[continued from previous message]

sacrificial altar described in the Baudhayana Sulba-
sutra.

Dr Rajaram explains that another bit of supporting
evidence has been the analysis of astronomical references
in the Rig Veda which shows that Vedic Aryans were around
in India well before 2500 BC.

Other evidence is out of the pages of history --Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and Hermann Jacobi in Bonn had
independently concluded that parts of the Rig Veda were
composed as early as 4000 BC. Recent computer based
analysis by Subhash Kak of the astronomical codes puts
paid to the cricism that Indian astronomy is a derivative
of its Greek counterpart.

Kak, a specialist in computer aided cryptography,
has worked on the orbital periods of the five major
planets, explains Dr Rajaram. He has shown that the
values outlined in the Rig Veda were remarkably accurate.
This evidence, Dr Rajaram feels, speaks for the
rigorousness of the ancient texts.

Linguistic evidence is another line of argument,
feels Dr Rajaram. With respect to Indus seals, unless
conclusive evidence shows that language to be Dravian
totally unrelated to Sanskrit, he feels that Aryans and
Dravidians were a single people divided only by modern
academic theory. It is only for the convenience of
European scholars that the entire "invasion" theory has
been constructed, says Dr Rajaram.

"With the passage of time, more evidence comes to
light and in that context, a new theory is proposed."...

Currently Dr Rajaram is working on putting all these
observations together in a book to be titled 'Indus to
Gangas: Ancient History in the New Light of Science'...
HE BELIEVES THAT WE SHOULD NEVER BECOME A SLAVE TO
ACCEPTED THEORIES AND DISCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO MAKE AN
EFFORT TO QUESTION THESE AND PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES. A TRUE
REFLECTION OF THE SPIRIT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY ALIVE AND
WORKING AT ITS BEST.

[Perhaps italicized text was capitalized by the original
poster. End of forwarded article.]

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

destroyed but the population simply moved to other areas,
and developed a new syncretic civilization and culture by
mutual interaction and exchange of ideas.

The Vedic seers in Vedic literature have proclaimed and
practiced the following all-embracing, catholic, and
harmonious principles for a peaceful coexistence of
various communities. How can such people be accused of
annihilater of a civilization, murderer of innocent
people, and destroying large number of cities?

ahm bhumimdadamaryam (Rgveda)

Creater declares: I have bestowed this land to Aryas.

Kirnvanto Vishwaryam (Rgveda)

Make the entire world noble.

Aa na bhadra katavo yanto vishwatah (Rgveda)

Let noble thoughts come from all sides.

Mata Bhumih putro ham prithvyah (Atharv veda)

Earth is my mother, and I am her son.

Vasudeva kutumbubakam

The entire universe is one family.

Consequences of the Aryan Invasion Theory in Context of
India

o It serves to divide artificially India into a northern
Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made
hostile to each other by various interested parties: A
major source of social tension in south Indian states.

o It gave an easy excuse to the Britishers to justify
their conquest over India as well as validating the
various conquests and mayhems of invading armies of
religious fanatics from Arab lands and central Asia. The
argument goes that they were doing only what Aryan
ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago
to the indigenous population.

o As a corollary, the theory makes Vedic culture later
than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures,
especially the Greek culture: An absurd proposition.

o Since the identification of Christianity and the
Middle Eastern cultures, the Hindu religion and Indian
civilization are considered as a sidelight to the
development of religion and civilization in the west: A
deliberate and dishonest undermining of the antiquity and
the greatness of the ancient Indian culture.

o It allows the science of India to be given a Greek
basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the
primitive nature of the Vedic culture: In fact the
opposite is true.

o If the theory of Aryan invasion and its proposed
period were true, this discredited not only the Vedas but
the genealogies of the Puranas, and all the kings
mentioned in these scriptures including Lord Krishna,
Rama, Buddha etc. would become as fictional characters
with no historical basis: Which simply means disowning
and discarding the very basis and raison de'etre of the
Hindu civilization.

o The Mahabharat, instead of being a civil war of global
proportion in which all the main kings of India
participated as is described in the epic, would be
dismissed as a local skirmish among petty princes that
was later exaggerated by poets.

o In other words, the Aryan Invasion Theory invalidates
and discredits the most Hindu traditions and almost all
its vast and rich literary and civilizational heritage.
It turns its scriptures and sages into fantasies and
exaggerations.

o On the basis of this theory, the propaganda by the
Macaulayists was made that there was nothing great in the
Hindu culture and their ancestors and sages. And most
Hindus fell for this devious plan. It made Hindus feel
ashamed of their culture - that its basis was neither
historical nor scientific, the Vedas were the work of
nomadic shepherds and not the divine revelations or
eternal truth perceived by the rishis during their
spiritual journey, and hence there is nothing to feel
proud about India's past, nothing to be proud of being
Hindu.

In short such a view and this concocted Aryan Invasion
theory by a few European historians in order to prove the
supremacy of Christianity and Western civilization,
served (and still serving) the purpose: 'divide and
conquer the Hindus'.

Swami Vivekananda on Aryan Invasion Theory

"Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-
eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the
Lord knows where. According to some, they came from
Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from
Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think
that the Aryans were all red haired. Others, according to
their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the
writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were
all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to
prove that the Aryans lived on Swiss lake. I should not
be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and
all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord
bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for as the
truth of these theories, there is notone word in our
scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from
anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was
included Afghanistan. There it ends..."

"And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non-Aryans
and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and
irrational. It could not have been possible in those days
that a few Aryans settled and lived there with a hundred
thousand slaves at their command. The slaves would have
eaten them up, made chutney of them in five minutes. The
only explanation is to be found in the Mahabharat, which
says that in the beginning of the Satya Yoga there was
only one caste, the Brahmins, and then by differences of
occupations they went on dividing themselves into
different castes, and that is the only true and rational
explanation that has been given. And in the coming Satya
Yuga all other castes will have to go back to the same
condition." (The Complete Work of Swami Vivekananda,
Vol.III Page 293.)

So, What are the facts? Now, based on what has been
presented above, following facts about an ancient and
glorious period of India clearly emerge:

1. The Aryan Invasion and Racial theories, and Aryan-
Dravidian conflicts are a 19th century fabrication by
some European scholar. They are being exploited even now
for political reasons.

2. The hymns of Rigveda had been composed and completed
by 3700BC, this can be scientifically proved.

3. The language of the Indus script is related to
Sanskrit, the language of Vedas.

4. The Indus valley civilization should be aptly called
as Saraswati Vedic civilization, as the new evidences and
right interpretation of the archaeological findings
indicate.

5. There is now strong evidence that the movement of the
ancient Aryan people was from east to west, and this is
how the European languages have strong association and
origin in the Vedic Sanskrit language.

6. The ending of Indus Valley and the Saraswati
civilization was due to the constant floods and drought
in the Indus area and the drying up of the Saraswati
river. This had caused a massive emigration of the
habitants to safer and interior areas of the Indian
subcontinent and even towards the west.

7. There was no destruction of the civilization in the
Indus valley due to any invasion of any barbaric hordes.

8. The Vedic literature has no mention of any invasion or
destruction of a civilization.

9. There is no evidence in any of the literature which
indicate any Aryan-Dravidian or North-South divide, they
were never culturally hostile to each other.

10. The population living in the Indus valley and
surrounding the dried up Saraswati river practiced the
Vedic culture and religion.

References

Most of the material presented above has been taken from
the following books.

