Global Religious landscape- Pew Forum

[Bang Galore]

Only one reference talks about flat noses; the reference to dark skin is in various places as noted in my post and the referenced text.

You chose to make that reference,now you say it is only a single reference? Shoot & scoot?
The dark skin reference is disputed widely.

Agastya is a proper Tamil legend.

So what? Means nothing.

And Periyar used Vedic texts themselves as proof of the militaristic nature of the Vedic elite.

No more relevant than Jawaharlal Nehru's version of Indian history. Periyar lived in different time & his agenda was a driving force in his beliefs. In any case, since you keep talking about Tamilians, may I point out that they are but one part of a larger Dravidian language speaking people. No one else has even the remotest interpretation that they have, largely because the Dravidian identity was not as stressed & because political identity was not based on it.

Migration is often heralded by invasion. Already gave the Rig Vedic references to dark skin.

More of the same.

That's your interpretation. Other scholars have different interpretations. You can accuse them of having an agenda, but the same is true of you -- more so, I dare say.

Not my interpretation alone. As for my having an agenda (& more so...whatever that means)you can say whatever you want, I don't particularly care for certificates.

Again, the similarities between Vedic and Tamil legends of Agastya suggest they refer to the same event. Now you will say the Tamils themselves do not know how to interpret their own legends.

No, I say that you do not know and you are merely latching on to anything that might help your hypothesis.

It means that any Vedic influence outside of those regions was a foreign imposition. Was it done through conquest or "flower power"?

Amalgamation is not an imposition even if amalgamations seem a difficult idea for some to comprehend.

Oh wait. The Vedic texts themselves tell us that the Vedic gods brought "enlightenment" upon their enemies through conquest. Granted, many of these enemies were in the north, but Vedic culture did find its way to the south eventually. Did the Vedic gods suddenly have a change of heart and change tack to flower power when bringing "enlightenment" to the south?

You are simply reading a version of the Rg veda that is now widely disputed. Absence of evidence (of a forced southern conquest) cannot by any stretch be presumed as proof.

Are you saying the Tamils had no culture prior to "enlightenment" by Vedic culture? Is all the talk of ancient Dravidian cultures a fabricated myth?

Again proof.... anyone can claim anything.

As a group, south Indians have darker skin than northerners.

Pointless. There are no "groups" for you to extrapolate & draw a conclusion. South Indians do not have a similar look and most are not much darker than the average North Indian. Some North Indians are fairer as are some South Indians. This racist theory has long been discredited. First flat noses & then this generalisation.

As for your particular interpretation, I already responded above. You are welcome to deny anything you like, but that won't stop established scholars from doing their work.

Amusing when you seem to think that only your argument is agreed to by "established scholars". You too are welcome to believe whatever you want....

Mine, and the scholars', passes the test of simplicity. For example, I explained about the legend of Agastya in the previous post.

Yours does not and the Rg veda itself s proof enough. Conjectures are merely that; conjectures.

Now you are seeking refuge in a physical massive Aryan migration into the subcontinent. That particular debate is irrelevant to this discussion.

Regardless of whether the Aryan tribes were indigenous to north India or not, the debate here is about the infusion of northern Vedic culture into southern Dravidian culture.

I seek refuge in nothing. It is you who selectively quote from "scholars" &"nationalists", seeming to forget that they had other views too, none of which are helpful to you. If the "Aryans" were "native", why do you assume that they waited till they came up with the vedas to do the "invasion" of the south? Those arguments are intrinsically connected. Can't argue bits & pieces like the basic crux of the "Aryan Invasion Theory", primarily that of an invasion has been discredited but that the argument that they still invaded South India is acceptable and using for that the very same"proofs" which are discredited.

 

[Developereo]

You are wrong the stories don't match at all. Tamil researchers say that Agastya mentioned in Vedas and Agathiyar(the Tamil Name) mentioned in Tamil texts could be two different characters.Agathiyar is the father of Ancient Sangam Tamil literature who led a Velir migration from Dwaraka.That description does not match with one in Vedas.

Some Tamil researchers claim so; other accept the conformance of the two legends.

