Analysis Of Races Mentioned In The Rgveda

[Guest]

well the fact of the matter is that not only did those germanic barbarian brigades NOT produce all civilization, they in fact produced NO civilization.


but for greece and rome and then the later arab transferring of indian, chinese and persian knowledge to them, those krauts wouldnt hae known their arse from their elbow and would still be living in barks and skins (they are headed back the bark and "skin" way and ritual nude bathing is making a comeback)

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Dec 13 2005, 05:54 AM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 13 2005, 05:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The funny thing is these idiots claim there was an "Aryan" invasion from the north into every ancient nation including Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran and India. And it was these invaders who founded these civilizations by slaughtering the natives and establishing a caste system. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is indeed the case, what are these people doing to upkeep the "Purity" of their ancestral thought? When are they going to ditch the imposed Semitic thoughts and take pride in their self-claimed Aryan ancestral heritage? Do they have any plans on doing Sandhyavandanam and Agnihotram ? Are they aware of the benevolence Mitra and Varuna? How soon will they be Agni Worshippers? Any discussions on these lines in their so-called forum?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He then replied back saying he considers India a bigger threat to the west than the entire Islamic world combined, simply because Indians are intelligent and "arrogantly" proud of their culture and religion. Further they along with China are the only serious alternatives to western civilization.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mitradena, this is the same reason why (neo-)nazis hate Jewish people, whether still religious or just affiliated by ancestry. Jewish people are considered an extreme threat because of their intelligence.
By the way, it's good to know that that site is off your visiting list <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some fools even support an Aryan Invasion Theory for China and Japan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's true that they now have an AIT for China. The article "Hidden Discourses of Race: Imagining Europeans in China - By Nathan Light" (linked from the page on AIT at www.atributetohinduism.com) is located at http://homepages.utoledo.edu/nlight/uyghhst.htm

Blond mummies found in the region has made all the declared and non-declared 'Aryan' racists jump for joy for the supposed European presence there. However the author of the article makes it clear that this unlikely conclusion is a huge assumption on their part.

As for Japan, the original Jimon inhabitants supposedly had Caucasian features like their possible descendents Ainu purportedly have (whatever those features are: two eyes, a nose and a mouth, right? Check.) However, they can be related to the Native Americans too, who by fascist standards look pretty 'Caucasian' too.
Be that as it may, the Ainu were and still seem to be shamanistic. Although the Japanese religion of Shintoism is shamanistic too, the Ainu way of life still has nothing to do with the different cultural developments of the various Japanese Eras including the Feudal ones. The caste system of Japan, previously known as (if memory serves) 'the land of the 1000 castes', is not related to the Ainu either. So whether the latter were Caucasian or not is irrelevant, as Japan's fascinating society and achievements belong to the Japanese. (The Ainu have made their own contributions, but that's not the feudal culture.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They claim the modern day Greeks are not pure Nordic Whites and have mixed with various slave races. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, this is well-known slander. The AIT had huge repercussions not only for us Indians. I've read that Greeks hate it. At some point, especially during nazi time, the 'scientific' sphere was dominated by racial paradigms. They insisted that Greek civilisation in its entirety must have been derived from Germany. Maybe it was the highly athletic looking statues (but then, the many African communities look pretty athletic to me).
Especially the Doric tribe (of which Alexander III aka the Great was descended), which was declared a German tribe that had more recently moved in from the North. Which would work out well for the world-conquering notions of nazi-Germany: by aligning themselves with an actual success story, they thought they'd get greatness by association. Problem was, there's no association. Yes, Alexander and Helen of Sparta (Helen of Troy) and a few others were known for their fair hair. But this occurs among Greeks, perhaps a little more so in the past when there was less opportunity for the various Greek clans to meet and intermarry and reduce the occurrence of the recessive fair hair.
An especially vindictive book about the supposed German ancestry of all ancient Greeks of note and the supposedly 'diminished' Greeks of the present-day, was written by a German who'd never set foot in Greece! And yet that (non-scientific) book is still used as 'proof' for nazis agitating for a German cause for Greek civilisation.

It's no surprise that the Greeks (and Romans) were tainted by the reverse-blast of the AIT. After all, weren't the Zimbabweans denied the right to rejoice in their ancestors' marvellous capacity for building cities? Weren't Rwandans denied the ability with which they came up with their own complex socio-cultural system (much like the Indian one)? And yet these were all indigenous.
Likewise, it seems it's now the turn of China and Japan. Everyone deemed to have a civilization by the neo-nazi/colonial/racist standards, appear to be vulnerable to be robbed of their due credit. Hopefully both countries will look well at India and realise that they need to nip these lies in the bud right now. Anti-nationalism isn't the only problem to come out of this sort of thing, conversions to Christianity will be lurking just around the corner.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->well the fact of the matter is that not only did those germanic barbarian brigades NOT produce all civilization, they in fact produced NO civilization.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ben Ami,
Leaving aside the neo-nazis and the likes of their like-minded friend Vikram for the moment, what you've written isn't really true.

You see, the pre-Christian Germans did have a civilisation. They had large and impressive buildings, although I don't think it was really quite urban living like Aztec, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Iranian, Mayan, Roman, Zimbabwean, etc cities. They had their own way of life, were one with nature and until they became Vikings, were actually living in more harmony with their Saami* neighbours in Scandinavia than post-Christianity when the Saami were treated infernally. Even the Vikings were better compared to the Christians, as they had good relations with Jewish and Arabian people. They weren't racists by any stretch of the imagination, although they treated everyone somewhat roughly (they'd quickly make slaves out of members of their own village!) However they honoured friendship and valued keeping promises.
Although they hated Christians (selling the English and other European converts to Middle-Eastern Muslims!) - but considering that Christianity had attacked them in a horrid manner and killed millions of Germanic people before the Nordic tribes were considered for conversion, their dislike is hardly surprising.

The Celts seemed to have known writing but did not commit their knowledge to writing on purpose (the pluspoint being that their religious knowledge wasn't twisted like our Hindu scriptures, but the minus point is that no one now knows much of their beliefs). The Germanic tribes got their rune script from Etruscan and Latin and Greek alphabets. So, although their writing wasn't their own, they had their valuable good points as mentioned and that's enough to make the grade of civilisation in my book.

