05-12-2006, 01:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sroy+May 12 2006, 12:48 PM-->QUOTE(sroy @ May 12 2006, 12:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ben_ami is of course quick with his conclusions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i never in the least support or believe in the ait.
all i said was that hinduism was of north indian construct and was spread to the south.
. that the aryans, dravidians and austroasiatics differe so much in their language, features, customs etc that its very difficult to explain away so easily as the out-of-india types try to do claiming that indians were one homonegeous body of people.
so although AIT is all wrong, its innane to suggest that aryavartha extended all over india. thats not what the purans said. that we dont have 3 sets of people in india. its innane to say that all thats hindu was not written in north india in sanskrit. that iranians weren't indeed renegade indians/vedic people.
remember the connection with the celts (druids) germans, lithuanians etc IS VERY MUCH THERE. its just a question of whether the connection was due to a westward exodus (as we all believe) of an eastward exodus/invasion (as colonial AIT proponents believe). if the connections, religious as well as linguistic, were NOT there, neither of the AIT or its counter thesis would ever have been proposed in the first place.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i never in the least support or believe in the ait.
all i said was that hinduism was of north indian construct and was spread to the south.
. that the aryans, dravidians and austroasiatics differe so much in their language, features, customs etc that its very difficult to explain away so easily as the out-of-india types try to do claiming that indians were one homonegeous body of people.
so although AIT is all wrong, its innane to suggest that aryavartha extended all over india. thats not what the purans said. that we dont have 3 sets of people in india. its innane to say that all thats hindu was not written in north india in sanskrit. that iranians weren't indeed renegade indians/vedic people.
remember the connection with the celts (druids) germans, lithuanians etc IS VERY MUCH THERE. its just a question of whether the connection was due to a westward exodus (as we all believe) of an eastward exodus/invasion (as colonial AIT proponents believe). if the connections, religious as well as linguistic, were NOT there, neither of the AIT or its counter thesis would ever have been proposed in the first place.