1. The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism
(1993) By Shrikant G. Talageri (Voice of India)

2. The Astronomical Code of India (1992) By Subhash Kak

3. Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization (1995) By
N.S. Rajaram and David Frawley (World Heritage Press)

4. Aryan Invasion of India: The Myth and the Truth By
N.S. Rajaram (Voice of India Publication)

5. Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar (1993) By
Koenraad Elst

6. New Light on The Aryan Problem: Manthan Oct. 1994
(Journal of Deendayal Research Institute)

7. Dawn and Development of the Indus Civilization (1991)
By S.R. Rao (Aditya Prakashan)

Dinesh Agrawal
2500 Buchenhorst Road, State College, PA 16801 USA

https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_agrawal.html

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://is.gd/jyotishi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

without basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far
from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which
form the background of their land and the symbolism of
their hymns.

One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic
culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in
north India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and
comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna
as later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be
an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with
the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention.
However it is associated with a pig and rice culture, not
the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is
now found to be an organic development of indegenous
pottery, not an introduction of invaders.

Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous
cultural development and does not reflect any cultural
intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion.
Therefore, there is no archeological evidence
corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.

In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably
the Hittites, have now been found to have been in that
region atleast as early as 2200 BC, wherein they are
already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion
into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries,
though the evidence so far is that the people of the
mountain regions of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans
as far as recorded history can prove.

The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped
Vedic Gods like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one
named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites and Mittani signed a
treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra,
Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a
treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure
Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient Middle East
thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and
thereby show a Vedic culture in that region of the world
as well.

The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as
evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was
also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian,
though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that
the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with
those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic
development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now
suggest an Indo-European base for that language.

It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived
its civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria,
as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent
French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the
antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found
within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC.

In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject
the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu
civilization.

Current archeological data do not support the existence
of an Indo Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at
any time in the preor protohistoric periods. Instead, it
is possible to document archeologically a series of
cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural
development from prehistoric to historic periods. The
early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion
into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of
indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an
academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe
reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic
data were used to validate the concept that in turn was
used to interpret archeological and anthropological data.

In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the
assumption that there was an Aryan invasion. Then
archeological evidence was interpreted by the same
assumption. And both interpretations were then used to
justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an
exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if
assuming something is true, it is found to be true!

Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the
IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also
suggests such a possible early date for their entry into
India.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the
'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking
population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather
from a historical assumption of the 'comming of the Indo-
Europeans.

When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of
the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so
far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in
the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them
that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is
the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is
it implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities
(including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the
Aryans themselves.

Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what
is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley
civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that the Indus
Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to
the Indus Valley era:

This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were
spoken in North India with Pakistan and on the Iranian
plateau at the 6th millennium BC has the merit of
harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin
of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also
emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and
adjacent areas from the early neolithic through to the
floruit of the Indus Valley civilization.

This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or
understand the 'Vedas' their work leaves much to be
desired in this respect but that it is clear that the
whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is
beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does
not mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley
era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that of the
'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in
India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent.

The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in
our view of history as shattering as that in science
caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. It would make
ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and most
central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic
literary record already the largest and oldest of the
ancient world even at a 1500 BC date would be the record
of teachings some centuries or thousands of years before
that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most
authentic record of the ancient world. It would also tend
to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and
other Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that
the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it
would affirm the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were
early offshoots of the Vedic people through the seer
Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.

In closing, it is important to examine the social and
political implications of the Aryan invasion idea:

o First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan
and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to
each other. This kept the Hindus divided and is still a
source of social tension.

o Second, it gave the British an excuse in their
conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what
the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done
millennia ago.

o Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and
possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the
proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible
and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a
sidelight to the development of religion and civilization
to the West.

o Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a
Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified
by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture.

This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies
of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the kings before
the Buddha or Krishna were left without any historical
basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of a civil war in which
all the main kings of India participated as it is
described, became a local skirmish among petty princes
that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it
discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and almost
all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and
sages into fantacies and exaggerations.

This served a social, political and economical purpose of
domination, proving the superiority of Western culture
and religion. It made the Hindus feel that their culture
was not the great thing that their sages and ancestors
had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their
culture that its basis was neither historical nor
scientific. It made them feel that the main line of
civilization was developed first in the Middle East and
then in Europe and that the culture of India was
peripheral and secondary to the real development of world
culture.

Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but
merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars
did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did
in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the
Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan
invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological
but political and religious that is to say, not
scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have
been intentional but deep-seated political and religious
views easily cloud and blur our thinking.

It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been
questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though
Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus
today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally
Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them
and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role.
Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the
translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian
missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith,
MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians
accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history
done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism?
Universities in India also use the Western history books
and Western Vedic translations that propound such views
that denigrate their own culture and country.

The modern Western academic world is sensitive to
critisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to
take a stand against this biased interpretation of the
'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of
these historical ideas that can not stand objective
scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively
accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it
will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to
blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken
lightly, because how a culture is defined historically
creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the
modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not
in allowing a false view of one's own culture and
religion to be propagated without question. That is
merely self-betrayal.

References

1. "Atherva Veda" IX.5.4.

2. "Rig Veda" II.20.8 & IV.27.1.

3. "Rig Veda" VII.3.7; VII.15.14; VI.48.8; I.166.8;
I.189.2; VII.95.1.

4. S.R. Rao, "Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization",
Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 &
141.

5. Ibid, p. 158.

6. "Manu Samhita" II.17-18.

7. Note "Rig Veda" II.41.16; VI.61.8-13; I.3.12.

8. "Rig Veda" VII.95.2.

9. Studies from the post-graduate Research Institute of
Deccan College, Pune, and the Central Arid Zone Research
Institute (CAZRI), Jodhapur. Confirmed by use of MSS
(multi-spectral scanner) and Landsat Satellite
photography. Note MLBD Newsletter (Delhi, India: Motilal
Banarasidass), Nov. 1989. Also Sriram Sathe, "Bharatiya
Historiography", Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Hyderabad,
India, 1989, pp. 11-13.

10. "Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha", Indian National
Science Academy, Delhi, India, 1985, pp 12-13.

11. "Aitareya Brahmana", VIII.21-23; "Shatapat Brahmana",
XIII.5.4.

12. R. Griffith, "The Hymns of the Rig Veda", Motilal
Banarasidas, Delhi, 1976.

13. J. Shaffer, "The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural Myth
and Archeological Reality", from J. Lukas(Ed), 'The
people of South Asia', New York, 1984, p. 85.

14. T. Burrow, "The Proto-Indoaryans", Journal of Royal
Asiatic Society, No. 2, 1973, pp. 123-140.

15. G. R. Hunter, "The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro
and its connection with other scripts", Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co., London, 1934. J.E. Mitchiner,
"Studies in the Indus Valley Inscriptions", Oxford & IBH,
Delhi, India, 1978. Also the work of Subhash Kak as in "A
Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script", Cryptologia,
July 1988, Vol XII, No 3; "Indus Writing", The Mankind
Quarterly, Vol 30, No 1 & 2, Fall/Winter 1989; and "On
the Decipherment of the Indus Script A Preliminary Study
of its connection with Brahmi", Indian Journal of History
of Science, 22(1):51-62 (1987). Kak may be close to
deciphering the Indus Valley script into a Sanskrit like
or Vedic language.

16. J.F. Jarrige and R.H. Meadow, "The Antecedents of
Civilization in the Indus Valley", Scientific American,
August 1980.

