the Scythians, then the Kushana brought in leggings (different sorts). Scholars from these pre-Pakistani periods were respected just like scholars from any other; Panini has been mentioned, but there were others. Until the incursion of the Achaemenids, politics and warfare was entirely internal, barring isolated references to the tall, fair Kamboja prince from Ferghana and his ferocious cavalry, who fought for the Kauravas at Kurukshetra. These regions figure in the king-lists of the epics, most memorably in the list of those who fought at Kurukshetra, although there are earlier references (the Battle of the Ten Kings being a well-known example).

All in all, isolation from the cultural complexes elsewhere was simply not the case. Not even after bin Qasim, after whose departure the Rajputs across the road decided to intervene - quite successfully, too.

 

[Rig Vedic]

First, the only Vedic links that Agastya has are his membership of the Saptarshis; if you look closely, all detailed references to his Vedic role are in latter-day Upanishads, the kind still being generated as late as 1926 and 1940. There are no mentions in the earlier, contemporary Mukhya Upanishads.

Agastya is said to be the author of 25 hymns (nos 166 to 190) of the first ‘mandala’ of the Rigveda. Current Science - "Folklore and Astronomy: Agastya a sage and a star" - http://cs-test.ias.ac.in/cs/Downloads/article_39598.pdf The fact the ancient literature is legendary, mythological and allegorical does not detract from the point being made.

As far as the relative status of AIT and OOI are concerned, OOI is promoted by a professor of mathematics, by a post-graduate in alternative healing systems, specialized in acupuncture, an ex-banker and a loose cannon who promotes ultra-Hindu theories on the general principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend. Koenraad Elst is the closest to an academician that that movement for the betterment of history by re-writing it in line with the thinking of the masses has. He has such a politically compromised position in the politics of his own country that his support for this line probably damages it more than it helps.

You would be better of dealing with the issues instead of investing all your time in ad-hominem attacks.

Your comments about the lack of support for the AIT in Hindu literature (not Indic literature - neither the Jains, the Buddhists nor the Sikhs or their scriptures have any bearing on this matter, so using the term Indic here is nothing more dignified than a use of cuttlefish ink, for the same reasons ad the cuttlefish) are surprising.

Hello, Indic == originating in, or rooted in India.

They are probably based on an amateurish reading of the arguments of the promoters of the OOI line. The hymns of the Vedas are full of references to the entry into an alien land, to conquest and domination of a darker, different-looking race, of battles between the chariot people and the defenders of walled citadels and of the imposition of an alien rule over this new land. Detailed analysis of the Vedas and the Puranas shows the slow penetration of different tribes and their settlement in different regions. The sequences are clear, and the directions are clear.

This is absolutely false. There are plenty of references to battles against Iranic peoples, however. Lists of rivers also run East to West, which tells you where frame of reference was.

The mtDNA haplogroups M, R and U split away from its root stock and these were disseminated over the Middle East and eastern Europe as the women carrying them moved along with their migrating groups of people.

Geneticists are not decided whether this split occurred in central Asia or in India. The question is still undecided.

That is not the most important part, however. What is important is that this took place between 50,000 and 100,000 years from now.

These were not sacred thread wearing, Veda-chanting, kurmi-wearing priests from a southern river delta. Let me now have the painful honour of indicting you into evolutionary biology.

Contrary to what Indic literature tells you, and also contrary to what other sacred books tell their adherents, Human beings evolved. Primates evolved about 50 to 80 million years ago. Hominids - the great apes - diverged about 15 to 20 million years ago; orang utans separated out soon after, within a couple of million years of that, followed by gorillas and chimpanzees, the latter about 5 million years ago. Finally, within the remaining line of humans, Hominins split from Australopithecenes about 2.5 million years ago. Shortly after, these primitive hunter-scavenger groups started wandering. This wandering was From Africa To other parts of the world. The process was complete, although the movement was very slow, and along the banks of natural water-bodies initially, in about 100,000 years.

These were extremely primitive human beings, early Homo Sapiens. They lived in groups, typically in caves where they could find them, and hunted, foraged and scavenged for food. They wore animal skins, produced primitive cave art, and used tools. These were Stone Age, extremely primitive people from the Palaeolithic Age.

In case this exodus from India seemed to have been the harbinger of civilisation to the rest of the world, please let us not waste time. There was nothing these groups of nomads could do other than staying alive.

It was between 3500 BC and 1200 BC that there was an event where migrant groups from central Asia encountered settled groups within India. Genetic analysis supports that, the reverse movement, which is being denied so hotly.

Central Asian subclades are descended from a subset of the clades available in India, where the level of diversity is much higher. Other irrelevant points ignored.

