<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vanara were a kind of monkey as described in Ramayana
and as confirmed by the Mahabharata (Hanuman's reappearance).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->nope. they were the bhils, the santals, the other tribes of central india. the fictional characters of the talking monkeys of the ramayana are modelled on them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vali had a tail with which he carried the frightened Ravana around.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->that has zero chance of being true whether the vanaras were austroasiatic men or monkeys !! the ramayan is NOT a piece of history, its a fable, of epic proportions.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hanuman turned his tail into a seat at Ravana's court. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->yeah right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop talking about things you don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->i know that such claims are made in the ramayan. i also know that they arnt to be taken literally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you the one who determines what is fiction from fact? The authors were not idiots to turn humans into monkeys and assign heroic feats to tails. Take it as fiction, but you don't get to decide which parts are fiction and which aren't.
Orang-Utan though literally Old Man of the Forest, still refers to apes. But, using your logic of what Vanara means, Orang-Utans ought to be some subset of Indonesian people. Geez. I suspect that the Vanara might be a humanoid species, who still had tails. Do the remains of the <b>newly discovered species <i>Homo Florensis</i> (not sure of spelling) in Indonesia</b> have any tails? They were much shorter than homo sapien sapiens. Just a few feet tall. But they dwelled in forests and I think I read that they had tree houses. If there remains of related creatures in the Indian subcontinent too, then our Vanara might be ancestors or cousin species to Homo Florensis, who might have had tails.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...oresiensis.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Brahmi???? The west says that Brahmi was developed in the Middle-East somewhere. <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->wrong. its of indian construct. middle eastern script and sanskritic script run in opposite directions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't tell me. Pick a fight with the researchers. Look up Brahmi in the Propaganda sites. Start with wikipedia or other online encyclopaedias. See how far you get with yelling to them in red.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so we got to learn from the chinese what is aryavarta and whats not?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong again. How surprising. They referred to Aryavarta as all of India, because at that time, Indians themselves referred to all of India as Aryavarta. Get it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong <i>again</i>. It's getting tedious. (I hope for your sake that you aren't always wrong).
Ireland, as any self-respecting Celt will tell you, comes from their historic-mythic character Eire or whatever. Their country Eireann (Ireland) is named after him. Has <i>nothing</i> whatsoever to do with Arya. Talk to some actual Celts about this. They'll tell you what they told me.
The Arya and Ireland connection is propaganda used only in white-supremacist sites.
and as confirmed by the Mahabharata (Hanuman's reappearance).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->nope. they were the bhils, the santals, the other tribes of central india. the fictional characters of the talking monkeys of the ramayana are modelled on them.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vali had a tail with which he carried the frightened Ravana around.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->that has zero chance of being true whether the vanaras were austroasiatic men or monkeys !! the ramayan is NOT a piece of history, its a fable, of epic proportions.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hanuman turned his tail into a seat at Ravana's court. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->yeah right.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop talking about things you don't know.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->i know that such claims are made in the ramayan. i also know that they arnt to be taken literally.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you the one who determines what is fiction from fact? The authors were not idiots to turn humans into monkeys and assign heroic feats to tails. Take it as fiction, but you don't get to decide which parts are fiction and which aren't.
Orang-Utan though literally Old Man of the Forest, still refers to apes. But, using your logic of what Vanara means, Orang-Utans ought to be some subset of Indonesian people. Geez. I suspect that the Vanara might be a humanoid species, who still had tails. Do the remains of the <b>newly discovered species <i>Homo Florensis</i> (not sure of spelling) in Indonesia</b> have any tails? They were much shorter than homo sapien sapiens. Just a few feet tall. But they dwelled in forests and I think I read that they had tree houses. If there remains of related creatures in the Indian subcontinent too, then our Vanara might be ancestors or cousin species to Homo Florensis, who might have had tails.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...oresiensis.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Brahmi???? The west says that Brahmi was developed in the Middle-East somewhere. <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->wrong. its of indian construct. middle eastern script and sanskritic script run in opposite directions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't tell me. Pick a fight with the researchers. Look up Brahmi in the Propaganda sites. Start with wikipedia or other online encyclopaedias. See how far you get with yelling to them in red.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so we got to learn from the chinese what is aryavarta and whats not?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wrong again. How surprising. They referred to Aryavarta as all of India, because at that time, Indians themselves referred to all of India as Aryavarta. Get it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong <i>again</i>. It's getting tedious. (I hope for your sake that you aren't always wrong).
Ireland, as any self-respecting Celt will tell you, comes from their historic-mythic character Eire or whatever. Their country Eireann (Ireland) is named after him. Has <i>nothing</i> whatsoever to do with Arya. Talk to some actual Celts about this. They'll tell you what they told me.
The Arya and Ireland connection is propaganda used only in white-supremacist sites.