In any case, you do realize that Dwarka, in Gujrat, is already getting awfully close to the region where the Vedics were known to flourish? This lends credence to the interpretation that both legends are essentially the same.

 

[Vinod2070]

Now that the "logic" has been completely discredited and the "evidence", well there was none to begin with.

The real issue is the "motivation". We know that.

To try to say that others were probably as bad as the Islamic invaders because they did something similar?

They justify the rapine and genocide and slavery of their own ancestors and make heroes out of the perpetrators.

And claim that their own ancestors deserved it all because they supposedly had their own issues?

And the primitive invaders brought "gifts".

As per this thinking, all of Baghdad and Islamic world should be eternally beholden to the likes of Genghis and Halaku Khan!

Sorry, we have a very different outlook of the world and we don't buy yours.

Just accept this and move on. Too difficult?

 

[Azazel]

Some Tamil researchers claim so; other accept the conformance of the two legends.

In any case, you do realize that Dwarka, in Gujrat, is already getting awfully close to the region where the Vedics were known to flourish? This lends credence to the interpretation that both legends are essentially the same.

Tamil researchers are saying so because their legend does not match with the one in Vedas.

Your second argument is nothing, but guesswork,which conveniently suits your beliefs.Their is no evidence for this.You are making a lot of guess work,History can't be written that way.That's why Max Muller's Aryan Invasion Theory lost al its credibility,Only proof it had was existence of two different linguistic families(Indo Aryan and Dravidian).So he assumed Indo Aryan's must've invaded from Dravidians and defeated them and pushed them back to South.It suited European's since Their language also has roots in Indo Aryan Family and it perfectly suited their colonial Agenda.

Later researches have debunked this whole myth.In fact, IVC itself was a part THE ADVANCED VEDIC CULTURE.
Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

Even the BBC now no longer accepts Aryan Invasion theory.Here are their two versions.

There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions.

1.The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered.

2.The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml#section_4

 

[Bang Galore]

Some Tamil researchers claim so; other accept the conformance of the two legends.

...and you chose what helps your argument. Does not make it any more right.

 

[Developereo]

You chose to make that reference,now you say it is only a single reference? Shoot & scoot?
The dark skin reference is disputed widely.

Not at all. I didn't belabor the noses because the differentiation between northern and southern Indians is not acute in terms of differences in nose shape. The average skin color variation, however, is marked.

The Indian Genome Variation database (IGVdb): a pr... [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI (from Dravidian peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid (concentrated in the north), Mongoloid (concentrated in the east), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands)

So what? Means nothing.

It means that your claim of people not knowing how to interpret legends doesn't hold. Periyar was interpreting a Tamil legend.

No more relevant than Jawaharlal Nehru's version of Indian history. Periyar lived in different time & his agenda was a driving force in his beliefs. In any case, since you keep talking about Tamilians, may I point out that they are but one part of a larger Dravidian language speaking people. No one else has even the remotest interpretation that they have, largely because the Dravidian identity was not as stressed & because political identity was not based on it.

The Dravidian nationalism of the mid 20th century extended beyond Tamils and included other Dravidians. However, to my knowledge, Tamils seem to be the best organized around exploring/preserving that identity. In any case, irrelevant to the larger debate.

Not my interpretation alone. As for my having an agenda (& more so...whatever that means)you can say whatever you want, I don't particularly care for certificates.

It's not about issuing certificates but addressing your dismissal of scholars as having an agenda. There is no evidence of such an agenda on the part of scholars; it is simply used as an ad hominem by the revisionists to dismiss any interpretation that doesn't suit their view.

No, I say that you do not know and you are merely latching on to anything that might help your hypothesis.

I am relying on established scholars in the field. Of course, you can dismiss everyone whose interpretation doesn't suit you as having an agenda.

Amalgamation is not an imposition even if amalgamations seem a difficult idea for some to comprehend.


You are simply reading a version of the Rg veda that is now widely disputed. Absence of evidence (of a forced southern conquest) cannot by any stretch be presumed as proof.

