Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Hinduism and Aryan


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#61    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:44 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 28 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

I'm sorry to hear that, me-wonders. No one is telling, asking, implying, or suggesting that you leave, so this is entirely your choice. I'm just concerned that other posters might see your choice as the fault of others, which it is not. Frankly I enjoy discussing topics with you, but you really do take all of this too personally.

If you post a topic at UM, the discussion of it will be taken seriously (unless it's obviously meant for humor's sake, which happens on occasion). Why post a topic otherwise? In any case, I hope you come back soon.

I had an intense emotional reaction to several the post, and reacted without thinking.  I am still dealing with emotions.  I think being told I am creating a lie, is a personal attack.  If there is not agreement on this, I should not come back.   Here is an explanation of why I think I should not come back.

Your explanation of this forum is like the science forums where people are invited to discuss religion and God, only so the atheist can beat them up, and if the poor victim of this trap doesn't realize this, s/he will eventually be banned, and the attackers are playing a game to win, and are not sincerely interested in the subject. It seems evident some posters are not knowledgeable of the subject, because even known experts in the field are not recognized, and what is challenged is not want these respected people say, but the idea that they are fringe, unknown, and not worthy of reading.  There is a saying.  "Do not argue with ignorance".  Seriously it is very foolish to argue with someone who is only looking for something to attack, and is ignoring the facts when they are presented.  This person is not really interested the subjec6t, but like the atheist in the science is only playing a game to win.   Please understand, ignorance should not mean not knowing something, but actually ignoring facts when they are presented. That is what is happening here.  People who are not knowledgeable of the subject have attacked and attacked and attacked, without reading and attempting to understand what is said in the links.  To be different, a reply would say, so and so says, this and that, but this other source says something else, and there would be a question about why different people have said different things.  Not attack, after attack, after attack, attacking me, attacking the links for being out dated or fringe, attacking anything the attacker believes can be attacked, without expressing a real interest in the subject.  Yeap, just the religion forums in a science forum, set up to attract and beat up on the unsuspecting the poster.   And then playing innocent and denying what is being done, crosses the line.

Edited by me-wonders, 28 November 2012 - 05:44 PM.


#62    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:26 PM

I understand that todays view is that Aryans didnt invade but imigrate to India peninsula. I wonder only on what evidence is that concluded since all others IE invade their new territory. Why would India be exception?

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#63    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,393 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

View Postthe L, on 28 November 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

I understand that todays view is that Aryans didnt invade but imigrate to India peninsula. I wonder only on what evidence is that concluded since all others IE invade their new territory. Why would India be exception?

I have to wonder what you're basing that on, even though it's not true. Indo-Europeans, which science has determined originated in Anatolia, didn't invade Europe. They migrated with early farmers into Europe. There was no invasion.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#64    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

I have to wonder what you're basing that on, even though it's not true. Indo-Europeans, which science has determined originated in Anatolia, didn't invade Europe. They migrated with early farmers into Europe. There was no invasion.

cormac

Antaloia theory is accepted by minority of historians. Big number of historians believe in ....this is my post from other thread.



View Postthe L, on 22 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Hi Parsec,

I think its because language barrier. I read your previous post again, Now I understand what you mean by leaving Slavic.
I see Gimbutas hypothesis rather as old european agricultury based culture taken by violent livestock nomadic horse riders which came in three waves.
But there are people who didnt agree with her. For example Collin Renfrew, British archaeologist, set Anatolian hypothesis which tells that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. Gimbutas thought that IE conquer Europe in 3500 BC and destroy old European culture. Renfrew claim that it was peacefull migration not invasion.
Gimbutas claim that nomads bring horses, new metal weapon and chariots around 3500 BC.
And I agree nothing more interestingly then study history of history and Im glad that I can remind on you on some things.
I try to connected IE to civilization from America to India because Jung hypothesis could only lead to Schauberger quote.
I dont think that IE was our mystery civilization. But origin, maybe? What I want to tell is that they probably didnt have that big centralized state.
That some symbols as swastika and others we mention so far in this thread originate  from IE. Were they advanced? IE? Defenetly no according archaeological sites.
But sites in Varna (which beside Gibekli Tepe and few others realy amazed me) and Vinča culture can tell us that IE were real people. They possibly traded with Varna as many historians argued.
So we have Proto IE language. We have Swastikas. We have polygonal walls. Four faced Gods as religious belief. And sadly we have none of material from them.
Also I dont think that we need to find synchronicity because, althugh his view are debunked,English historian Arnold J. Toynbee in 1922 travel trough Bulgaria and notice that Burlagian villagers wear same "fox fur hats" smilar to Xerxes soldiers in Greeco Persian wars. He concluded that in history we have continuity.
Matrice that doesnt change. From that thought he wrote 12 tomes-Study of history. Cycle rise and fall of civilization. He research 26 civilization and so on. What I ment is Toynbee view on Cycle rise and fall of civilization was debunked none historian ever stressed out that he wasnt right when he said that matrice doesnt change at all.


JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#65    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

http://en.wikipedia....rgan_hypothesis

Kurgan hypothesis is widely accepted hypothesis about IE. Renfrew Anatolian hypothesis is streched almost as Ancient alien hypothesis.

Edited by the L, 28 November 2012 - 07:41 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#66    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,393 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:48 PM

View Postthe L, on 28 November 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Antaloia theory is accepted by minority of historians. Big number of historians believe in ....this is my post from other thread.

Quote

The minority view is decisively supported by the present analysis in this week's Science. This analysis combines a model of the evolution of the lexicons of individual languages with an explicit spatial model of the dispersal of the speakers of those languages. Known events in the past (the date of attestation dead languages, as well as events which can be fixed from archaeology or the historical record) are used to calibrate the inferred family tree against time.

http://www.sciencema...y=9/I0UU0.eTrdQ

Which means that the majority view, your "Big number of historians" are not supported by the evidence.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#67    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:03 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

http://www.sciencema...y=9/I0UU0.eTrdQ

Which means that the majority view, your "Big number of historians" are not supported by the evidence.

cormac

I cant agree on this. To me evidences are all on Gimbutas side rather then Anatolia hypothesis.
They are both hypothesis. But Gimbutas idea are sharp and brilliant comparing to Renfrew.

I spoke to two univerity proffesors of history. One is expert on Chalcolithic period for Balkan and central Asia. They have had lectures about Kurgan theories. To me Anatloia hypothesis is rubbish.

It contradicts all common views on history.

Tell me cormac do you support then Jean Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Hobbes?
Hobbes and Renfrew doesnt get along.
But if you are Rousseau follower I can understand your view.

I like to think that Rousseau is right. That Thomas went wrong. But when I study the history I took what most historians agree with.
Ofcourse we can study other ideas. Even import a new ones. Especially in place like UM.(Thats why I like be here.)

When IE become noble savages? To me Collin Renfrew should stay on digging and leave historians to judge on archaeological findings.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#68    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

Okay lets say that no one know for sure and that chances are 50 % for each hypothesis. Lets took for second that Marija Gimbutas was right.
How would that fit in Aryan migration?  :blink:

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#69    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,393 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

View Postthe L, on 28 November 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

I cant agree on this. To me evidences are all on Gimbutas side rather then Anatolia hypothesis.
They are both hypothesis. But Gimbutas idea are sharp and brilliant comparing to Renfrew.

I spoke to two univerity proffesors of history. One is expert on Chalcolithic period for Balkan and central Asia. They have had lectures about Kurgan theories. To me Anatloia hypothesis is rubbish.

It contradicts all common views on history.

Tell me cormac do you support then Jean Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Hobbes?
Hobbes and Renfrew doesnt get along.
But if you are Rousseau follower I can understand your view.

I like to think that Rousseau is right. That Thomas went wrong. But when I study the history I took what most historians agree with.
Ofcourse we can study other ideas. Even import a new ones. Especially in place like UM.(Thats why I like be here.)

When IE become noble savages? To me Collin Renfrew should stay on digging and leave historians to judge on archaeological findings.