17. C. Renfrew, "Archeology and Language", Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1987.

https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://preview.tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility". This
is the essence of renaissance. Thus, we should invite Muslims and
Christians to join us Hindus on the basis of common ancestry or even seek
their return to our fold as Hindus, in this grand endeavour as Hindustanis,
on the substance of our shared and common ancestry. However, it is
essential to resolve an intrinsic paradox of Hindutva arising out of the individual freedom afforded by Hindu theology. The individual-centric distinctiveness of Hinduism, makes it possible to see millions of Hindus,
for example, to come to Kumbh Mela on their own, without a fatwa or
invitation or even any publicity about date and place of the Mela, and peacefully and without guidance or dictation, perform their pujas and then depart. It is purely voluntary even as the state does not provide any organization, or subsidy for travel expenses. This is individualism par excellence. With this kind of widespread voluntary commitment of Hindus,
seen not only in Kumbh Mela, but in other pilgrimage occasions such as in Sabarimalai, Vaishno Devi, etc., and the reality of our tolerant
civilisational history, can we feel secure that we Hindus can and will
unite when it becomes necessary to defend against sinister, sophisticated,
and violent threats that the religion faces today? We cannot be sure,
because the Kumbh Mela spirit not only represents the innate strength of Hinduism, but paradoxically also it's main weakness. That is, those who assemble at Kumbh Mela do it as an act of individual piety. Hindus do not
go to Kumbh Mela to be with other Hindus in a religious congregation, but because they believe that their individual salvation lies in going there.
But the current threats to Hindu religion requires a coordinated collective response. Therein lies the paradox to be resolved. Hindus therefore lack
the necessary modern mindset that can collectively bond the community in an inclusive virile wholesome unity, which is necessary today to meet the
threats that religion faces from terrorism, conversions, religious minority appeasement, and distortions in the history textbooks [for a discussion of
the nature of this siege see my Hindus Under Siege: The Way Out (HarAnand,
New Delhi, 2005)]. Patriotic Hindus should understand this structural limitation in the theology of Hinduism, that is individualism, is
mistakenly taken as apathy, but it requires us to find ways to rectify it
for the national good. In the Ramjanmabhoomi Mandir campaign, and the Rama
Setu Raksha Abhiyan, the VHP had demonstrated that this individualism is
not apathy and that this limitation can be overcome by mass action. This limitation must not only be overcome but we must try rectify it not on an
ad hoc basis but on a durable foundation that is sustainable, because
Hinduism is being targeted today as never before by terrorism, religious conversion, minority appeasement, debasement in history textbooks, and distortions in the mass media. It is worthy of notice that, recognizing
this limitation, Hindu spiritual leaders in the past have from time to time come forward to rectify it, whenever the need arose e.g., as the Sringeri Shankaracharya Vidhyaranya did by founding the Vijayanagaram dynasty or
Swami Ramdas did with Shivaji and the Mahratta campaign.

Such involvement of sanyasis is required even more urgently today.
Following the lead taken in 1964 by Guru Golwalkar, the Sarsanghachalak of
RSS, to bring the Sadhus and sanyasis, into a forum for which the VHP was founded. The VHP has since engaged in mobilization of the sants and sadhus through the Dharma Sansad, and now in the Dharma Raksha Manch for social action, which has become crucial for our spiritual consolidation. In fact,
this is the real substance of India as Swami Vivekananda had aptly put it
when he stated that: "National union of India must be a gathering up of its scattered spiritual forces. A Nation in India must be a union of those
whose hearts beat to the same spiritual tune.... The common ground that we
have is our sacred traditions, our religion. That is the only common
ground... upon that we shall have to build". Let us recall here that well before the birth of Christianity and Islam, Hindu religion had been intellectually dethroned by Hinayana Buddhism. But Adi Sankaracharya
rethroned Hinduism through his famous shastrarthas [religious debate] and caused a renaissance in Buddhism itself, which later came to be known as Mahayana Buddhism, conceptually in complete harmony with, if not indistinguishable from Hindu theology. It is Mahayana Buddhism that spread
to China, Cambodia and Vietnam. In Tamil Nadu, the Azhwars and Nayanmars,
also through shastrarthas, repositioned Hinduism after dethroning Jainism
and Buddhism. Since then the Hindu dharmacharyas have always been looked up
to whenever Hindu society faced a threat or crisis, for guidance to meet
these dangers. The recent efforts of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati of the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam in forming the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha that includes all
the Shankaracharyas, Mahamandaleshwars, Akharas, and others as members, as
a body corporate, is highly necessary and noteworthy.

Moreover, the facts of our history have to be well understood so that we
are not condemned to re-live it. Militant Islam and later crusading Christianity had come to India, and aggressively had challenged Hinduism. Because we had then very civilized rules of warfare such as fighting only
on open barren fields, and between sunrise and sunset, besides forgiving
the loser and sending him back with due honour, these Muslim and Christian invaders despite being much smaller in numbers, seized power in sequence by
the changing the rules of combat, and thus established their own state in
India lasting centuries. This change of rules is what Prithviraj Chauhan
had not realized while repeatedly defeating Mohammed Ghori and then
forgiving him. But Chhatrapati Shivaji had fully understood the perfidy of these aggressors, and accordingly improvised new tactics while dealing with
the likes of Aurangzeb and Afzal Khan. The difference [in outcomes
achieved] between Chauhan and Shivaji thus speaks for itself. Today the terrorists and religious missionaries are doing precisely that again, of playing by new and even more clandestine deceptive rules and by media management. We Hindus have to accordingly devise a new strategy for dealing with them, and will be successful only after understanding the rules by
which these enemy forces will scheme against us. It must be said at this juncture that Hindus, barring a small exception, however despite being
duped by perfidy of the aggressors for the last thousand years, and even in defeat, remained steadfast in their individual commitment to the Hindu religion. Thus, despite state patronage to the ensuing onslaught, plunder, impoverishment and victimisation, spread over a thousand years, those of
Hindu faith could not be decimated, and thus today, Hinduism remains the theology of the vast Indian majority in the length and breadth of the
terrain of India [see Annexure 2]. Defiant Hindus thus suffered persecution
and economic deprivation during Islamic and Christian reigns, such as
through differential taxation [e.g., jezia and zamindari land revenue appropriation] and plain brutality, but by and large refused to capitulate
and convert. This is an unprecedented achievement in any civilisational
history of any nation. Compare this with the historical fact that Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt crumbled to become 100% Islamic within three
decades of Islamic aggression, and so did Europe become 100% Christian
within five decades of the Crusades.