Their buildings and culture were horridly destroyed and mangled by the onslaught of Christianity (there really is no other term for it - millions of Germanic heathens were hacked to death - witness their terms for the Christians: Cretin and Bigot).
The Eddas, bits of their prose, were compiled by a Christian monk Snorri S. He had a soft spot for his ancient culture, but not enough to let the Norse Gods live eternally. Snorri, in his putting the Eddas into writing, killed off the Norse Gods, albeit in a heroic final battle.

Racism really was alien to Germanic/Nordic tribes (as it was to Greeks and Romans who had slaves but did not distinguish between fair and dark skin). Claiming/stealing other people's cultures was also unfamiliar to them. I have no choice but to chalk this misdevelopment up to the malign influences of Christianity. Like Islam introduced racism to the non-racist Arabians.


*The Saami are the people of Lappland, the Finno-Ugric shamanistic people, related to the Finnish, Siberians and many Estonians. Originally from Siberia and possibly Mongolia, they are distantly related to some Hungarians, and a little more distantly to the people of Turkestan (and Turkey). The Saami entired Scandinavia maybe 10,000 years ago. Their religions are very like North American Native religions and the Koreans and Japanese. (The Finnish shamanists claim a connection with the Koreans and Japanese).
Unsurprisingly, many Saami have light eyes and fair hair. Some still have some eastern features, but their appearance is very much adapted to their climate.

[Guest]

One final post in response.

Ben Ami, except for neo-nazis, the others aren't racist. Some non-racists still believe in the AIT, it is true, but I am sure that when it is truly disproven (as for some inexplicable reason I feel it will some day not too far off) they will easily let go of it.

Please don't insult them, they don't deserve it - direct your venom on the neo-nazis who do deserve it, if you feel the need to vent.

Many Northern-Europeans today come up for the rights of Jewish people now (a 180 degree turn from Nazism, probably back to their ancestral non-racist spirit), and there are a number of volunteer organisations in Germany and the rest of Europe that help Africans fight missionaries to retain indigenous African religions.

Also, Koenraad Elst in his article "Towards a real Hindu-Christian dialogue" states:
"Thus, in Germany (at least among natives, as opposed to the prolific Muslim immigrants), Buddhism is the fastest growing religion with some 300,000 practitioners."
If Germans were really uncivilised and incapable of noble thoughts and ideas (yes individuals can house these undesirable flaws, but even India has such mistakes of nature, that Vikram is a prime example) would Buddhism really be the religion that would attract many of them? Wouldn't Wahabi Islam or a return to the Inquisition-encouraging Christianity have suited barbarians better?


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunder: If this is indeed the case, what are these people doing to upkeep the "Purity" of their ancestral thought? When are they going to ditch the imposed Semitic thoughts and take pride in their self-claimed Aryan ancestral heritage? Do they have any plans on doing Sandhyavandanam and Agnihotram ? Are they aware of the benevolence Mitra and Varuna? How soon will they be Agni Worshippers? Any discussions on these lines in their so-called forum?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh no, please let those loonies on nazi websites not turn to Hindu Gods. For goodness sake no! Sunder, that's a really bad idea. Look what happened when that idiot Hitler called his symbol of death by the name of our glorious and good Swastika and took the word Aryan! Let the nazis worship their Christian God or whatever. Our Gods belong to people who aspire to do good to mankind, not to narrow-minded racists who have the potential to cause genocide a la their inspiration Hitler.

Also, our Vedic Gods aren't the Gods of Germanic people, never were (even if part of the AIT might imply some Vedic-sounding Gods for its invented proto-Aryans). It will make no sense for them to worship our intrinsically Hindu Indian Gods. For the Iranians it may make more sense, as they used to believe in Mitra, Varuna and the others before. But not for the Europeans, unless they feel drawn to Hinduism, that is.
(The Indo-European equivalents of Northern European Gods like Thor, Odin, etc. are their own, although it seems they were introduced from Asia, according to Koenraad Elst who quoted an Asatru* publication. Just like three quarters of their language, much of their religion, culture and some of their ancestry is Indo-European originating from 'somewhere' in Asia.)

Our Gods might not be right for them, but on the other hand, they could get something out of Dharma. The entire world could get a lot out of Dharma actually. Vikram might be a lost cause, though, having been born into a religion that gave him access to knowledge of it and it seems to have had no effect on him.

*Asatru is the religion of the Germanic/Norse people.


Also, we shouldn't focus on the evil people (like neo-nazis) by reading their idiot thoughts in their stupid forums and draw our conclusions about entire populations from them. Imagine if people met Vikram and thought he was a Hindu and judged the rest of us accordingly... Oh wait, Witzel and his pals already do that without having met Vikram. Guess Vikram is Witzel's sad imagination turned into unfortunate reality.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,
Leaving aside the neo-nazis and the likes of their like-minded friend Vikram for the moment, what you've written isn't really true.


it is.


You see, the pre-Christian Germans did have a civilisation.

nope. what ever little they knew is from the romans and from serving in the roman army. roman records would bear me out.


They had large and impressive buildings, although I don't think it was really quite urban living like Aztec, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Iranian, Mayan, Roman, Zimbabwean, etc cities.


forget cities, which germanic buliding goes back to b.c. (before clown) days eh ??
or did you mean some germanic equivalent of stonehenge?


They had their own way of life,

well who doesnt?? even zulus do.


were one with nature

yes ritual nude bathing was common amongst barbarians

and until they became Vikings, were actually living in more harmony with their Saami* neighbours in Scandinavia than post-Christianity when the Saami were treated infernally.

i know who the sami are. i have finnish friends (internet friend) who tell me about them. and how know how neophyte christians of europe treated the rest. think charlemagne. and yes when the germanics went to scandenavia from germany, the north wind made vikings out of them, if you know what i mean.


Even the Vikings were better compared to the Christians,

agreed.
as they had good relations with Jewish and Arabian people.
viking and jew relations??through what ?? e-mail ??