Again, you are rejecting the very words of the Vedas. They are most explicit in their description of military conquests by Vedic gods over their enemies and bringing enlightenment. It is you who is applying a selective filter to the Vedas, conveniently dismissing narratives which are politically inexpedient.

Again proof.... anyone can claim anything.

Again, if you are saying that pre-Vedic Tamil culture was non-existent, then that's strange. I don't know that anyone disputes that Tamil claim.

Pointless. There are no "groups" for you to extrapolate & draw a conclusion. South Indians do not have a similar look and most are not much darker than the average North Indian. Some North Indians are fairer as are some South Indians. This racist theory has long been discredited. First flat noses & then this generalisation.

Already explained above about four different racial subtypes. Don't confuse racial classification with racism: the former is legitimate anthropology without attaching value judgements to the classifications.

Yours does not and the Rg veda itself s proof enough. Conjectures are merely that; conjectures.

The Rig Veda is indeed proof of the militaristic nature of the Vedic elite. Logic dictates that their behavior towards the south would be similar to their behavior in the north. To believe otherwise is illogical unless there is specific evidence to support it.

I seek refuge in nothing. It is you who selectively quote from "scholars" &"nationalists", seeming to forget that they had other views too, none of which are helpful to you.

Whatever other views they may have had, about Islam or whatever, is irrelevant. I do not pick my experts based on their views on Islam, but their relevance to this particular debate.

If the "Aryans" were "native", why do you assume that they waited till they came up with the vedas to do the "invasion" of the south? Those arguments are intrinsically connected. Can't argue bits & pieces like the basic crux of the "Aryan Invasion Theory", primarily that of an invasion has been discredited but that the argument that they still invaded South India is acceptable and using for that the very same"proofs" which are discredited.

Now you are really stretching it. Why do military conquests happen when they do? Any number of causes, from military technology to climatic pressures to whatever. Why on earth should the Aryan tribes embark on a wholesale conquest of the entire subcontinent? They expanded at their own pace, based on the contemporary realities. Now you are trying to tie in the northern AIT into this debate, when there is absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Tamil researchers are saying so because their legend does not match with the one in Vedas.

Your second argument is nothing, but guesswork,which conveniently suits your beliefs.Their is no evidence for this.You are making a lot of guess work,History can't be written that way.That's why Max Muller's Aryan Invasion Theory lost al its credibility,Only proof it had was existence of two different linguistic families(Indo Aryan and Dravidian).So he assumed Indo Aryan's must've invaded from Dravidians and defeated them and pushed them back to South.It suited European's since Their language also has roots in Indo Aryan Family and it perfectly suited their colonial Agenda.

Later researches have debunked this whole myth.In fact, IVC itself was a part THE ADVANCED VEDIC CULTURE.
Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory

Even the BBC now no longer accepts Aryan Invasion theory.Here are their two versions.

There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian traditions.

1.The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves 'Aryans' (noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered.

2.The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml#section_4

I LOVE it when you guys admit defeat by retreating into irrelevancies like the AIT.

This discussion has NOTHING to do with the AIT. This is purely about the advent of northern Vedic culture into southern Dravidian culture. That much is a historical fact, and the AIT has absolutely no relevance to this particular discussion.

 

[Azazel]

I LOVE it when you guys admit defeat by retreating into irrelevancies like the AIT.

This discussion has NOTHING to do with the AIT. This is purely about the advent of northern Vedic culture into southern Dravidian culture. That much is a historical fact, and the AIT has absolutely no relevance to this particular discussion.

The Vedic literature, itself, is full of tales of conquest of Aryan gods over "dark skinned" southerners. No one disputes that these refer to actual battles; the only attempt at salvage is to claim that the Aryans were north Indians, as opposed to foreign invaders.

So,What is this??This what is known AIT.You are the one now retreating from your argument.We debunked your argument which was completely based on AIT.Now you are like this.

 

[Yogi]

@Vinod2070 @Azazel @Bang Galore Guys leave @Developereo alone, its beyond his comprehension skill....

the lines ''A little learning is a dangerous thing'' suits him well...

He himself has no knowledge about the Vedas, in real life he won't be able to read a single line of written in Hindi let alone Sanskrit...