Even after almost a thousand years of such targeting by Muslims and
Christian rulers, undivided India in 1947 was more than 75 % Hindu. This
was partly because of the victorious Vijayanagaram [which lasted twice as
long and over a larger area than Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb], the
Sikh reign, and Mahratta kingdoms, and later the Freedom Movement, each inspired by sanyasis such Sringeri Shankaracharya, Swami Ramdas, Guru
Nanak, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayanand Sarasvati of Arya Samaj, and Sri Aurobindo, besides patriots like Bankim Chatterjee and Subramania Bharati,
who by their preaching about the Hindu identity ensured that the flame of
Hindu defiance never dimmed. It was also due to individual defiance of
Hindus such as of Rana Pratap, Rani Jhansi, Rani Chennamma, Kattaboman and Netaji Subhas Bose. These icons are admired not because they led us to
victory [in fact they were defeated or killed], or had found out for us
Hindus a safe compromise with the aggressors [they did not!], but because
of their courage of conviction in the face of huge odds not to submit to tyranny. That courageous defiance is also is part of our glorious legacy of Hindutva. But those who capitulated like Raja Man Singh or Jai Chand or Pudukottai Raja in order to live in pomp and grandeur by capitulating
before the invader for selfish motives and betraying our heroes in war with
the aggressor, are despised today by the people. Thus, Hindus safeguarded
the nation remembering their heroes even those who lost, and rejecting
those who had capitulated to the invader even if they prospered. This is
also an essence of Hindutva. But such passive defiance or intermittent victories in the battlefield to safeguard Hindu Rashtra is not sufficient
for the future survival of the Hindu civilization. Hindus today have won
their freedom but it has not been translated into civilisational
independence as Parmacharya had wanted. In 1947, temporal power and freedom were defacto restored to the Hindu majority. But the Indian state formally adopted secularism, which concept however was never properly defined or debated. For example, it left vague what a modern Indian's connection was
with the nation's Hindu past and legacy. What Nehru grafted on the nation
was a vague concept of secularism which operationally meant that anything European in mores and manners was good and anything Hindu was obscurantist.
In the name of secularism, it was taboo for a public servant even to break
a coconut or light an oil lamp to inaugurate an official function on the
ground that religious symbols must not invade public life! This orthodox concept of secularism has debilitated the civilisational independence of
the Hindus since 1947 after we had recovered our freedom. Secular orthodoxy
was promoted by Jawarharlal Nehru and his Leftist advisers in a number of
ways. The government took over supervision of temples, legislated on Hindu personal laws, and regulated religious festivals, but kept aloof from the Muslim and Christian religious affairs. In fact, data from Karnataka show
that during 1997-2002, over 250,000 temples under state government administration had appropriated Rs 391.40 crores in revenue from devotee offerings, but only Rs.84.00 crores of that was spent on the temples for
its upkeep. As a consequence of this meager expenditure, over 8000 temples
went into disuse. Madrasas and Haj travel however received Rs. 180.60
crores from these temple funds! Churches got Rs.44.00 crores, thus
diverting a total of 78.58% of Hindu temple donations to Muslim, Christian
and other non-Hindu activities!! Is this not incredible in a nation of 83% Hindu even in the name of secularism? The secularism principle was thus
foisted on the Hindu masses without making him understand why they had to
abide by such discriminatory legislation, but not Muslims and Christians.
As a result of the Nehruvian secularist's chicanery and treachery, the renaissance that had begun in the late nineteenth century to redefine the
Hindu identity [in contemporary terms and norms valid in a pluralistic society], was aborted by the confusion thus created in Hindu minds by a
vaguely understood concept of secularism. Confusion causes debilitation of one's strength. Adherence to Hinduism today is also being sought to be
diluted and debilitated in the name of modernity and this dilution is made
a norm of secularism. Religion, it is advocated, is personal. To be a good Hindu today is conceptually being reduced to just praying, piety, visiting temples, and celebrating religious festivals. This is not enough to meet
the challenge that Hindus face today from hostile forces of Islam and Christianity. Electoral politics has further confounded the issues arising
out of secularism, and hence the Indian society is becoming gradually and increasingly fragmented in outlook and of confused perspective. Hindu
society, divided by caste, is becoming increasingly mutually antagonistic.
The nation's enemies are easily gaining simply by leveraging secularism and modernity in this era of mass communication and globalization. Moreover, secularism as practiced today is a one- way commitment for Hindus only. If
any atrocity takes place in Hindus, for example, Muslims and Christians do
not protest and side with Hindus. Hence, time has arrived to completely
reject this confused, confounded and one-sided concept of secularism, and
not even attempt to re-define it as between ?authentic' and ?pseudo- secularism'. We need instead to make a clean break, by simply saying that
we reject secularism as being vague and instead want India to be a
spiritual society based on Hindu ethos and Hindutva. Hinduism guarantees
sarva pantha sama bhava and hence Hindutva based on Hindu theology is no
threat to any other religion as Justice Bharucha had pointed out[op.cit.]. Attempts at Hindu debilitation are also being made through falsification in history texts adopted for curriculum in the education system, to disconnect
and disinherit the contemporary Indian from the past glory of Hindu India.
The intrinsic Hindu unity has been sought to be undone by legitimizing such bogus concepts as Aryan-Dravidian racial divide theory [AIT], or that India
as a concept never existed till the British imperialists invented it, or
that Indians have always been ruled by invaders from abroad. There is no
such word as ?Aryan' in Sanskrit literature [closest is 'arya' meaning honourable person, and not community] or Dravidian [Adi Sankara had in his shasthrartha with Mandana Mishra at Varanasi, called himself as a 'Dravida shishu' that is a child of where three oceans' coastline meet, i.e., Kaladi
in Kerala and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu; i.e., south India].

Continues in Part 2 of 3 parts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

why should the world take notice? If the figures are adjusted for this migration, then in the five decades 1951-2001, Hindus have lost more 3
percent points in share of Indian population, while Muslims have increased their share by about 3%. What is even more significant is that Hindus have
lost 12% points since 1881, and the loss in share has begun to accelerate
since 1971 partly due to illegal migration of Muslims from Bangladesh. The continued rise in the share of Muslims and Christians in the total
population is a threat to the Hindu foundation of the nation. And we have
to find ways and means to meet this threat as well.

Thus, differential application of family planning, non-uniform civil code, illegal migration, and induced religious conversion have together have
created a serious looming crisis for the Hindu demographic character of the nation. We can see clearly what Muslim majority will mean to Hindus when we look at the situation in Kashmir or in Meerut, Mau or even in the tiny town panchayat of Melvisharam near Vellore. In these areas, Muslims in majority behave toward Hindu minority much as Saudi Arabian rulers behave with Hindu migrant workers in religious oppression. Moreover, patriots concerned with
the safeguarding of the Hindu foundation of the nation have to take note
that conversion to Christian faith has been put on a war footing by
religious entrepreneurs. In Dallas, Texas USA, the Global Pastors Network
[GPN] held a conference in 2006 and resolved that over the next fifteen
years, the organization will support financially worldwide the construction
of five million churches and conversion of one billion persons to
Christianity. From India alone the target, according the Evangelist Pat Robertson, is 100 million persons. Hence, Hindus are facing a terrible
pincer: Islamic fast population growth and illegal migration, in
conjunction with Christian money induced conversion activities. Hindus have therefore to hang together or ultimately be hanged separately. This is no inflamed psychosis. Not long ago, despite being the overwhelming majority, Hindus had to pay discriminatory taxes to the Muslim and Christian emperors
who were ruling India. Lack of unity and lack of a strategy were the
reasons for this subjugation, and not poverty. In fact when the onslaught
and enslavement took place, India was the richest country in the world and
of 100% Hindus. Within 1000 years thereafter, we were reduced to the
poorest in the world and with millions of Muslims and Christians despite
Hindus valiant resistance. Now if the demographic restructuring described herein goes on unchecked in the current globalised scenario then the danger becomes several fold. If one were to study the terrorism in Kashmir and Manipur, it is apparent that Hindus have been the special target.

