ARTICLE BY DMR SEKHAR ON SULEKHA
My comments:----
Hi ,
DMR raised some good points but debate here is going at a tangent. I have been following this debate for some time, though avoided making a comment here due to my occupation with writing ON NEHRU's BLUNDERS. I am still busy with it. I thought of giving my two cents here,too whatever it's worth amongst the leading lights of professional debaters, with tons of degrees.
You know Sekhar, why Sanskrit became a language of the elite---- because it was kept out of the reach of common man---- there was a deliberate attempt in this so as to make knowledge a sole preserve of the priestly class. Anyway, I don,t want to go into any further details because my words might hurt some people here.
I came here to recommend to you that title of this post must be changed to FABRICATING EVIDENCE from FABRICATING HISTORY. This is what is happening because INTERNET has become the sole basis of EVIDENCE in all these discussions. Just because someone has posted a piece on the Internet it should not be the sole truth. On Internet , most of the information is a contraption of motivated argument, with sole purpose of stressing one's own line of thoughts. I think we should use some other means, too. Debate here, Shekhar ji, is like what SAINT AUGUSTENE says in VALENTINE's DEATH : Most often we argue not to convince other person but to strengthen our prejudices.
I must also point out that one study does not represent the truth because there are number of other factors which are not part of a SPECIFIC STUDY. And when we talk of Indian history, there are a number of things to be satisfied----- Genetics alone can not be the evidence---- we have to take into account, FOLK LORE ( oral history); written history ( who wrote it ) , mythology, archaeology, geography, spiritual literature ( epics and other religious material) and then connect it with SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. Sir, Science alone is not the instrument of determining the real truth. Science has its own limitations.
My own view is that scientists are blind like judiciary---- they can not see the basic truth on ground---- like judges they remain engrossed in their own isolated world. Look at the way our SC has rejected Mayawati's DA case---- NOT seeing the truth but carried away by a tech laity. Exactly,like this scientists too overlook the truth because certain things do not measure up their logic.
Having said this let me now turn to the basic point you raised about ancient Indian history---My hypothesis is---
- firstly no one can say with authority about Indian history because it's origin remains mired in conjectures. At best there can be only hypothesis.
Secondly, I am of the view that Aryans were ancient PIOs ( People of Indian origin) or may be even OCIs ( other country Indians) . They were neither indigenous nor they came by ARYAN iINVASION. it was a migrant community from the SUNDA LAND , called NAGAS, who went West and North at the end of last ICE AGE. It is now acknowledged that SUNDA LAND was the first Human civilisation. They had to migrate due to rising sea level around 8000 BC. SUNDA LAND was the region between present day Indian coast and Indonesia,
Thirdly, they went as for as Hungry and Germany in Europe and ancient Iran, Iraq and Syria. They established RIVER CIVILISATIONS LIKE SARASWATI RIVER. By the way, IVC, should be properly called SARASWATI RIVER CIVILISATION (SRC) as 75% of archaeological excavations are on its submerged course.
Fourthly, around 4000-4500 BC, a major geological upheaval took place which led to disappearance of many features---- may be ATLANTIS, KUMARI KANDHAM OR LIMURIA--- banished during this period. An event something like a POLAR SHIFT , though NOT necessarily polar shif must have taken place which affected the River CIVILISATIONS. It is then thiese people started REVERSE JOURNEY. They came back as ARYANS--- refined people like NRIs of today. They spoke Sanskrit , which was written in Prakritic script--- Harappan seals establish this.
Fifthly, they first made their home in SAPTA SINDHU region called ARYAVRATA This is the region which includes, Indian and Pakistani Punjab, Haryana,parts of Rajasthan,J&K, Delhi. It is here RAMYANA WAS ENACTED. if you believe ex Surveyor General of India, Mr Rajesh Kochar, AYODHYA was in AFGHANISTAN. Also, note VALMIKI'sAshram is in RAM TIRATH , Near Amritsar in Punjab. It is here he wrote Ramayan.
Sixthly, story of Ramayan could be a fictionalised story based on BATTLE OF TEN KINGS ( Actualy 13) as described in RIGVEDA.---- it might interest you to know that MANDODRI Ravna 's wife was from a village near modern JODHPUR--- then part of SAPTA SINDHU. One must read this BATTLE OF TEN KINGS---- also called DASJANYA SANGRAM---- I had written about it some time back. May be Balmiki called Ravna ---- TEN HEADED----representing these TEN KINGS.