They weren't racists by any stretch of the imagination, although they treated everyone somewhat roughly (they'd quickly make slaves out of members of their own village!)
racism came with the rise of colonialism

However they honoured friendship and valued keeping promises.

most do. dont make them civilizations.


Although they hated Christians (selling the English and other European converts to Middle-Eastern Muslims!) - but considering that Christianity had attacked them in a horrid manner and killed millions of Germanic people before the Nordic tribes were considered for conversion, their dislike is hardly surprising.

yes the frankish king charlemagne on the saxons. and then all of them on the scandis. and them ALL of them on the celts.


The Celts seemed to have known writing but did not commit their knowledge to writing on purpose (the pluspoint being that their religious knowledge wasn't twisted like our Hindu scriptures, but the minus point is that no one now knows much of their beliefs).
they have druidism - and its academic traditions - to thank for that. if i know right, druid comes from druvid. dru means immerse. and vid = knowledge.

anyway even the celts, who are indeed less of barbarians than the germanics, didnt have a script. so much for civilization.



The Germanic tribes got their rune script from Etruscan and Latin and Greek alphabets.

script is only one of a million things they got from the greekoromans


So, although their writing wasn't their own, they had their valuable good points as mentioned and that's enough to make the grade of civilisation in my book.

oh well then the mandinka and the wolof make a great civilization in mine

Their buildings and culture were horridly destroyed and mangled by the onslaught of Christianity (there really is no other term for it - millions of Germanic heathens were hacked to death - witness their terms for the Christians: Cretin and Bigot).

which buildings pray?? which buliding befoe they knew the romans that is.



The Eddas, bits of their prose,
hallmark of a civilization isnt it?? little bits of prose??
its a surprise those deluded germanics dont call it an epic or something!!

were compiled by a Christian monk Snorri S.
lol. so even their prose came from outside and as late as x-ianity ??

He had a soft spot for his ancient culture,
he sure did try to make up for the missing germanic ancient culture by writting bits of prose, which inexplicably didnt get branded as epics <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->


but not enough to let the Norse Gods live eternally.
they still do. in 50 years no bermanic will remain christian.

Snorri, in his putting the Eddas into writing, killed off the Norse Gods, albeit in a heroic final battle.
aah, those good old missionary tricks !!


Racism really was alien to Germanic/Nordic tribes
as was civilization
(as it was to Greeks and Romans who had slaves but did not distinguish between fair and dark skin).
maybe but these 2 knew a thing or two of civilization


Claiming/stealing other people's cultures was also unfamiliar to them.
could be. but they sure did master the art of plagiarism later on.

I have no choice but to chalk this misdevelopment up to the malign influences of Christianity.
and the growing need to chuck their barbarian ways and learn a thing or two from the romans

Like Islam introduced racism to the non-racist Arabians.
the camel jockey arabs you mean??

*The Saami are the people of Lappland, the Finno-Ugric shamanistic people, related to the Finnish, Siberians and many Estonians. Originally from Siberia and possibly Mongolia, they are distantly related to some Hungarians, and a little more distantly to the people of Turkestan (and Turkey). The Saami entired Scandinavia maybe 10,000 years ago. Their religions are very like North American Native religions and the Koreans and Japanese. (The Finnish shamanists claim a connection with the Koreans and Japanese).

thanks i knew this though.

Unsurprisingly, many Saami have light eyes and fair hair.

the artic weather helps

Some still have some eastern features, but their appearance is very much adapted to their climate.
yep

One final post in response.

Ben Ami, except for neo-nazis, the others aren't racist.
maybe not, but they arnt the product of a civilization either, since civilization those germanic had not one

Some non-racists still believe in the AIT,

thats what we need to work on

it is true, but I am sure that when it is truly disproven (as for some inexplicable reason I feel it will some day not too far off) they will easily let go of it.
hopefully

Please don't insult them, they don't deserve it - direct your venom on the neo-nazis who do deserve it, if you feel the need to vent.
i cant call a spade a spade and declare that germanics did not have a script, and let alone a civilization, even if history says so?? bleh !!


Many Northern-Europeans today come up for the rights of Jewish people now (a 180 degree turn from Nazism, probably back to their ancestral non-racist spirit), and there are a number of volunteer organisations in Germany and the rest of Europe that help Africans fight missionaries to retain indigenous African religions.
its nice to know about this growing urge to make amends for past misdeeds.

Also, Koenraad Elst in his article "Towards a real Hindu-Christian dialogue" states:
"Thus, in Germany (at least among natives, as opposed to the prolific Muslim immigrants), Buddhism is the fastest growing religion with some 300,000 practitioners."
"if you hear the call of arcane lore
your world shall rest on earth no more"

nightwish - a finnish band



If Germans were really uncivilised and incapable of noble thoughts and ideas (yes individuals can house these undesirable flaws, but even India has such mistakes of nature, that Vikram is a prime example) would Buddhism really be the religion that would attract many of them?
opposites attract. read illusions by richard bach

Wouldn't Wahabi Islam or a return to the Inquisition-encouraging Christianity have suited barbarians better?
yes. they have left no stone unturned on that front. so now is the time for change of pacers

*Asatru is the religion of the Germanic/Norse people.
thanks i know.

now i have a question.


how come you know so much about the prechristian peoples of europe??
would you tell me the answer on here or better by mail.


and finally, it was pleasantly surprising to read your post.

one doesnt often find a person who knows about prechristian europe and
also feels that they WEREN'T barbarians

[Guest]

Ben Ami,
Thanks for your reply. When reading it I at times thought you hated me and not my post, but when I finished reading yours I was relieved to know it was my writing that you were aiming for after all. (Phew)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->how come you know so much about the prechristian peoples of europe??
would you tell me the answer on here or better by mail.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's just say that I was good at history when I lived for 10 years in North-Western Europe.
I'd known only good people when living there. They always treated me and others well, never made it difficult for me for being an Indian and for being a Hindu. So, maybe I'm just returning the favour by coming up for who they are.
I hate neo-nazis as much as the next person (and have vented a lot myself), but it's better to think of the good majority than the scary minority. It's also the reason why I don't believe the Jewish nation could have committed the many genocides detailed in the Old Testament. They are nothing like that today, so I don't think they were ever like that before. They don't force us to convert into believing in one God or anything, so I'm hoping the contents of the OT relating to the genocides have some non-literal meaning. But I'm no expert at all on Jewish history.