The driving away of the Hindu population from the Kashmir valley by
targeted terrorism of Islamic jihadis is the single biggest human rights atrocity since Nazi Germany pogroms against the Jews. Yet it has hardly received noticed in international fora. Why? Hindu population in Bangladesh
has declined from 30 percent in 1950 to less than 8 percent of the total population today by deliberate targeted ethnic cleansing by Islamic
fanatics aided and abetted by their government[see Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India's State of Jammu& Kashmir: A Survey of Human Rights,June17,2005, www.hinduamericanfoundation.org] and yet there is no outcry. Why? This is because of the lack of Hindu mindset to retaliate
against atrocities against Hindus. When in 1949, anti-Hindu riots took
place in East Pakistan, Sardar Patel had declared that if the government
there could not control it, then India was quite capable of putting it down
for them. Soon after, the riots stopped! Terrorist attacks against India
and Hindus in particular thus is growing because we seem today incapable of retaliating in a manner that it deters future attacks. According to the
well known National Counter terrorism Center, a US government body, in it's report titled A Chronology of International Terrorism for 2004 states that: "India suffered more significant acts of terrorism than any other country
in 2004?, a damning comment because today in 2009 the situation is much
worse. India is today suffering on an average about 25 incidents of
terrorism a month. India's Home Ministry in it's 2004-05 Annual Report to Parliament had acknowledged that 29 of the 35 states and union territories
are affected by terrorism. Moreover, all India's neighbours have become hot-beds for anti-Indian terrorists training. Because of a lack of Hindu
unity and a mindset for deterrent retaliation, terrorists have become encouraged. In 1989, the Indian government released five dreaded terrorists
to get back the kidnapped daughter, Rubaiyya, of the then Home Minister. Kashmir terrorists got a huge boost by this capitulation. When the Indian Airlines plane with 339 passengers was hijacked to Kandahar in Afghanistan,
the government again capitulated whatever the reason, and released three of
the most dangerous terrorists. Today three of the most murderous terrorist organizations in Kashmir are directed by these three freed terrorists. Then there is the case of the LTTE which murdered Rajiv Gandhi. We never made
any effort to apprehend the leader of the LTTE V. Prabhakaran who had
ordered the assassination. Even more surprising, those MPs [of PMK, MDMK,
and DMK] who publicly praise that leader and hold the assassination as justified, have become Union Ministers in a coalition led by the widow of
Rajiv Gandhi! And the daughter of the slain leader went to the convicted
murder conspirator in Vellore jail to cry together with the killer about
the woe befallen to her father and victim! The only explanation can be that
the Gandhi family has something to hide in the assassination. Terrorism
cannot be fought by appeasement. But that precisely is what the government
is doing. Tragically, innocent Hindus have invariably been the victims of
this capitulation. To combat terrorism, there has to be a determination to never to negotiate a settlement with terrorists. Citizens of a country have
to be educated that there will be hazards when faced with acts of
terrorism, but that the goal of the government will always have to be to
hunt down the terrorists and fix them. Only under such a zero tolerance
policy towards terrorism, will the ultimate good emerge. For example in the Indian Airlines hijack case in order not to risk 339 passengers' lives the government released Mohammed Azhar from jail. But Azhar went to Pakistan
after his release and formed the Jaish-e-Mohammed which has since then
killed nearly two thousand innocent Hindus and is still continuing to do
so. How has the nation gained by the Kandahar capitulation then?

Hence the national political leadership has to treat the fight against terrorism as a dharmayudh, as fight to the finish and a religious duty not
to negotiate, compromise or capitulate to terrorists. The government must
also safeguard the nation by adopting a policy of deterrence by making the terrorists' political objectives nullified [see my book: Terrorism in
India: A Strategy for Deterrence, Har Anand, 2007 for specific deterrence policies]. The well known organization Transparency International has
graded about 140 countries according to the corruption levels from least to
the most. India appears near the bottom of the list as among the most
corrupt. Recently The Mitrokhin Archives II has been published wherein KGB documents have been relied on to conclude that shamefully "India was on
sale for KGB bribes". If India is the one of the most corrupt countries
today and purchasable, it is because the core Hindu values of simplicity, sacrifice and abstinence have been systematically downgraded over the
years. Wealth obtained by any means has become the criteria for social
status and political activity.

There was a time in India when persons of learning and simplicity enjoyed
the moral authority in society to make even kings bow before them. Not long ago, Mahatma Gandhi and later Jayaprakash Narayan without holding office
were here exercising the same moral authority over political leaders. In a
very short period, that Hindu value has evaporated. India is fast becoming
a Banana Republic in which everything, person, or policy appears to be available to anyone with ill-gotten wealth, of course for a price. The proposal, now implemented in some states, to have reservation in government employment for Muslims and "Dalit" Christians is another such sell-out. Reservation quotas are strictly for those whom the Hindu society due to degeneration had suppressed or had isolated from the mainstream scheduled
caste and Tribes thus suffered imposed disabilities. But those who were
ruling classes in our nation, such as Muslims and Christians, and that too
for a total of 1000 years, cannot claim that their disability is imposed to avail of this facility. But some political parties in reckless disregard
for equity and history, have sold out for bloc votes the national interest
by advocating for such a reservation proposal. In such a situation the
nation's independence and sovereignty slides into danger of being subverted
and then rendered impotent. Such betrayal has happened before in our
history, not when the nation was poor but was the richest country in the
world. India then was ahead in science, mathematics, art and architecture.
And yet because the moral fibre had weakened, all was lost. We had to
struggle hard to recover our freedom. But by the time we did, we had lost
all our wealth and dropped to the bottom of the list of countries in
poverty. II The Hindutva Agenda Therefore my call today is first and
foremost for undiluted unity of Hindus, a unity based on a mindset that is nurtured and fostered on the fundamentals of a renaissance. Only then
Hindus can meet the challenge of Christian missionaries and Islamic fundamentalists. I can do no better here than quote Swami Dayananda
Sarasvati: "Faced with militant missionaries. Hinduism has to show that its plurality and all- encompassing acceptance are not signs of disparateness
or disunity. For that, a collective voice is needed." Since the task to
defeat the nefarious forces ranged today against Hindu society is not going
to be easy, we cannot therefore trust those amongst in our midst whose commitment to the motherland is ambivalent or ad hoc or those who feel no kinship to the Hindu past of the nation. We partitioned a quarter of
Hindustan to enable those Muslims who could not live with Hindus in a democratic framework of equality and fraternity. Hence, we have to ensure
by our persuasive powers of Saam, Dhaam, Bheda, and Dand to foster in all citizens to Hinduness or Hindutva.

Continues in Part 3 of 3 parts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

universally interpreted as "getting more and getting better". The
approach never works for learning Sanskrit, or for being happy.

The motivation for learning Sanskrit is the enchantment, inspiration,
peace and deep sense of spiritual connection felt when listening to
it. Or it may have been a pure childlike enjoyment in duplicating
those sounds. Most people would have no difficulty learning Sanskrit,
if they simply remained in the mode of what motivated them in the
first place, their enjoyment. But something else usually happens. The
desire to learn Sanskrit starts to be perceived as a future goal,
which, when and if achieved, will represent the securing of the
happiness which generated the desire to learn it in the first place.
The goal is usually accompanied by an expectation of mastering a
certain amount of material within a certain period of time. The
problem here is the old conditioning, all past memories of happiness,
present or future, being thwarted by difficulties and interruptions.
Greatest among these memories is the loss of the simple joy of being
a child and the pure direct perception of life we all experienced in
our childhood.

The nature of a sacred language such as Sanskrit is the direct way
that it models life, or accesses through the purity of its sound and
rhythms, the perfection and beauty of life that we all experienced as
children. On our first exposure to Sanskrit, we reconnect with that
purity and joy, and then with the desire to secure that again in our
lives, decide that we must learn the language. On a very deep level,
it's a decision to nourish our spirit, and reestablish our oneness
with life. But it also at the same time brings us face to face with
our existential pain, the entire sum of our conditioning, all that
has kept us in a state of feeling alone and separate for the greater
part of a lifetime, as well as our repeated failure in attempting to
regain that happiness.

Once the task of learning the language is conceived, the criteria for achievement are unconsciously measured. Success is determined by
comparing what one has managed to learn with what remains to be known
and how much others know. Success also depends on the mastery of a
certain quantity of information in a certain period of time. The
universal question asked at the beginning, is "How long will it take
me to learn it?" But the Sanskrit language is so vast and distinctly
different from other languages and other learning tasks, that from
the very outset, it becomes apparent that it is going to be very
difficult to achieve the expected success in the expected period of
time. In addition, there are many Indian speakers and scholars, one
could never even hope to catch up with. This inevitably brings the
conclusion "Proficiency is further away than I had believed." Along
with this assessment -- automatically arise the words "too
difficult". Sanskrit is too difficult.