I don't follow any particular person. I follow where the evidence leads. And it doesn't lead to the Kurgan Hypothesis as seen from your own Wiki link:

Quote

A study published in 2012 states that "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought, expansions from the Pontic Steppe, bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." However, this study does not in any way conflict with the hypothesis of expansions from the Pontic Steppe, since the study does not take into account the early wave of the Indo-European speaking people. Even today the R1a1a7-M458 are very rare, almost absent, in the area of the Indo-European origins between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea; the R1a1a7-M458 marker first started in Poland 10,000 years ago (KYA), and arrived in the western fringes of the Pontic steppe 5000 years ago and the eastern fringes only 2500 years ago, while the first Indo-European wave (4500–4000 BC Early PIE) began up to 4000 years before this.

The second sentence tries, and fails, to reinterpret what the first sentence said which was that there was no expansion from the Pontic Steppe bringing IE to India. It goes on further to say that R1a1a7-M458 originated in Poland, which is evidenced, and travelled east. Meaning that the haplogroup involved in this case was Central European in origin and NOT Central Asian.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 28 November 2012 - 08:22 PM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#70    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:27 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 November 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

...

You can know about did early wave occurs or not from south Russia to India for example.
You can all say that you dont believe in it same as you believe in Anatolia hypothesis.
Furthermore you must be follower of one of those two guys above if you study history.
But lets stay with Kurgan and Aryan migration and please can you answer my previous post question. In your view hypothetical.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#71    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:40 PM

Rousseau believed that our ancestors were noble. That they were peacefull. Judging on evidences we have about early wars. 200 000 or 100 000 years of humanity and only recent with very big time gaps we have wars. He concluded that we get corrupted in the way. More civilazied we become more wars we made.  In sense its true. Hint: Mesopotamia.

Hobbes refuted this viw and his view is now more accepted among historians was that early humans were brutal war like. That we lived short and brutal. That there wasnt peacefull migration. Only invasions. Dominations. No sharing goods with newcommers in any sense. When you came in new populated area. Fight or run.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#72    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,393 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Postthe L, on 28 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

You can know about did early wave occurs or not from south Russia to India for example.
You can all say that you dont believe in it same as you believe in Anatolia hypothesis.
Furthermore you must be follower of one of those two guys above if you study history.
But lets stay with Kurgan and Aryan migration and please can you answer my previous post question. In your view hypothetical.

From a genetics and archaeological standpoint, to support an Aryan Invasion circa 1500 BC, then no, it didn't occur.

Good.

I'm a follower of the genetics studies and the archaeology involved, neither of which support the Aryan Invasion Theory. Something I've said many, MANY times now.

Gimbutas' hypothesis is irrelevant since the genetics and archaeology involved do not support a kurgan-based invasion into India c.1500 BC.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#73    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

Language support her view. One of my earliest post. How term IE was coined. Its coined based on language.



View Postthe L, on 17 November 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

...Furthermore Thomas Young 1813 physicist, doctor and Egyptologists who was involve in deschiphering Rosseta stone first used term Indo European.He used it describe work Mithridates of Prussian philologist Johann Christoph Adelung where he try to connect European languages and Indian .Adelung knew there is connection between European languages and Southeast Asia languages. Source of them is Indo European language in Euroasia 6000-4000 BC.
That people is mystery. We can give name to those people but those people arent like anyother ancient people.
They are uncatchable. From them languages emerged which half people on Earth used it.No texts. No material legacy.

Beside many cultures which are linked to IE according to Kurgan hypothesis.

Edited by the L, 28 November 2012 - 09:01 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#74    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,393 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

View Postthe L, on 28 November 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Language support her view. One of my earliest post. How term IE was coined. Its coined based on language.

Beside many cultures which are linked to IE according to Kurgan hypothesis.

No it doesn't. Go back and read the entire article I linked in Post #66 again.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#75    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

Ofourse Kurgan hyothesis have holes thats why is called hypothesis. But historian belive its most likely what happened. And just dont get itone more thing.

When IE become noble savages? Were they spiritual advanced civilization? Or simply Hobbes was right and they were like many others people in history. Warlike and brutal. Conquerers. Thats also what most historians are agreed about.

Then how come that Aryans were exception? :blink:
Then we have isolated case here.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users