As for the Vikings being better than the Christians (you appear to know this very well already), this well-known fact is on painful display at www.jesusneverexisted.com. In particular such pages as http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/tribes.html for the Germans and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/britain.html for the Saxons. Ignorant when it comes to writing they may have been, but they were better-natured than their oppressors.

It is true that the Vikings (maybe not the pre-Viking Norse and German people) had good relations with the Arabians, although I am no longer as certain about contacts with Jewish people. I was sure I'd read it somewhere, but it could just be my imagination since I can't find it now <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I'll trust your knowledge on that part.
That mostly-fantasy film "The 13th warrior" based its premise on one historical fact at least: an Arabian joined in with Vikings for a while and wrote about them later when he returned to his lands. And the Germanic people did have impressive buildings (although some of their religious spots were mowed over to have churches built on top of the place - big surprise), they didn't have cities as I've said, but what they had in buildings was not a style adapted from the Romans or whoever. From hand-rendered pictures they looked to have been made from wood. Large boles of trees perhaps. Totally nothing like the Roman or Greek architecture. They weren't huts (not that huts are bad, if I can stay dry and warm in them I'll be happy in one), as they were much larger and had largish halls.
As is known the Vikings had ships, although their ships look a bit like old Russian ones, though in saying that, I don't know in which direction that innovation travelled.

In my opinion, I feel that the Zulus did have a civilisation. As I've indicated, I define the term differently from you, because I hate the dictionary definition which is demeaning to many ancient people like many African tribes and the Australian Aboriginals who've managed to co-exist with others. That's more civilised than people who enslave others, colonise others or discriminate. Whatever they had, it's obviously better than what they've been dealt now.

Don't you feel it is unHindu and dishonourable to our ancestors and to God to think badly of other people and believe them incapable of noble thoughts and evolving from where Christianity put them? I dislike America far more than Europe, because America hasn't learned from Europe's mistakes and wants to tread the same path. But I don't hate Americans, because most of them are very good and many are against Pax-Americana.
As Hindus we should see those aspects that we have in common with other people and try and identify the good. The reason we have heroes like Rama, Krishna and Arjuna is so we can learn to emulate them and better ourselves in the process. We must try to make our minds as great as theirs. The first step is to not waste time by polluting our minds with the bad (like reading the sick writings of neo-nazis and hoping to convince them to see their error). And when we see good, even if small or rare, we must value it - like when meeting other people or cultures in the world.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->yes ritual nude bathing was common amongst barbarians
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if that's a typo. I mean, I bathe everyday as if it's a ritual, I'm sure you and all Indians do too <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> like most cultures. And, like most people, it's easiest in the nude. If washing oneself in Indian rivers, one can wear simple loose clothes too.
Besides, bathing is better than the thought of those smelly colonials who didn't bathe at all and had to learn it from us colonised savages. So perhaps it's a sign that the 'barbarians' of Europe were more civilised than the colonials they later became (although that isn't hard to achieve).

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the camel jockey arabs you mean??
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on. Where's the good in arrogance? We sound like the British colonials by separating people into civilised and savage based not on mindset but on accomplishment. It's alien to us.
Pre-islamic Arabians were good, they had a lot in common with us especially when it came to accepting people of other religions - in spite of them being regularly attacked for conversion by Christians and even by some radical Jewish communities. I read this in Koenraad Elst's "De Islam voor ongelovigen" ("Islam for the Unbelievers"). If you or anyone else wants me to translate parts of it, I will. It's got some really interesting bits in there.
Like Ali Sina and Koenraad Elst say, one can dislike the ideology, but there's no reason for us to dislike the people under its spell. Ali Sina goes one further and refers to Muslims as patients afflicted by the religion of Islam, who others must help by curing them of the disease. Sounds quite acceptable to me. It's good to have compassion for them even while we avoid being hurt by their ideology which often drives them to violence. After all, had fate been less kind to our ancestors we might also have ended up being Muslim. Worrying thought.

I have some questions for you, if they aren't too personal.
What does your name mean? Is it Indian, is it Hindu? I don't mean the question to be offensive, I am merely curious - remember that it's none of my business so you don't need to answer at all. I think that Ben is something like 'daughter of' in Gujarati (similar to Bent in Arabic with the same meaning, while Bin in Arabic and Ben in Hebrew stand for 'son of').

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->anyway even the celts, ... , didnt have a script.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this known for a fact? I thought they were still speculating on the possibility of them having had a script. Oh, well. The Celts are still more civilised than those who murdered the millions of Native Americans over the entire continent and ended so many world cultures.

[Guest]

Mitradena:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is fairly obvious that Aaryaavarta lies within India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, no doubt that Aryavarta is inside India. However, Airyana is the proper name of Iran. It means the same thing. And the Iranian inscription of King Darius (don't know which Darius he was) states that he is "Parshya, Parshya Putra; Arya Arya Chitra" meaning "Parshu/Persian, son of a Parshu; Noble, from a noble family".
We share the word Arya in its meaning as Noble (not as the modern European idea of its meaning as race) with the Iranians.

But don't be disheartened, the Persian scriptures indicate that the original homeland of Iranians is to the east of Iran. And our scriptures (the Rg Veda and Puranas) indicate that the Parshus, Parthas, Pashtuns, the Baluchis - in short all the major Iranian and Afghan tribes who were related to our own Pauravas (Puru tribe), as well as the Iranian Dasas, Dasyus and Panis - are from India and emigrated into the west. They went to Afghanistan. Iran was populated only after Afghanistan, even according to the Persian records. Zoroastrianism was founded in Afghanistan in Balkh.