But the problem is not really the perceived difficulty based on the
amount of information that exists in the Sanskrit language. The fact
that there is more information actually represents more enjoyment. If
one were offered a large collection of the greatest music of all time accompanied by a continuous flow of increasingly majestic and
panoramic visions, one would not be disappointed because it would
take too long to listen to. In other words, discouragement about
being able to learn Sanskrit has absolutely nothing to do with
Sanskrit. Sanskrit is an enjoyable experience at all stages. Working
with Sanskrit increases and develops energy and clarity of mind.
There are seemingly an infinite variety of euphonic sound
combinations and rhythmic patterns to be enjoyed. Experiencing them
expands the capacity of the mind to operate as the cosmic computer it
is designed to be.

The only real problem that arises with regard to learning Sanskrit is forgetting why one decided to learn it in the first place -- to feel
the joy and purity one felt as a child. When the real purpose is
forgotten, we automatically default to concerns about success and
failure based on past programming. It is only in regard to this that
the idea "too difficult" can arise. Once "too difficult" takes root,
the usual result is giving up, because one's image of oneself being
proficient, seems too difficult to attain within the time limitations calculated as a factor in producing the necessary satisfaction.

Although such resignation is based on the fact of long-standing pain,
it is not the truth. The truth is the original inspiration, the joy,
the play, the heightened awareness. If Sanskrit seems too difficult,
it's doing its job perfectly. A sacred language must teach us to
discover where the energy of being flows, and it becomes easy.

The obvious solution is to have no expectations whatsoever with
regard to time or quantities of information. This is an approach
which serves our original purpose -- to enter into that timeless
dimension. If concerns come up or it seems to be getting difficult,
it's merely an indication that we've forgotten our real purpose. The
moment the idea of getting or adding "more" arises, we lose the
direct absorption, the enjoyment, the sense of play. This is direct bio-feedback

Sanskrit is a play, a dance of energy in the eternal now. It,
modeling life, is perfectly designed to take us beyond our
expectations, our self images, our programming. But we must be ready
to be in the role of a perpetual learner, a student of life, of the
ancient, eternal wisdom, miraculously encoded in this sacred
language. If we believe that by learning a sacred language, we will
gain knowledge and power, then we look to a future goal which is by
definition opposed to our true nature. The power of a sacred language
is to immediately mirror this back, as if to say, NO ACCESS. A sacred
language, is one which guides us to our own true nature, and every
time we derail ourselves, reminds us in some way that we're missing
out on its real nourishment. If we are going to engage, it must be
with our total being, one pointed awareness, free from the
distraction of where it might bring us, or rather, we might take it
in the future.

Sanskrit is the living heritage of great rishis who walked this earth
thousands of years ago. It presents us with an awesome responsibility
and a lifelong challenge, while it inspires us to remain fully
engaged in exploring what's possible for a human being. Learning
Sanskrit is an opportunity to know directly for ourselves what the
rishis discovered long ago. Most important, when approached as a
sacred language, it makes us happy.

From the perspective of Yog, all life ultimately merges into
samadhi. It could be said that samadhi is the essence of yog, In the
Yog Sutras, samadhi is defined, "tad evaathamaatraanirbhaasam- svaruupa-shuunyam iva samaadhih" that (consciousness, engaged in
sustained focus upon a single object), reflecting the object alone,
as if empty of its own nature, is samadhi. Everyone has had the
experience of samadhi, whether in childhood, or some deeply absorbing experience, such as listening to music. It's a period when our usual
identity disappears because our habitual use of language has been
discontinued.

Many teachers used to say "the body is a prison only when you cannot
come and go as you please". The experience of samadhi is the freedom
to come and go. Without samadhi we live in a prison of language,
whose walls consist of words, whose bars and locked doors are the
meanings and significance we unknowingly give to those words.
Unknowingly, because the meanings were never consciously selected.
They were programmed into us by prior generations. For example, when
people make a mistake, they tend to feel stupid or embarrassed. But
whoever (aside from lexicographers) really defined for themselves
what a "mistake" is? The great sage Shankar (in the famous
Bhajagovindam) wrote:

satsangatve nissangatvam nissangatve nirmohatvam |
nirmohatve nishchalatatvam nishchalatattvam jiivanmuktiH ||

In a state of satsanga, good company, (comes) non-attachment; in non- attachment, a state beyond confusion; in truth beyond confusion, motionlessness; in motionlessness, living freedom.

The verse could be used as a model of the necessary conditions for
making the shift from being at the effect of language to being at the
source of it. It all begins with satsanga, good company. The best
example of this that I know of is a group of people who have come
together to learn Sanskrit. It seems that on some level, perhaps
unconsciously, a person who has decided to learn Sanskrit, has
decided in some way to use this sacred language for that which it was
designed -- to be free. It is remarkably easy for such a group of
people to change their relation to language, to put themselves at the
source of language and then select and use language in a way that
gives them access to Sanskrit, with ease and enjoyment. Without the
mutual agreement of the group, satsanga, good company, it would be
highly unlikely that the shift could ever take place. We grew up in a
world where a mistake was a bad thing, enough so that most people
would not risk making one. This led to massive withdrawal. Though
people remained in a group, they were not really part of the group.
In truth, fear dominated nearly all groups. Natural unity was
shattered. The satsanga was lost. Groups were ineffective. Alone,
individuals were powerless. Everyone was hopelessly at the effect of
the language of right/wrong and smart/stupid. In effect, a "group"
could have been defined as a "body of people which has come together
to determine who is worthy and who is unworthy."

Fortunately, the Sanskrit language has given us the word "satsanga",
which could be defined as "a body of people who have come together
(sanga) to ascertain reality (sat)." The fundamental agreement of
such a group, such as the one which has come together to learn
Sanskrit, is that "I" am prior to language. I use language to direct
my attention to a full appreciation of the beautiful sounds of the
Sanskrit language, their harmonies and their organization, as well as
the truths expressed through the language. The language that makes
this possible is the language of yog, another gift of Sanskrit. The
satsanga agrees upon abhyaasa the selecting and sustained attention
upon a single focal point, for example, listening to the sounds of
the Sanskrit language. It's also agreed that there's nothing "wrong"
with being off the point. Becoming aware that I am off point, without
satsanga -- I might worry about what I missed that others got, I
might worry about being left behind -- "others are succeeding where I
fail." But in satsanga where the language of yog has been agreed
upon, there is vairaagya or non-attachment, "the full awareness of my
own mastery to not-attach myself to habitual experience and simply
return to the point, and even acknowledge 'I missed something --
could it be repeated?'". For the satsanga, if anyone missed anything,
it's an opportunity for it to be reviewed and clarified and enjoyed
again by everyone. It sounds too good to be true. Yet it happens
exactly this way by shifting our relationship to language. This would
not be possible without satsanga.

In the state of satsang (satsangatve) comes non-attachment
(nissangatvam). There is no more attachment to being right, and
concurrently the fear of being wrong. The real satisfaction derived
from the wholeness of group unity, the much greater capacity of the
group to focus together, enjoy sound together, appreciate the beauty
of Sanskrit together, all make the prior condition of being at the
effect of words such as right/wrong or smart /stupid or
success/failure seem totally irrelevant. Through satsang, there's a
complete shift in our relation to language -- we see through the
prison walls.

In non-attachment (nissangatve), there comes a state beyond confusion (nirmohatvam). I'm no longer holding myself back because of the fear
of consequences. I am feeling my oneness with the group. It's safe to
put myself into it. There is no conflict over wanting acceptance,
while fearing rejection. My confusion over whether to participate or
not - will I be rejected if I do it wrong or isolated if I do it
right -- is gone. The illusion, and the confusion (moha) of being
separate from others dissolves. The truth that we are one emerges.
When we move as one, we go beyond success and failure and access our
natural ability to perfectly reflect whatever we perceive -- samadhi.