Now let me say a word about ARYA. It is formed from two Sanskrit roots I.e, Ri and Aa---- Ri means COMMON and Aa means NOT SO Aa + Ri= NOT COMMON or a NOBLE PERSON. It was therefore certain that ARYA was not a race but a NOBLE PERSON, educated and dignified, Not necessarily he spoke Sanskrit---- like today's NRIs---- all might not be so efficient in English like second generation or third generation Indians in Spain and Denmark or even Gemany.
Seventhly, the natives of this region were NAGAS, who had a rich civilisation but natural calamities sent them looking for other lands---- Indian History is a case of MIGRANT POPULATIONS---- story of IMMIGRANTS----like USA today. Such a society is always, Flexible, tolerant, and forward developing. It is only when it gets ritualized that the decay begins ----- a low pressure is created and High pressure winds come in. No invasion but Migrations have characterized Indian ancient history.
Read Bhagwan S Gidwani RETURN OF THE ARYANS; Rajesh kochhar, VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA; NS Raja Ram and David Frawley , 10000 years OF INDIAN HISTORY and Dr Saravpalli Radhakrishanan , HINDU VIEW OF LIFE. Do not read DISCOVERY OF India by JL NEHRU--- which is out rightly a western view point. You can also read INTO INDIA ans HISTORY OF INDIA by a reputed and renowned British indologist, Mr. John Keay.
Do Not purely go by stuff posted on the internet through these isolated studies. There are many genetic studies which say different things.
Finally a word about SANSKRIT---- Panini did not create it--- it had preexisted---- he only refined the language----- and gave written script and grammar------ if you read Bhagwan Gidwani----- most of east European languages have Sanskrit words----- so is with Avestic Zelda if you read Rajesh kochhar. Therefore , there is an assumption, that Sanskrit might have been the base and NAGAS WOULD HAVE GONE THERE AS WANDERING GYPSIES.---- today they find ROMANIAN Gypsies have similarities to Indians -----
Thanks---- do read me entirely, ponder about before you answer me---- don,t be selective and pick up sentences as is the precedence of debate here----- see it holistically ----please take no offence---- I do apologise in advance, if anything I said is offensive.
Regards
Rajee.
DMR raised some good points but debate here is going at a tangent. I have been following this debate for some time, though avoided making a comment here due to my occupation with writing ON NEHRU's BLUNDERS. I am still busy with it. I thought of giving my two cents here,too whatever it's worth amongst the leading lights of professional debaters, with tons of degrees.
You know Sekhar, why Sanskrit became a language of the elite---- because it was kept out of the reach of common man---- there was a deliberate attempt in this so as to make knowledge a sole preserve of the priestly class. Anyway, I don,t want to go into any further details because my words might hurt some people here.
I came here to recommend to you that title of this post must be changed to FABRICATING EVIDENCE from FABRICATING HISTORY. This is what is happening because INTERNET has become the sole basis of EVIDENCE in all these discussions. Just because someone has posted a piece on the Internet it should not be the sole truth. On Internet , most of the information is a contraption of motivated argument, with sole purpose of stressing one's own line of thoughts. I think we should use some other means, too. Debate here, Shekhar ji, is like what SAINT AUGUSTENE says in VALENTINE's DEATH : Most often we argue not to convince other person but to strengthen our prejudices.
I must also point out that one study does not represent the truth because there are number of other factors which are not part of a SPECIFIC STUDY. And when we talk of Indian history, there are a number of things to be satisfied----- Genetics alone can not be the evidence---- we have to take into account, FOLK LORE ( oral history); written history ( who wrote it ) , mythology, archaeology, geography, spiritual literature ( epics and other religious material) and then connect it with SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. Sir, Science alone is not the instrument of determining the real truth. Science has its own limitations.
My own view is that scientists are blind like judiciary---- they can not see the basic truth on ground---- like judges they remain engrossed in their own isolated world. Look at the way our SC has rejected Mayawati's DA case---- NOT seeing the truth but carried away by a tech laity. Exactly,like this scientists too overlook the truth because certain things do not measure up their logic.
Having said this let me now turn to the basic point you raised about ancient Indian history---My hypothesis is---
- firstly no one can say with authority about Indian history because it's origin remains mired in conjectures. At best there can be only hypothesis.