See http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch46.htm
4.6. MEMORY OF THE URHEIMAT (Koenraad Elst)

And the page at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...icevidence.html
mentions how the Dasas, Dasyus and Panis were Iranian tribes and not some figment of AIT's imagination called 'Dravidians'.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So all the white Europoid tribes like Yavanas (Greeks), Parthavas (Parthians), Pahlavas (an Iranian tribe) and red haired Scythians and Tocharians are all barbarians unfit to be called Aryan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone who is noble spirited can be called Arya. Some Chinese were called Arya by our ancestors. I think our ancestors know better as to when the term applies.
But I agree, anyone who thinks Arya is a race, is automatically headed towards anarya. So that includes any people you mentioned if they claim to be of some Aryan race.
By the way, the Iranian tribes are actually closer to us than they are to others. In the past, they were also culturally and religiously closer to us.

[Guest]

Let's just say that I was good at history when I lived for 10 years in North-Western Europe.

i suspected as much. either that or married to a westerner or both. in any case there was a touch of the "first hand" in your post.

I'd known only good people when living there.
i know other indians who have the same story to say.

They always treated me and others well, never made it difficult for me for being an Indian and for being a Hindu. So, maybe I'm just returning the favour by coming up for who they are. nothing wrong in that. and yes, most westerners with substance do like india and hindus.

I hate neo-nazis as much as the next person (and have vented a lot myself), but it's better to think of the good majority than the scary minority.
its bad news that the whole west is not made of neo-nazis. wish it were - cos those dipshits dont contribute to the economy. with every westerner who becomes a skinhead - and know a lot of them skinheads including inraeli "observer agent" skinheads, anyway, becomes a skinhead instead of a doctor, engineer of manager, the west loses out on that much and we catch up that bit.



It's also the reason why I don't believe the Jewish nation could have committed the many genocides detailed in the Old Testament.
if you know anything, thats just tribal history. maybe a dozen people were killed - but to get the people to follow the leader it had to be magnified. even their so called king david's empire wasnt more than just a tribal outpost.

so yes, the jews only commited a fraction of the genocides mentioned in the ot.

They are nothing like that today, so I don't think they were ever like that before.
lol yes. they are the ones who orchestrate the world.

They don't force us to convert into believing in one God or anything, so I'm hoping the contents of the OT relating to the genocides have some non-literal meaning.
yes they do have non literal meanings.
and jews are nice people - they leave othrers well alone.

But I'm no expert at all on Jewish history.
join the club.

As for the Vikings being better than the Christians (you appear to know this very well already), this well-known fact is on painful display at www.jesusneverexisted.com. In particular such pages as http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/tribes.html for the Germans and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/britain.html for the Saxons. Ignorant when it comes to writing they may have been, but they were better-natured than their oppressors. sure they were better natured. dont mean they had flourishing civilizations.


It is true that the Vikings (maybe not the pre-Viking Norse and German people) had good relations with the Arabians, although I am no longer as certain about contacts with Jewish people.
can you substantiate that the vikings had relations with arabs?? or did you mean with phoenecians?

I was sure I'd read it somewhere, but it could just be my imagination since I can't find it now unsure.gif . I'll trust your knowledge on that part.
to the best of my knowledge thevikings had nothing to do with arabs, even less jews.


That mostly-fantasy film "The 13th warrior" based its premise on one historical fact at least: an Arabian joined in with Vikings for a while and wrote about them later when he returned to his lands.

AN arabian joined eh ?? hahaha, the fog lifts !!

And the Germanic people did have impressive buildings (although some of their religious spots were mowed over to have churches built on top of the place - big surprise),
yes most of the churches in scandi are actually viking places of worship. but scandi fell to X-ians in about 1000 ad-ish.

i asked you for before clown (b.c.) buildings and cities and literature and music from non greekoroman europe.


they didn't have cities as I've said,
exactly. thdt didnt have cities. which puts paid to them having a civilization.

but what they had in buildings was not a style adapted from the Romans or whoever.
igloos?


From hand-rendered pictures they looked to have been made from wood.
log-hut civilizations?

Large boles of trees perhaps. there you go - tree civilizations?? monkeys would appreciate


Totally nothing like the Roman or Greek architecture.

good. so why even debate with me when you know this all along??

They weren't huts (not that huts are bad, if I can stay dry and warm in them I'll be happy in one), as they were much larger and had largish halls.

which does make them better than the mndinka (or maybe not even that), but still they never had music, literature or hell, even script, and NO cities. hence no civilization.

As is known the Vikings had ships, although their ships look a bit like old Russian ones,
hahaha. the "rus"- from where the name russia comes, are genetically part nordic and part slavic.

its the russian ships that look like the viking ones, and no wonder.

though in saying that, I don't know in which direction that innovation travelled.
south from scandi.

In my opinion, I feel that the Zulus did have a civilisation.
zulu pyramids?? zulu legend of osiris??

As I've indicated, I define the term differently from you, because I hate the dictionary definition which is demeaning to many ancient people like many African tribes and the Australian Aboriginals who've managed to co-exist with others.
well its not to be demeaning to anyone that we say so and so had a civilization and so and so ddnt.
its jut to call a spade a spade.

if existing means to have a civilization - then even oragotangs do.

if having cities, trade, archetecture, music, dance, literature, etc are the yardsticks - then only about a dozen peoples make it.


That's more civilised than people who enslave others, colonise others or discriminate.
yes its less barbaric. which is why i maintain that the germanics are barbarians identically.

Whatever they had, it's obviously better than what they've been dealt now.
yes. the colonials hvent treated them well.

Don't you feel it is unHindu and dishonourable to our ancestors and to God to think badly of other people and believe them incapable of noble thoughts and evolving from where Christianity put them?
we should play every ball on merit and call a spade a spade.
if barbarians they are then barbarians we call them.

I dislike America far more than Europe, because America hasn't learned from Europe's mistakes and wants to tread the same path.
i like usa a lot moe than europe cos americans are not like europeans and dont have the master race colonial mentality of europe. they, at least in the 2 coasts, are sporting and judge people on their ability and not colour.

most importantly they helped us with aid, when the europeans had left us to rot and die. so i dont have anything against usa (except that it was formed on the back of a genocide)

But I don't hate Americans, because most of them are very good and many are against Pax-Americana.
ok

As Hindus we should see those aspects that we have in common with other people and try and identify the good. The reason we have heroes like Rama, Krishna and Arjuna is so we can learn to emulate them and better ourselves in the process. We must try to make our minds as great as theirs. The first step is to not waste time by polluting our minds with the bad (like reading the sick writings of neo-nazis and hoping to convince them to see their error). And when we see good, even if small or rare, we must value it - like when meeting other people or cultures in the world.
fine, but whle doing all that we sould take care not to become too nice. we were too nice in th past - pritviraj chouhan released that b@st@rd many times and then had to pay the price.

we should treat peoples on merit - stick for neonazis and smiles for east coast intellectuals.