All his claims clear shows his pathetic understanding which he developed here n there over internet n reading the likes of Max Muller n alike....

He did the same thing in the previous IVC n Aryan Invasion theory threads...

He talks Vedic gods n their Conquest of Southern tribals....lol. But won't be able to name a single pre Vedic tribe name...
If by tribes n pre Vedic people he means the Daidtyas, Danavas, Nagas, etc.etc he again fails to understand that even the Daityas n Danavas were the off spring of Rishi Kashapa according to Vedic n Puranic literature same as were the Devtas...

N almost all Asura leaders were staunch followers of Shiva n recieved their boons through penance of either Siva or Brahma according to the ancient scriptures...

He talks about Saivism but forgets that its nothing more than a part of Hinduism itself just with some differences from the likes of Vaishnavs over who is the Supreme Being in the Hindu or Vedic mythology...

10,000 year old Tamil history every Hindu texts talks about such history so what???

Agastya Muni was son of Urvashi n was born of both Devs Mitra and Varuna as per the Vedas...Lol.
He is not even able to distinguish between mythology n reality, what lame claims i must say...

 

[Azazel]

Not at all. I didn't belabor the noses because the differentiation between northern and southern Indians is not acute in terms of differences in nose shape. The average skin color variation, however, is marked.

The Indian Genome Variation database (IGVdb): a pr... [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI (from Dravidian peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid (concentrated in the north), Mongoloid (concentrated in the east), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands)

That only proves there were movement of population from Central Asia and Africa.No evidence of an Invasion of Aryans.

It means that your claim of people not knowing how to interpret legends doesn't hold. Periyar was interpreting a Tamil legend.

Periyar was interpreting Max Muller's IVT.

Dravidian nationalism of the mid 20th century extended beyond Tamils and included other Dravidians. However, to my knowledge, Tamils seem to be the best organized around exploring/preserving that identity. In any case, irrelevant to the larger debate.

Tamil is the oldest living language.Quite remarkable.All main ethnic groups(not only Tamils) are quite keen on preserving their identity.Unlike you Pakistanis who don't even speak their mother tounges.

It's not about issuing certificates but addressing your dismissal of scholars as having an agenda. There is no evidence of such an agenda on the part of scholars; it is simply used as an ad hominem by the revisionists to dismiss any interpretation that doesn't suit their view.

Their were people who does have agenda.Like the people who formulated AIT.It was to downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture and thus provide justification for colonialism.

I am relying on established scholars in the field. Of course, you can dismiss everyone whose interpretation doesn't suit you as having an agenda.

Who are your established scholars??

Again, you are rejecting the very words of the Vedas. They are most explicit in their description of military conquests by Vedic gods over their enemies and bringing enlightenment. It is you who is applying a selective filter to the Vedas, conveniently dismissing narratives which are politically inexpedient.

Vedas never speaks about a military invasion of South,If that's what you are implying.Even before Vedas there were advanced civilization like IVC.

The Rig Veda is indeed proof of the militaristic nature of the Vedic elite. Logic dictates that their behavior towards the south would be similar to their behavior in the north. To believe otherwise is illogical unless there is specific evidence to support it.



Whatever other views they may have had, about Islam or whatever, is irrelevant. I do not pick my experts based on their views on Islam, but their relevance to this particular debate.



Now you are really stretching it. Why do military conquests happen when they do? Any number of causes, from military technology to climatic pressures to whatever. Why on earth should the Aryan tribes embark on a wholesale conquest of the entire subcontinent? They expanded at their own pace, based on the contemporary realities. Now you are trying to tie in the northern AIT into this debate, when there is absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Rig Veda talks about good old cannabis.Does that mean they were pot smoking hippies.
You are making way too much assumptions based on very little facts.Rig Veda talks very little about Military expeditions.In fact most of the parts they do are nothing but Mythologies.

 

[Developereo]

So,What is this??This what is known AIT.You are the one now retreating from your argument.We debunked your argument which was completely based on AIT.Now you are like this.

Good lord!

All this time you were arguing the AIT when there is absolutely no connection whatsoever?

No wonder you made no sense whatsoever and ping-ponged all over the place!