In the state beyond confusion (nirmohatve), is motionlessness
(nishcalitatvam). This happens in the Sanskrit satsanga. In the
absence of striving to be better, fearing getting worse, the old
language that raced through our mind stops. The mind becomes still,
sensitive. A state of listening is present, samadhi, in which we feel
the nuances of Sanskrit, its power, and the subtle way it resonates
in the heart of our being, like ancient and eternal music. There's no
more struggle to learn, to gain and accumulate knowledge. The words
of Sanskrit, through their sound vibration are like waves of pure
energy, which we enjoy as if watching a performance taking place
inside us -- while their meanings describe our own fathomless
perfection, as the seer of all, ancient, eternal.

In motionlessness (nishcalitatve), living freedom (jiivanmukti), The
prison walls, even the memory that they were ever there, has
dissolved. From beginning to end, from the first attempt to learn
Sanskrit to the direct experience of the meaning of its ancient words
of truth and power, Sanskrit generates and establishes an entirely
different relationship with language. It's the proper relationship,
the true one, establishing our real unity, freedom from the bondage
of the past illusions. It keeps us savoring the timeless enjoyment of
the universe of sound, and a perfect creation.

By studying this sacred language only, the soul of India can be
understood and a good example among foreigners, we can say, is Max
Muller a German Scholar.

More at:
http://forums.joeuser.com/8866

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://preview.tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

Hence, the conclusions of Witzel fall flat on face. If there were any
unknown local languages which existed in the prehistoric era, they must
have been in the central, eastern and southern part of the subcontinent.
The OIT homeland (northern and north-western plains) does not show any
evidence of a pre-IE substrate language.

Witzel has also avoided the issue of non-mentioning of wheat ('godhUma')
in RV. He has accepted that wheat spread to the east and south by 2200 BCE[xxii]. But we do not find any reference to this crop in the entire
RV. Only 'yava' (barley) is mentioned in RV. It seems improbable that the
IAs will not mention about wheat for a few centuries despite residing in
the Punjab plains where wheat grew in plenty. To disprove Witzel's AIT arguments, we need not look at any outside sources. He provides the tools
and evidences himself.

We did see earlier how Witzel considers the PIE term for birch (Sanskrit 'bhUrja') as evidence against OIT for birch does not grow in India except
in the Himalayas at a height of 7000 feet. He even says that B.B. Lal
neglects such data. Perhaps Witzel did not bother to look at 'The
Homeland of Aryans: Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology'
by B.B. Lal (Aryan Books, New Delhi, 2005). Lal had stated that RV knew
about Himalayas and hence, 'bhUrja' does not necessarily prove AIT.

Let us look at the three words mentioned by Witzel (see Endnote 6):
'bhUrja' (birch), 'parkaTI/plakSa' (oak?) and 'vetasa' (willow?).
According to Witzel, as these three trees have common IE names (though
the last two names were applied to other trees in India), PIE homeland
must be in a region where these trees grow and hence, he rules out India.
But Witzel seems to forget that neither 'bhUrja' nor 'parkaTi/plakSa' is
found in RV. Moreover, he seems to have overlooked the fact that his
argument is neither new nor has it been left unanswered by OIT
writers[xxiii]. Still, we will make it very clear as to why these
'arguments' do not disprove OIT.

It was mentioned by us that IA was an eastern dialect. The homeland of RV
was Kurukshetra region and hence, the emigrant dialects were to the west
of present day Haryana. Under this scenario, the speakers of these
emigrant dialects would have first encountered the birch tree and given
the name to it. IAs would have come across the tree only when they
expanded to the west and north. They borrowed the name of the tree from
the other IE dialects. As for the argument that IAs changed the object of
the names 'parkaTI' and 'vetasa', our question is: why can't it be the
other way around? In fact, we have seen that 'parkaTI' is not found in RV
nor is 'bhUrja'. If the IAs had entered the subcontinent from the western passes, they would have come across the birch tree before they entered
the eastern Punjab and Haryana region. But we find that birch trees are mentioned in the later texts only. Hence, it shows a case of east to west
(and northwest) expansion rather than a west to east expansion as assumed
by AIT. Also, in the case of OIT, it is very much possible that the IE
speakers applied the names of their homeland trees to new trees found
during their migration. They could have also developed common terms for
trees found after they left the subcontinent. We are referring to a
situation where the IE dialects left India in the north-western direction
and spread through the Central Asian region. The PIE names for trees of
the colder climate were developed in this region where the various IE
dialects stayed before slowly moving to their current homelands. We are
not considering a situation where all the PIE words have to be developed
within the subcontinent. IAs would have gained some of these tree names
from their western neighbours as expanded in the west. This theory is
supported by the fact that 'bhUrja' is found only in the late RV. It is
simply ridiculous to assume that IAs, who did not come across a single
birch tree since entering India for a few centuries, still remembered the
birch tree so well that the future generations recognised the birch trees
of Kashmir as 'bhUrja' and mentioned so in the post-RV texts. Unless we
are talking about the IAs maintaining a photo album of their homeland
trees, the AIT case on birch is very feeble. On the contrary, OIT
explains the reason as to why 'bhUrja' is found only in post-RV texts
well after the IAs had expanded to the west.

Finally, we will look at the so called 'BMAC' loanwords. The words for
brick ('iSTikA/iStakA'), bread ('rotika') etc. are included in this list.
What Witzel does not consider is the fact that bricks are mentioned only
in the Brahmana period and that 'roTikA' is not found even in the
Brahmana and Sutra literature (it is found only from the post-Vedic
period). To claim that these words were 'borrowed' from a BMAC language
before IAs entered India is nothing short of a ridiculous theory. Once
again, the reason for the 'invention' of this BMAC substrate is that many
of these words do not have IE etymology or that they do not conform to
the 'IE/IIr form'. A look at RV shows that RV people did not know about
several things mentioned in the BMAC word list. One of the weakest points
of AIT is the fact that bricks are not mentioned in RV when we find brick
lined fire-altars in SSC[xxiv]. The fire-altars of RV were mere
sacrificial pits dug out in ground and covered by grass (RV 7.43.2-3).
Only in the later period (the Brahmana period) do we find the mention of
bricks and the use of bricks in fire-altars. We can conclude that IAs
never came into contact with BMAC before the RV period as they did not
know about bricks. If we consider the fact that RV does not know about
bricks alongside other evidences like lack of cotton ('karpAsa'), wheat (godhUma), silver etc. in RV, we can conclude that RV must have preceded
SSC. The so-called 'BMAC' words could not have been borrowed from the
BMAC region as most of them do not appear in the early parts of RV (see
Endnote 4). This cannot be the case if we accept AIT (be it invasion/immigration) to be true. In turn, it proves our theory that IAs
might have innovated (along with the other language speakers of India)
new forms of words which are not found in other IE dialects (like
'rotikA' ? a very late innovation found in the Puranic texts). As we have already stated, it is not required that all the innovations of IAs should
be transferred to the western dialects. That explains why certain IA innovations in forms/sounds are not found in the other IE branches. Even
if we do assume, for the sake of academic curiosity, that there are some substrate borrowings in IA (as Kuiper and Witzel keep on repeating) from
the local languages of Central, Eastern and Southern India, it is very
much possible under OIT that such borrowings were not transferred to the western dialects. Witzel and others have been arguing against a scenario
where PIE evolves linearly within India with no linguistic diversity. But
OIT does not envisage such a scenario.

On the whole, we can see that linguistic palaeontology does not disprove
OIT. It is mostly neutral as all the 'evidences' can reinterpreted in the
OIT scenario vey easily.