I'm not sure if that's a typo.

not so much a typo as an ommission.
i meant ritual group bathing. those germanics have a tradition of ritual group bathing in the buff.
I mean, I bathe everyday as if it's a ritual,
alone i am sure. and not in a river.

I'm sure you and all Indians do too smile.gif like most cultures.
all indians do yes, most in european cultures bathing was a big taboo.
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Glimpses_V.htm
about 1/5th from the top.

And, like most people, it's easiest in the nude. haha many things are easiest in the nude.


If washing oneself in Indian rivers, one can wear simple loose clothes too.
yes. those germans dont/didnt wear that even.

Besides, bathing is better than the thought of those smelly colonials who didn't bathe at all and had to learn it from us colonised savages.
frankly i am far better off with those colonials not bathing like before. would have given us a lot to laugh about.

So perhaps it's a sign that the 'barbarians' of Europe were more civilised than the colonials they later became (although that isn't hard to achieve).
so bathing is the yardstick??
i bathe, therefore i am ?


Come on. Where's the good in arrogance? We sound like the British colonials by separating people into civilised and savage based not on mindset but on accomplishment. It's alien to us.

i cant call a camel jockey by as much??
i dont want to get banned, so i wont tell you explicitly, what i think of them.
there exists an a+b=c, relationship between arabs, negroes and camels, not in tht order.

Pre-islamic Arabians were good, they had a lot in common with us especially when it came to accepting people of other religions - in spite of them being regularly attacked for conversion by Christians and even by some radical Jewish communities.
yes. religious ruthlessness came with secondary semetism i-slam and x-ianity. unless you take the hammering of the canaanites into account.

I read this in Koenraad Elst's "De Islam voor ongelovigen" ("Islam for the Unbelievers"). If you or anyone else wants me to translate parts of it, I will. It's got some really interesting bits in there.
yes please do. and congrats for knowing the roughest language in europe.


Like Ali Sina and Koenraad Elst say, one can dislike the ideology, but there's no reason for us to dislike the people under its spell.
the people under its spell have often taken the ideology a notch higher.

one just has to look at the peoples who fell under the spell - afghans, uzbegs, turks, huns, and the arabs themselves- apart from iranians and iraqis, none of these had even a semplence of civilization and were cut-throat barbarins for the most part. turks - the seljuk and then the ottoman, were an army nation.

Ali Sina goes one further and refers to Muslims as patients afflicted by the religion of Islam, who others must help by curing them of the disease.
oh stop being utopian.
its not for us to bail them out. they can remaini-slammic for all i care just as long as they dont mess with us...er., anymore.

Sounds quite acceptable to me. It's good to have compassion for them even while we avoid being hurt by their ideology which often drives them to violence.
nope. see - thats the problem with indians. we are too nice.
they dod what they did to us fr 700 years and we still manage to have a softcorner for those murderers.

damn, just damn.

you want to race with rats, beome one. give them as good as we get. godhra was a great episode in indian history. we made them pay in kind. and thats wonderful.

stop being utopian.
speaking as we are of civilizations, here's a saying from one of the oldest of them all - i have used it b4 too on this forum.

"its a wise man who doesnt get angry.
its a stupid man who cant get angry"
- chineese proverb.

After all, had fate been less kind to our ancestors we might also have ended up being Muslim. Worrying thought.
afterall had fate been more kind with us we may have produced a bismark in the nick of time who'd unite the rajputs, th marathas and even the ahom (assamese) and we could have kept the menace away.

I have some questions for you, if they aren't too personal.
What does your name mean? Is it Indian, is it Hindu?
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...topic=151&st=90
post 106 onwards.


I don't mean the question to be offensive, I am merely curious - remember that it's none of my business so you don't need to answer at all.
well i did. you didnt answer mine though (from my previous reply)

I think that Ben is something like 'daughter of' in Gujarati (similar to Bent in Arabic with the same meaning, while Bin in Arabic and Ben in Hebrew stand for 'son of').
aye. thats the one, the hebrew meaning.


Is this known for a fact?
what is known fora fact is that they use roman alphabet and only that. i have to confirm this wronm wicca/witch friends.

I thought they were still speculating on the possibility of them having had a script.
yes and that would make them only inches above the germanics in so far as having a civilization is concerned, not make them like the greeks and indians.

Oh, well. The Celts are still more civilised than those who murdered the millions of Native Americans over the entire continent and ended so many world cultures.
yes and no.

the celts are indeed better than the germanics and less barbarian. through out their history the celts have been getting stick from germanic peoples. there were only 2 instances when the celts were millitarily more important than the gemanics - during roman times when the celts formed the bulk of the roman army (thats before romans teamed up with germanics). before i name the othr instance i need to point something out - which i am sue you know.

the celts are colonisers too. the french are 90% celts. sure they had the normans - from norse-men, and sure france gets its name from the germanic (so far i know there are 2 types of germanics - the germanii and the alemanii) frankish kings. the franks were a germanic people of the alemanii kind. which is why the french call the germans "ALEMAGNE", which is pronounced alemanii, cos thats the way romancs languages are pronounced. bologna. charlemagne/charlemanii was frankish.

anyway, though the celts - not selts - the kelts - cos it cvomes from th greek word keltoi, though the celts were less barbarian than the germanics they certainly were no civilizations. just had a druidic tradition.
and though they werent the ruthless colonials the germanic anglosaxons, dutch and the flemish belgians were, they certainly were not good samaritans. one only has to look at france's colonial crimes and the number of irish people in usa, living off the lands of the red indians.

the only other instance when the celts were stronger than the germanics - was under the little corporal.
charlemagne hammering the saxons dont count, cos he himself was a frankish germanic of the alemanii kind.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Nov 21 2004, 08:58 PM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Nov 21 2004, 08:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
I want to hear the reasons why they think they came up with the Rg in the first place.Never mind that there is not a single European who can do a half decent job of chanting the RG. Even MaxMueller with all his alleged knowledge of Samskrtam purportedly could not decipher a sloka when it was chanted by his Hindu visitor in his own office.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is absolutely true.