He himself has no knowledge about the Vedas,

I am using impartial, unemotional analysis of various historical texts by established experts. You guys are blinded by religion and a need to see India in a certain way. It is natural that the believers will reject any interpretation that sounds like heresy.

He talks about Saivism but forgets that its nothing more than a part of Hinduism

Where did I deny that it is part of Hinduism. I said some Tamil nationalists prefer this aspect of Hinduism as having the highest ratio of Tamil-to-Vedic themes, i.e. least pollution.

He is not even able to distinguish between mythology n reality, what lame claims i must say...

Scholars, unlike religious zealots, analyze the texts dispassionately and have reached a certain consensus about Agastya and what it says about the interaction of Vedic and Tamil cultures.

 

[Azazel]

Good lord!

All this time you were arguing the AIT when there is absolutely no connection whatsoever?

No wonder you made no sense whatsoever and ping-ponged all over the place!

You were arguing in favor AIT.Not me.



I am using impartial, unemotional analysis of various historical texts by established experts. You guys are blinded by religion and a need to see India in a certain way. It is natural that the believers will reject any interpretation that sounds like heresy.[/QUOTE]

Nope you were not.Only thing you talked about was Periyar.He is not an expert in anything related to this.

Scholars, unlike religious zealots, analyze the texts dispassionately and have reached a certain consensus about Agastya and what it says about the interaction of Vedic and Tamil cultures.

Usual Blah,Blah Blah,Already debunked.

 

[abhishekgoel80]

Exactly!! Science, physics can explain everything... but what explains science, who created science?? There is someone who is controlling everything.. Thus everything is going normal.... Where were all these things before Big Bang?? From nothing to Universe??



Exactly!! Science, physics can explain everything... but what explains science, who created science?? There is someone who is controlling everything.. Thus everything is going normal.... Where were all these things before Big Bang?? From nothing to Universe??

So instead of trying to find the answers you choose to put a blame on an imginary thing and call that thing God

 

[Vinod2070]

@Vinod2070 @Azazel @Bang Galore Guys leave @Developereo alone, its beyond his comprehension skill....

the lines ''A little learning is a dangerous thing'' suits him well...

He himself has no knowledge about the Vedas, in real life he won't be able to read a single line of written in Hindi let alone Sanskrit...

All his claims clear shows his pathetic understanding which he developed here n there over internet n reading the likes of Max Muller n alike....

He did the same thing in the previous IVC n Aryan Invasion theory threads...

He talks Vedic gods n their Conquest of Southern tribals....lol. But won't be able to name a single pre Vedic tribe name...
If by tribes n pre Vedic people he means the Daidtyas, Danavas, Nagas, etc.etc he again fails to understand that even the Daityas n Danavas were the off spring of Rishi Kashapa according to Vedic n Puranic literature same as were the Devtas...

N almost all Asura leaders were staunch followers of Shiva n recieved their boons through penance of either Siva or Brahma according to the ancient scriptures...

He talks about Saivism but forgets that its nothing more than a part of Hinduism itself just with some differences from the likes of Vaishnavs over who is the Supreme Being in the Hindu or Vedic mythology...

10,000 year old Tamil history every Hindu texts talks about such history so what???

Agastya Muni was son of Urvashi n was born of both Devs Mitra and Varuna as per the Vedas...Lol.
He is not even able to distinguish between mythology n reality, what lame claims i must say...

Combined with bigotry and Hinduphobia and identity crisis?

Well that takes it to a different league.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, there are three factors at play by this guy Developereo, just to recap for late comers.

Knowledge: Limited to random google searches and "Ask a Tamil" or "Periyar said so".

Evidence: Zero, just discredited theories.

Motivation: That is what it is about.

The point is that all religions are acquired, and everyone is a convert or descended from converts.

So it is about the need to justify their own conversion.

And the deeds of their Islamic invaders. Evil deeds that can't be denied.

They need not worry. We don't kill our apostates like they do in their new fangled ideology.

 

[Developereo]

We have a mature and realistic view of human nature and all religions: a concept that will forever elude religious zealots hampered by a myopic view of their own superiority.