Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Are the Brahmins Leaders of Hindu Religion? [Re: gimmegames] #13991 - 03/26/02 04:46 PM Edit Reply Quote

I have seldom seen such a Khichari of data out of their context. Who is trying whom to deceive? You can feel in degrees first the Europeans being blamed, then the racist theory that Europeans are of the same race as Aryan is launched. Then the next degree is that the 'leaders' of the Aryan are named as Brahmins, and they are the ones who are to be blamed. Finally these Arya Brahmin are equated with the Aryan league propagandists. (If the white Aryan nazi-fascists are meant). This is the skeleton of a scheme to do exactly what European colonialists did when they ruled over India: Divide and rule. Make the North-South divide. And the best way to do this is through generalizations and out of the context remarks, outdated data and wrong history. I believe emotion is the red thread in this amusing posting. And who's quoted: people like Asko Parpola! Of the invasionist school. Why is the writer of the piece believing in a western theory, which is very convenient for his theory by the way? Asko Parpola has decennia tried to prove (or better waste money) to prove his fossile theory. Even a prominent Dravidologist like Kamil Zvelebil has admitted that there's absolutely no proof for the Indus seals being Dravidian. The writer everytime talks of the whole of India when only parts are involved, for instance when Ambi was involved and when the Europeans came. Ambhi was from Takshashila in nowadays Pakistan. Did the writer forget that Poros the defender of 'India' was an Arya king? (The Hindu Mohyal community claims Poros to be a Brahmin ruler!) Alexander couldn't go in India, because of the fierce battles with Arya defenders! This for instance is again a naive statement: "Historians mention that the invasion of the Persians over North Western India had led to the trade relationship between India and Persia and it had also encouraged other foreigners to launch invasion over India." my comment: The Macedonians came to India, because they wanted to punish Persia for having invaded Greece. After their military success they chased the Persian ruler till they were in the heart of the Persian empire. As the NW belonged to the Persian Empire Alexander went to that part. He was also interested to go to the 'end of the known world'. But he had to bitterly fight in India. And who did oppose him most: Brahmin communities like the Mallas in Multan and Sindh, who nearly killed him! (Mohyal Brahmin) The writer blames the Shungas and Kanvas as traitors? Why? Because they are Brahmins? The writer forgets that Pushyamitra stabilized India after the Turushka Shakas had annoyed western India. King Abhimanyu of Kashmir had done his share too with that. Both persons were visited by the grammarian Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhashya or comment on Panini's Sanskrit grammar. (from: Kalhana's Rajatarangini) Since when is colour a topic? Since only race-obsessed people give that so much prominence. Arya has never been used in India for race. What funny to call your husband as Arya=race. Is Buddhism called in that same way as in Arya Dharma by themselves and their principles as Chatvari Aryani Satyani or Four Noble Truths. (has anyone seen anything racial in them?) This quote is very amusing "In a country divided by many languages, a common language unites the people. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the scholars who had a motive to spread Early Indian Christianity to other scholars." my comment: The word Sanskrtam was used by grammarians to preserve and describe the language at that moment. Panini (who lived milkyways before Christianity (at the latest in the 6th century BC !!) used this word for the older language, which was by then not anymore the only language, there were varieties, being more of the colloquial form, called Bhasha. The Prakrits evolved after the Vedic Sanskrit into proper Prakrit Languages (roundabout the time of Buddha), just before the Persian Cyrus! these Prakrit evolved afterwards into Apabhramshas in the Middle-Ages. And some Apabhramshas evolved into Avahattas (Apabhrashtas). Out of the Apabhramshas evolved the Old-Hindi, Old-Marathi, etc. Does the writer forget that the most revered people of India are dark? Vasudeva Krishna Yadava and Krshna Dvaipayana Vyasa. The Vedic Yadava are cousins of the Vedic Paurava, etc. Since when is Veda Vyasa a Dravidian? He is a Parasharya Vasishtha, originally belonging to north-eastern Uttar Pradesh! The Vasishthas are Vedic Purohitas of Ayodhyan kings and later of king Sudas a Srnjaya-Bharata and later of the Kaurava-Bharatas in which the Pandavas were born. Since when is Valmiki a Dravidian? Valmiki is a Brahmin of the Bhargava gotra. Now the Bhargavas are exactly like the Vasishthas called Varuni! Again a very amusing statement: "If we analyze history, it reveals that the term 'Aryan' includes the group of people who came into India in different periods without any religion viz. Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushans and Huns. " my comment: Since when do the Persians (Zoroastrism from their book Zend-Avesta) Greeks (own pantheon and religion), Shakas (Arya seminomads having an Arya religion), Kushans (Yueh Chih settlers from Tukhar, having Buddhism as belief) and Huns (most probably Hephthalites, connected also with Tokharians) don't have a religion? Very funny "Sanskrit is considered to be the language of the scholars or eminent people since the books written in Sanskrit are in a high standard. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the Dravidian scholars as common link language (religious code language) and was not the language of the foreigners." my comment: Why would Dravidians make a "Sanskrit" language, but not a Dravidian grammar that is older than a few the first centuries BC? The very word Dravidian is never mentioned in older works. Sanskrit of Paninian time was the Classical Sanskrit. That language decribed in his Ashtadhyayi named the older and the contemporary language. Yaska who is more ancient has given us the Nirukta and the Nighantu explanation of the Sanskrit language. The even older Pratishakyas mention older insights of the Sanskrit language. And this all belong to the Sutra Period. The Upanishads were before this time, not to mention Aranyankas, Brahmanas and Samhitas. The writer forgets that Mahavira Jina was a Jnatrika Kshatriya from Bihar! And Buddha was a Shakya Kshatriya from Nepal, belonging to the Ikshvaku dynasty! And his Gautama name is a Brahmin one. The Jainas have Arya kings as their Tirthankaras! And the very first one Rishabha was from the north, from UttarPradesh! The Shungas are Bharadvaja Brahmins from Magadha-Bihar! And not at all Persians! Mitra is an Indian name. Shaivism and Vaisnavism are evolved out of Vedic traditions. Vishnu and Shiva are mentioned in the Vedas. The most sacred places from older periods are more in the north, like Kailash-Kashi and Mathura-Dvaraka. It is sad that the Arya-Dravida dichotomy has still a voice. India is about the whole of the subcontinent. The culture was not based on race but on common traditions. The Dravidian are as much of Arya culture as the others. According to the Purana chronicles, written by Vyasa, the Dravidians are of the Turvasu branche, very closely connected with the Yadavas of Gujarat, but also the Pauravas of UttarPradesh and Haryana-Panjab. The Turvasu moved towards the Sindh river, and from there to the south, leaving some clans behind. I wouldn't be surprised to see in Dravidian languages many ancient Sanskrit words. It's time for Indians to get rid of the biased look at their own history with too much stress on racial aspects or other dichotomies. Hindu civilization is the hard work of people of all the Varnas. It's the achievement of all Hindus, whether northern, southern, eastern, western. Edited by Ishwa on 03/26/02 03:34 PM (server time).