No "Sanskrit scholar" of Europe has ever been able to pronounce a single samskrta word correctly.

I have seen Whites studying Samskrtam with me, struggle to even say "Raama" correctly.

Samskrtam has 16 vowels, more than any other language on Earth.
Its grammar is precisely defined and the pronunciation of its words is defined

accurately.



In additiont to Sanskrit Malayalam too has 16 to my knowledge.
Ravi

Whites cannot even pronounce Indian names correctly. This fact alone speaks volumes about their claims on the Rgveda.
[right][snapback]22652[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>NO NUMBER IN YOUR ID. EMAIL MODS TO CHANGE USER NAME</b></span>

[Guest]

The problem is that Roman script allows only 5 symbols for vowels (a, e, i, o, u).

But if you listen to any one speaking english they actually use a much larger number of vowels while speaking. Remember that a vowel is pronounced when the mouth is put in a certain unchanging configuration with toungue not touching any parts of the vocal cavity and with vocal cords sounding. All those sounds can be called vowels.

Since in practice english speakers end up using a large number of vowels, while using only 5 script symbols to write them, their eye to ear and eye to mouth correlations get thoroughly corrupted.

When they read Sanskrit vowels they can't keep the discipline of pronouncing it the same all the time as it is supposed to be. They start modifying it unconsciously as they would do while speaking english.

Very few people get over this corruption of their toungues. Those who learn phonetics and are particular about it do best.

[Guest]

yes in english, the same vowel often has more than one pronunciation.

english is one gobbledigook language with crappy grammar and a zillion exceptions.


very barbarian.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,
No, I'm not married to anyone European.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Large boles of trees perhaps<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't mean they <i>lived</i> in boles of trees. I meant that that's what the material they used in building the walls of their halls looked like in the pictures.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you didnt answer mine though (from my previous reply)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already answered your question on how I knew anything about the preChristian peoples of Europe. So are you referring to your question about the earliest date of the buildings of Germanic people? As in:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i asked you for before clown (b.c.) buildings and cities and literature and music from non greekoroman europe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have none. Except for the French Revolution, WWI, WWII, I haven't memorised any dates in European history.
I didn't mean to imply that their buildings must have been BCE (I have no idea if they were BCE or CE), all I meant to say was that they did have large buildings whose appearance don't look to have had any Greek or Roman influences or to have used their construction methods.
They couldn't write, so no literature. But they did pass down stories and songs (until this too was cut off by Christianity). What's wrong with that? It's the same as Africans and Native Americans and others did, their way of retaining their cultural and religious history.

It's colonial thinking to demarcate along the lines of civilised and uncivilised. But I'm repeating myself.

I really don't see what's so great about many well-known 'civilizations', and why they should be proof of great minds. The Greek (eg. Sparta) and especially Roman civilisations took many slaves. Rome was built on slavery. Yes they weren't racists, but they caused misery to non-Romans. Egypt had slaves too. Persia, though said not to have slaves, did take over other lands and impose their rule. (I do not know enough about Aztecs, Mayans and Incans to comment, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.)
The use of slaves doesn't attest to a great mind. Great minds are those that accomplish things without hurting others, ones that do good for the whole world, that are not restricted solely to thoughts of one's own country, but wish to bring help all the world world for all times.

Hindu and possibly Chinese civilisation come off the best in my opinion of the ones I know. Hindu thought and culture passed to South-East Asia not because it was imposed on others, but because others chose to adopt it.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,
You've had only negative things to say about Europeans and have heaped greater offenses on Africans and Arabians through the implication of that stupid equation and language usage. By the way, the British called us negroes too (probably before they invented the AIT and were forced to find some sort of connection between us and Europeans instead).
The stereotyping on your part is dragging you down to the level of being exactly what you accuse the Europeans of: racism. You're better than this.
If you're a Hindu, then you probably believe in reincarnation. There is no law that says you always were and always will be born as an Indian or even Hindu. So arrogance on being Indian is unjustified in the face of Hindu beliefs. Unless you let go of it, chances are pretty likely that in your next life, God will give you a chance to experience being that which you now dislike, to gain a better understanding of another side.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->oh stop being utopian.
its not for us to bail them out. they can remaini-slammic for all i care just as long as they dont mess with us...er., anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If not us (bailing them out) who will? I'm not saying give them Hinduism, it will be alien to Arabians. But giving them back who they were is a good thing.

If you insist on thinking only about the welfare of our own people, then think of the Afghan women. Think of the Muslim men of Indian ethnicity (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc) who go through life fearing being roasted in Islamic hell for any accidental transgression. How can we be happy when others are suffering? Extend this to all the world. Anywhere where people are oppressed by communism, narrow-minded religions or general suffering - the people at least deserve our compassion, even if we can't really do much or even anything for them. There is no Hinduism without realising the oneness of humanity, and in fact of all life. You call it utopian, but this is what our ancestors believed. Being happy and proud to be Hindu is to live as a Hindu and act according to dharma. We can uphold our beliefs without trampling all over others by insulting entire swathes of humanity.

I never implied that we should let Islam or other detrimental powers run over us. But that we should not respond with the same clouded judgement and angry minds. If there are other methods we can utilise to get them back into a peaceful lifestyle, we have to exhaust them all first. As ex-Muslim Iranian Zoroastrians often say: the best revenge on the Islam that eclipsed who they were is to get all Iranians back and move on by leaving the Islamic years behind. Likewise, I'd like all of Indian origin back into some Indian religion. For the world, I'd like everyone back to any peaceful aspects of their pre-Islamic, pre-Christian beliefs.