 

[Bang Galore]

Bangalore and others have argued that the early 'Vedic Civilization' was atheistic/agnostic - if that was indeed the case, my argument is that modern day Hindu 'Religion' (as signified by the worship of deities and temples for worship) is distinctly different from the faith practiced by the majority of those in earlier civilizations. Therefore, those practicing contemporary 'Hindu Religion' would be 'converts' from the agnostic/atheistic faiths of civilizations past.

Not quite correct. The vedic civilisation was neither atheistic nor agnostic. They believed in Gods who are included in the Hindu pantheon today, however varying in the importance of different "gods". It was the later Upanishads which turned the philosophical idea towards atheism/agnosticism. Even there, the separation is not as distinct as your reading. The upanishads acknowledge the vedas but move the argument onto a higher plane. As I have pointed out many of these changes happened gradually over time but without jettisoning the earlier ideas completely. Hinduism allowed for this differences & while the dominant view held by the majority may have changed at different points of time, it was never possible that all other views ceased to exist. In fact, the Upanishads are so complicated as to have most certainly not been the beliefs of the common man, merely the prevailing thoughts of the philosophers of that time. In time & as a part of the existing tradition, Hinduism as practiced now gained strength. While one can argue that present day Hinduism differs from vedic Hinduism, it would be impossible not to see any connection.
I stress again that the problem that these varying philosophies puts others not of these faiths, is quite simply a difficulty in appreciating alternate definitions of the term religion beyond their own exposure.

theism/agnosticism', a distinct difference comes up between Hinduism as a religion, and Hinduism (or Vedism or whatever). Those two, atheism/agnosticism vs polytheism/monotheism, are entirely different schools of thought.

The assumption is being made that different thoughts cannot exist in the same religion. Only true of religions allowing for the agreed narrative alone.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agastya is said to be the author of 25 hymns (nos 166 to 190) of the first ‘mandala’ of the Rigveda. Current Science - "Folklore and Astronomy: Agastya a sage and a star" - http://cs-test.ias.ac.in/cs/Downloads/article_39598.pdf The fact the ancient literature is legendary, mythological and allegorical does not detract from the point being made.

I note with great appreciation the significant improvement in your basic research. Rather than depend on a combined team of a mathematician, a mountebank and a banker, you are now on a higher plane. Might one dare to describe it as a higher astral plane, since you have now summoned the stars to your support? So we have an eminent astrophysicist teaching us history. One of these days, you will persuade an historian to promote your ideas if you keep on at this promising rate.

Abhayankar makes one mention of Agastya vis-a-vis the Rg Veda, that Agastya is the Author (no ifs, buts or maybes) of twenty-five hymns in the First Mandala of the Rg Veda. And that is it. The article is worth reading in detail, just to see how the author ties himself up in knots reconciling the irreconcilable. But that is it. A bland statement, one sentence, in an article on astrophysics in a science journal, and there it is. Case proven.

Looking up our learned author's other publications is an interesting exercise, left to the reader.

We were told, by way of adequate preparation, that

The fact the ancient literature is legendary, mythological and allegorical does not detract from the point being made.

While the point is well-taken, and the delicacy of the warning is greatly appreciated, it is the legendary, mythological and allegorical nature of the authorities quoted that worries me far more.

You would be better of dealing with the issues instead of investing all your time in ad-hominem attacks.

As always, when sources are impugned, and their knowledge and competence is questioned, it becomes an ad-hominem attack. Is it not true then, that Rajaram was a mathematician, Frawley an acupuncturist and so on? Is it unfair to point out that they are seeking acceptance without going through any of the academic rigour familiar to those of us with even a nodding acquaintance with contemporary research methods and techniques?

On the other hand, a cursory reference to my comments will show that wherever a genuine point has been raised, or even an honest challenge has been posed, the arguments in question have been arranged and presented in detail. No Abhayankar one-liners.

Hello, Indic == originating in, or rooted in India.

And hello, not amounting to anything ecumenical, restricted to Hindu, not referenced by - did I say this before? - Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. The purpose of using Indic is to indicate the dichotomy between Semitic and other faith system; originating in, or rooted in India, has a perfectly good word in English, which is Indian.

My objection is to the introduction of this weasel word through the back-door, implying that the serried ranks of ancient Indian culture are arrayed in battle formation against these impieties. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when it is sought unsuccessfully to give it a political flavour.

This is absolutely false. There are plenty of references to battles against Iranic peoples, however. Lists of rivers also run East to West, which tells you where frame of reference was.

The point was that the battles in India are clear and unmistakable.

However, are the references I have mentioned not there? Is that your considered position?

Central Asian subclades are descended from a subset of the clades available in India, where the level of diversity is much higher. Other irrelevant points ignored.

Irrelevant points like the movement out of India, or out of Central Asia having occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago? Interesting. You do realize that the record of these conversations are there for all to see.