Secondly, I am of the view that Aryans were ancient PIOs ( People of Indian origin) or may be even OCIs ( other country Indians) . They were neither indigenous nor they came by ARYAN iINVASION. it was a migrant community from the SUNDA LAND , called NAGAS, who went West and North at the end of last ICE AGE. It is now acknowledged that SUNDA LAND was the first Human civilisation. They had to migrate due to rising sea level around 8000 BC. SUNDA LAND was the region between present day Indian coast and Indonesia,
Thirdly, they went as for as Hungry and Germany in Europe and ancient Iran, Iraq and Syria. They established RIVER CIVILISATIONS LIKE SARASWATI RIVER. By the way, IVC, should be properly called SARASWATI RIVER CIVILISATION (SRC) as 75% of archaeological excavations are on its submerged course.
Fourthly, around 4000-4500 BC, a major geological upheaval took place which led to disappearance of many features---- may be ATLANTIS, KUMARI KANDHAM OR LIMURIA--- banished during this period. An event something like a POLAR SHIFT , though NOT necessarily polar shif must have taken place which affected the River CIVILISATIONS. It is then thiese people started REVERSE JOURNEY. They came back as ARYANS--- refined people like NRIs of today. They spoke Sanskrit , which was written in Prakritic script--- Harappan seals establish this.
Fifthly, they first made their home in SAPTA SINDHU region called ARYAVRATA This is the region which includes, Indian and Pakistani Punjab, Haryana,parts of Rajasthan,J&K, Delhi. It is here RAMYANA WAS ENACTED. if you believe ex Surveyor General of India, Mr Rajesh Kochar, AYODHYA was in AFGHANISTAN. Also, note VALMIKI'sAshram is in RAM TIRATH , Near Amritsar in Punjab. It is here he wrote Ramayan.
Sixthly, story of Ramayan could be a fictionalised story based on BATTLE OF TEN KINGS ( Actualy 13) as described in RIGVEDA.---- it might interest you to know that MANDODRI Ravna 's wife was from a village near modern JODHPUR--- then part of SAPTA SINDHU. One must read this BATTLE OF TEN KINGS---- also called DASJANYA SANGRAM---- I had written about it some time back. May be Balmiki called Ravna ---- TEN HEADED----representing these TEN KINGS.
Now let me say a word about ARYA. It is formed from two Sanskrit roots I.e, Ri and Aa---- Ri means COMMON and Aa means NOT SO Aa + Ri= NOT COMMON or a NOBLE PERSON. It was therefore certain that ARYA was not a race but a NOBLE PERSON, educated and dignified, Not necessarily he spoke Sanskrit---- like today's NRIs---- all might not be so efficient in English like second generation or third generation Indians in Spain and Denmark or even Gemany.
Seventhly, the natives of this region were NAGAS, who had a rich civilisation but natural calamities sent them looking for other lands---- Indian History is a case of MIGRANT POPULATIONS---- story of IMMIGRANTS----like USA today. Such a society is always, Flexible, tolerant, and forward developing. It is only when it gets ritualized that the decay begins ----- a low pressure is created and High pressure winds come in. No invasion but Migrations have characterized Indian ancient history.
Read Bhagwan S Gidwani RETURN OF THE ARYANS; Rajesh kochhar, VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA; NS Raja Ram and David Frawley , 10000 years OF INDIAN HISTORY and Dr Saravpalli Radhakrishanan , HINDU VIEW OF LIFE. Do not read DISCOVERY OF India by JL NEHRU--- which is out rightly a western view point. You can also read INTO INDIA ans HISTORY OF INDIA by a reputed and renowned British indologist, Mr. John Keay.
Do Not purely go by stuff posted on the internet through these isolated studies. There are many genetic studies which say different things.
Finally a word about SANSKRIT---- Panini did not create it--- it had preexisted---- he only refined the language----- and gave written script and grammar------ if you read Bhagwan Gidwani----- most of east European languages have Sanskrit words----- so is with Avestic Zelda if you read Rajesh kochhar. Therefore , there is an assumption, that Sanskrit might have been the base and NAGAS WOULD HAVE GONE THERE AS WANDERING GYPSIES.---- today they find ROMANIAN Gypsies have similarities to Indians -----
Thanks---- do read me entirely, ponder about before you answer me---- don,t be selective and pick up sentences as is the precedence of debate here----- see it holistically ----please take no offence---- I do apologise in advance, if anything I said is offensive.
Regards
Rajee.
No comments:
Post a Comment