#
#
Vedic Culture?
Mr. David Frawley stated that the Indus Culture is a Vedic culture, but I think this is wrong. Vedic civilization according to the Vedas has the horse as the central point around which the culture existed. Without the horse, the Vedic people could not have reached India. Horse sacrifices would not have been possible, there would not have been a religious pantheon consisting of horses. If nothing else , the worshipping and grooming of horses was the central point of Aryan life as illustrated in other IE religion and culture in different parts of the world. Would Dr. Frawley kindly explain why Vedic astrology has the symbol of the horse and the Indus astrology do not have it?<b> The horse and chariot are so far the strongest symbols of Vedic civilization which distinguishes its difference from the indigenous Indus civilization, which he and others are trying to paint over as Vedic. This is absurd. However, others may not like it , there are TWO Indias, one fair and white skinned and the other dark skinned. If supposing for one moment, all the people of India are indigenous, then all of them should be dark skinned , being thousands of years exposed to the sun in a tropical climate. How come half is white skinned and the other is dark skinned? It surely seems that genetics have played a part in determining the skin color of the people of India as every country in the world. </b>There seems to have been an infusion of foreign genetics sometime in its past. According to the geneticist and anthropologist Spencer Wells, there has been in the past the influx of European genes into India and this has been traced to Southern Russia. I guess this is the stuff that proponents of âAryan Indiaâ like Dr. Frawley and others do not like to read or hear about.
Comment by Juven Bachan | June 19, 2008
#
#
Shantanu you nailed it spot on with your summation - there is actually no dichotomy between the so called Aryan or Dravidian civilisations which has become a pet topic for several self confessed historians.<b>
The more rabid and shriller the comment the more these historians shoot into limelight.
The focus seems to be the same. Run down and defame anything that might point to a glorious Hindu Rashtra in the past.
I am reminded of a docuumentary which i watched on BBC a couple of years back. It went on to say India was dominated by warrior tribes and uncivilised nomads who had no sense of culture or arts till the Mughal invasion. The documentary went on to add that the culture we have in India today is only because of the Mughal Invasion and without the Mughals India wudnt have had the Taj Mahal and we would have been a rotting landd of beggars and snake charmers.</b>
Such myopic versions of history might sound very worthy for people in the paylist of Saudi paymasters or Evangelical Historians based outside India. But anyone with a slight modicum of History Knowledge would not even stoop to reply to such fanciful assumptions, let alone credit it by indulging in a meaningful debate.
Maybe people in BBC thi9nk Taj Mahal is the only building of architectural value. But they fail to understand that the Brihadeeshwarar Temple of Tanjavoor and Chidambaram Natarajar Temple were built several hundreds of years before the mughal set foot on India and they still remain architectural marvels.
Nevilles biased historical assesment is yet another âpolitically correctâ study which seems to know all about India and its past. The less said about his work thew better.
And given the fact how hostile people are to differing views on the Aryan Civilisation and its several facets, I think Shantanu has been more than accomodating regarding Nevilles viewpoint. If he feels he wudnt be contributing to this website because Shantanu called his bluff then the website would actually be better off.
We have read several concocted versions of Aryan history none of all can claim they are right and the others are wrong. Thats the funny part of history isnt it? Poeple want to beleive what they think is right.
Good job Shantanu and keep the good stuff rollingâ¦.
Comment by drsurya | April 29, 2007
#
Vedic Culture?
Mr. David Frawley stated that the Indus Culture is a Vedic culture, but I think this is wrong. Vedic civilization according to the Vedas has the horse as the central point around which the culture existed. Without the horse, the Vedic people could not have reached India. Horse sacrifices would not have been possible, there would not have been a religious pantheon consisting of horses. If nothing else , the worshipping and grooming of horses was the central point of Aryan life as illustrated in other IE religion and culture in different parts of the world. Would Dr. Frawley kindly explain why Vedic astrology has the symbol of the horse and the Indus astrology do not have it?<b> The horse and chariot are so far the strongest symbols of Vedic civilization which distinguishes its difference from the indigenous Indus civilization, which he and others are trying to paint over as Vedic. This is absurd. However, others may not like it , there are TWO Indias, one fair and white skinned and the other dark skinned. If supposing for one moment, all the people of India are indigenous, then all of them should be dark skinned , being thousands of years exposed to the sun in a tropical climate. How come half is white skinned and the other is dark skinned? It surely seems that genetics have played a part in determining the skin color of the people of India as every country in the world. </b>There seems to have been an infusion of foreign genetics sometime in its past. According to the geneticist and anthropologist Spencer Wells, there has been in the past the influx of European genes into India and this has been traced to Southern Russia. I guess this is the stuff that proponents of âAryan Indiaâ like Dr. Frawley and others do not like to read or hear about.
Comment by Juven Bachan | June 19, 2008
#
#
Shantanu you nailed it spot on with your summation - there is actually no dichotomy between the so called Aryan or Dravidian civilisations which has become a pet topic for several self confessed historians.<b>
The more rabid and shriller the comment the more these historians shoot into limelight.
The focus seems to be the same. Run down and defame anything that might point to a glorious Hindu Rashtra in the past.
I am reminded of a docuumentary which i watched on BBC a couple of years back. It went on to say India was dominated by warrior tribes and uncivilised nomads who had no sense of culture or arts till the Mughal invasion. The documentary went on to add that the culture we have in India today is only because of the Mughal Invasion and without the Mughals India wudnt have had the Taj Mahal and we would have been a rotting landd of beggars and snake charmers.</b>
Such myopic versions of history might sound very worthy for people in the paylist of Saudi paymasters or Evangelical Historians based outside India. But anyone with a slight modicum of History Knowledge would not even stoop to reply to such fanciful assumptions, let alone credit it by indulging in a meaningful debate.
Maybe people in BBC thi9nk Taj Mahal is the only building of architectural value. But they fail to understand that the Brihadeeshwarar Temple of Tanjavoor and Chidambaram Natarajar Temple were built several hundreds of years before the mughal set foot on India and they still remain architectural marvels.
Nevilles biased historical assesment is yet another âpolitically correctâ study which seems to know all about India and its past. The less said about his work thew better.
And given the fact how hostile people are to differing views on the Aryan Civilisation and its several facets, I think Shantanu has been more than accomodating regarding Nevilles viewpoint. If he feels he wudnt be contributing to this website because Shantanu called his bluff then the website would actually be better off.
We have read several concocted versions of Aryan history none of all can claim they are right and the others are wrong. Thats the funny part of history isnt it? Poeple want to beleive what they think is right.
Good job Shantanu and keep the good stuff rollingâ¦.
Comment by drsurya | April 29, 2007