I've known ex-Muslim Hindus who are far more Hindu than some who comment here, including even some of your comments (about it not being up to us to bail others out... etc).
How are we better than anyone else? We're only as good as our thoughts. With impure thoughts leading to impure actions, we allow ourselves to become impure. We have to at least try and live up to our ancestors, if we want to take any credit for what they were as people. None of their other accomplishments compare to their greatness of mind, which was the cause of everything they were able to create. So we need to develop that mindset first. And to do that, we need to recognise all that is good in the world, not just in India.

Our ancestors knew that all communities of the world had good in them, that individuals of all backgrounds can be inspired by good thoughts. This fact has not changed over the millennia, so to think that we are special in any way is sheer stupidity. There is nothing genetically unique about us that makes us more capable of positive thinking. An easy example: Indians with Hindu ancestry who are Muslim or Christian now. They are still Indian, but because they are limited in their thinking by religious fears and religious rules, they are unable to be more accepting of others.

I guess I've been influenced by my parents and grandparents who grew up in Hindu villages and just kept to their way of life. I'm not used to thinking about globalisation as the solution for India, and about competing with western countries by imitating them. Indian civilisation worked entirely differently, our solutions to problems were uniquely our own.
Our only way of ever becoming a prosperous and well-rounded nation/civilisation again is to do it our way, the only way for us, by always (trying to) acting according to dharma. Otherwise, like present-day China, we'll be headed to become a clone of the US and western countries, having left who we are behind us. If we ever achieve it, we'll become the US in all but name. And we'll be more miserable than ever.

Perhaps you should talk to your grandparents, and learn from them what God means to us in Hinduism. If they are anything like my grandparents, they will teach you how important everyone's happiness in the world is to their own. Here's something my brother had given me on what a Hindu is: "The Song of the Hindu" by Bharat at http://www.atributetohinduism.com/quotes161_180.htm.


About the US. They have many nazis working there. In powerful positions. I don't doubt you already know this but it's worth reiterating. After WWII, the US hired many war criminals. Some in the US defense and intelligence departments are (or were until recent times) actually nazis who'd changed their German names to English ones. See http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJu...dAmericans.html

Also, many of the Ustashe (Croatian Nazis, Catholic*) who had genocided the Orthodox Serbians along with Jewish and Romany people were given a place in the US, whilst others were helped by the Vatican to escape to the UK, Australia, South America.

*many of them monks and at least two Ustashe bishops were beatified by the previous Pope.

[Guest]

load of bollocks !!

i dont want to interect with someone who thinks that the germanics wernt barbarians - though they clearly were - cos they had nothing save barks and skins.

i also dont want to interact with anyone who thinks its the duty of hindus to teach those barbarians love and compassion and make them less bloodthirsty. cant they figure anything out on their own?? i know they knew numbers from us, and astronomy from us and medicine from greeks and so on.

you are just utopian. are you marxist by any chance?? you sounded very romilla thaparish, in the last 2 posts after having had all your arguements crucified.

do you know what homi jahangir bhaba had said to raja ramanna regarding india's effort to get nuclear weapons??
now thats a pragmatic man - homi bhaba.

[Guest]

-- I've taken this down.
I'll write to the author to request permission for putting up the translation, and put it back up here if he okays it.

[Guest]

-- I've taken this down.
I'll write to the author to request permission for putting up the translation, and put it back up here if he okays it.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i dont want to interect with someone who <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's entirely your choice, but finish reading this reply first (especially the last section).

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->with someone who thinks that the germanics wernt barbarians - though they clearly were - cos they had nothing save barks and skins.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Repeat: civilisation has a different meaning to me. Any people who can live in relative harmony with others is civilised (though I do do comparisons: e.g. Vikings more civilised than Christians). Slavery isn't civilised. Nazism isn't. And neither is a trigger happy finger.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i know they knew numbers from us, and astronomy from us and medicine from greeks and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Some of the Greek medicine is from us too. We independently came up with a LOT of maths as well (not just the numbers) - the Arabians got their maths from us. Their chemistry they learnt largely from the Chinese, though we had developed our own chemistry too and some of this passed into Arabia as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you are just utopian. are you marxist by any chance?? you sounded very romilla thaparish, in the last 2 posts after having had all your arguements crucified.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I wouldn't be a marxist=communist=terrorist if they paid me by the truckloads for it. Concerning Romila Thapar, I doubt she has any brains. Let alone her being capable of saying anything Hindu.
As for being utopian: we are Hindus, we want to create a better world for all. We're not pacificists. But we don't wage wars until we've exhausted all other opportunities. To do otherwise is adharma.

And what I am? I'm a mother with a very young child. I know others have children too. And I'd like all of us in the world, including all following generations, to survive until we meet a peaceful, natural death. There are enough natural disasters, we don't need to go looking for catastrophies. Defense is fine, but we have to do all according to dharma.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->do you know what homi jahangir bhaba had said to raja ramanna regarding india's effort to get nuclear weapons??
now thats a pragmatic man - homi bhaba. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've no idea what he said. However, I'm all for India having the nuclear weapons - holding it as a threat so that Pakistan doesn't think of trying anything. However, I do not want us to ever use it, same as most Indians.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i also dont want to interact with anyone who thinks its the duty of hindus to teach those barbarians love and compassion and make them less bloodthirsty. cant they figure anything out on their own??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am glad you love India=Hinduism so much that you want it to be safe, but channel that into a positive warrior-spirit: I suggest you read Sri Aurobindo to find out what makes a nationalist Kshatriya. See his work "India's Rebirth" at http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_frontpage.htm, especially the chapter "Revolutionary Writings" at http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_part1.htm
Look for occurrences of "dharma" on this page, in particular the entry for "April 14, 1908" where Sri Aurobindo talks about Europe and the entry for "May 30, 1909" when he speaks of how India will rise - his famous Uttarpara Speech.

You will love reading his stuff and learn at the same time. When you read his work, you will be on your way to becoming a true Hindu Kshatriya: one who is willing to fight for dharma, for truth, for a better world.

[Guest]

Ben ami,

If you don't wish to interact, please refrain from posting.

Note to All moderators: Posts not relevant to the thread topic or cryptic one-liners should be deleted immediately.