Conclusion

Despite the huge claims made by AIT proponents, linguistics does not
disprove OIT. It is either neutral or pro-OIT (as in the case of FU and
Mitanni names). The innovations of IA which are not found in other IE
branches can be explained in an OIT scenario very easily. While
linguistics may not prove OIT (neither is AIT proved by it), it is
certainly not against OIT. We have seen that archaeology supports genetic continuity in Indian subcontinent while we have literary evidences which
speak about IE emigrations out of India.

If we look at the combination of linguistic, archaeological and literary evidences, then OIT appears to be the most probable expansion scenario
and the case of Indian Urheimat can be called as unassailable. The facts
are present before everyone. We hope that a consensus on OIT will happen
in the near future laying to rest the age-old debate on Indo-European
Urheimat.

Endnotes

[i] Das: 'The Hunt for Foreign Words in Rgveda' Indo-lranian Journal 38: 207-238, 1995.

[ii] Quoted by Anttila: 'Greek and Indo-European etymology in action: proto-Indo-European *ag'' (Pg. 208) John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2000

[iii] Lubotsky: 'The Indo-Iranian Substratum' - Early Contacts between
Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations , University of Helsinki 2001

[iv] Talageri: 'The Rigveda and The Avesta The Final Evidence' (Pg.41 &
49) Aditya Prakashan 2008

End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

578), if so, then both with change of meaning in the Indian climatic
context. As in some cases of crop names (see below), more such IE tree
names are retained in E. Iranian and Dardic in the Northwest"[vi].

Here again, the 'form' of the IA words is taken up to prove the foreign
origin of many IA words. For example, Witzel[vii] has tried to prove that
many of the IA terms for Indian plants have 'non-IE' form and hence, they
must be taken as substrates from unknown languages which were spoken in
the subcontinent before the arrival of Indo-Aryans.

Witzel gives an example of 'busa' in Burushaski: "For example, in Vedic Sanskrit a word like busa 'drizzle, chaff' is actually not allowed: it
should have been bus.a with a retroflex s. (as in Kr.s.n.a or bha-s.a-). Indeed, the word is found in the non-IE Burushaski language as busa (and
in neighboring Iranian languages)"[viii]. As Burushaski is a standalone language which is not related to any known language family, Witzel takes
it as an example of how substrates from the (now lost) local languages of pre-Vedic period are found in IA. Witzel gives 'godhUma' (wheat) as
another example of non-IE loanword (from Near East). Now that he is armed
with evidence for such 'substrates', he proclaims: "This word joins a
fairly large number of Central Asian words that have been taken over both
by Iranian and Vedic from the Oxus civilization (BMAC) and its
surroundings. Such terms include those for sheaf, seed, ploughshare,
lynch pin, well, canal, yeast, bread, pillar, brick, house, wooden peg,
sand, gravel, bowl, spit, axe, club, cloak, hem, coarse garment, cloth
and needle, as well as words for hemp, cannabis and mustard (and extend
into religon as well)"[ix].

Now, we shall analyse the latter three linguistic arguments in detail and determine whether they really disprove OIT as claimed by the AIT
proponents.

PIE in India

Before analysing the AIT arguments, we would like to clarify in brief
what OIT actually means. OIT does not mean 'Vedic is PIE'. Most of the arguments against OIT is based on this wrong assumption and all these 'arguments' can be summarily ignored as they do not affect OIT in a
slightest bit. In OIT scenario, the northern and north-western part of
the subcontinent was the homeland of PIE. Various IE dialects developed
in this region and in the Bactria-Sogdiana region (expanding into Central
Asia) beyond the Hindukush. Nichols[x] had shown that the locus of IE
languages was in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana. Vedic (IA) was
just one of the numerous dialects of IE which developed out of PIE in the Afghanistan-North India belt. Vedic was an eastern (though not the
easternmost) dialect. The IE dialects which emigrated from India were to
the west of Vedic. The fact that MIA (Middle Indo-Aryan: Prakrits)
contains certain IE words not found in Vedic shows that there were other
IE dialects present in the subcontinent. We will keep this OIT scenario
in mind when evaluating the anti-OIT 'evidences' submitted by the AIT proponents.

Analysis of AIT claims

Mitanni and OIT

Mitanni is an IA language which was spoken by the conquerors of the Near
East Mitanni kingdom in the mid second millennium BCE. We do not have any
large literature of this language. We have personal names, technical
jargons used in horse training and some other IE words mentioned in the
written records of the period.

Mitanni is claimed to be more archaic than Vedic based on the fact that
the language uses 'ai/au' unlike 'e/o' in Vedic. The presence of 'z'
(lost by Vedic) is shown as another evidence for the claim that Mitanni
is older than RV.

This 'evidence' is neither a convincing proof for AIT nor does it go
against OIT. The AIT scholars must understand that 'PIE in India' does
not mean that every IE dialect emigrating out of India must have all the innovations found in Vedic. We have clearly stated that several IE
dialects developed in India out of which Vedic was but one. Therefore, to
apply a case of linear evolution to determine the age of Mitanni vis-a-
vis Vedic appears to be unnecessary. Also, Mitanni does have certain Prakritizations which are not found in Sanskrit. For example, 'sapta'
becomes 'satta' in Mitanni. Witzel claims that this has occurred due to
the influence of Hurrite 'sinti' (seven)[xi]. Are we supposed to believe
that the Hurrite word 'influenced' Prakritization of 'sapta'? Can anyone
derive the evolution of 'sapta' into 'satta' due to the influence of
'sinti'? Another AIT proponent, Arnaud Fournet, stated that Hurrian does
not have any word with the sound '-pt-' and hence, it had led to the term becoming 'sapta'. While it does look like a better explanation, it is not
much better than that of Witzel. Hurrian does not have the '-dr-' sound
either. But we find that the Mitanni have written 'indra' as 'indara'.
'Indra' did not become 'Inara' (as in Anatolian). Similar change could be expected in 'sapta' as well (into 'sapata'). But what we see here is a
case of Prakritization (of 'sapta' evolving into 'satta'). This shows
that Mitanni cannot be called as 'completely pre-RV' without any
reservations.

Moreover, there is the problem of comparing a written language of mid
second millennium BCE with RV (whose final redaction and standardization occured around 700 BCE). It is well known that some changes in
pronunciation did occur in RV prior to its final redaction. It is very
much possible that the changes like 'ai>e', 'au>o', 'azdh'>'edh' etc.
could have occurred before the final redaction of RV.

But the most important issue which is not considered by the AIT
proponents is this: OIT does not require Mitanni to be a descendant of RV language. We have already stated that various IE dialects were present in
the subcontinent (and not just Vedic). Therefore, to claim that RV is
younger than Mitanni as Mitanni does not show certain innovations found
in Vedic is based on faulty assumptions. It is very much possible that
Vedic did some innovations which were not passed to its western
neighbours (just as Iranian innovations did not affect Vedic).

Most of the AIT arguments against OIT have been based on a wrong
assumption that any dialect which emigrates from India should include all
the innovations of Vedic until that time. Thus, the basic assumption is
that OIT means 'there was one uniform linear evolution of PIE in the subcontinent'. But we have already shown above that OIT believes in a
scenario where several IE dialects evolved within the subcontinent.
Hence, all these arguments about Mitanni not having the innovations of
Vedic do not affect OIT in any manner.

Instead of looking at the 'sounds', if we look at the words, then we
arrive at a completely different picture. Talageri[xii] shows that
Mitanni shows the late RV innovations in names (e.g. 'priya-', '-atithi', '-asva', '-ratha', '-medha' etc.). Most importantly, these 'innovations'
are completely absent in the early RV. He has shown that not one Mitanni
type name is found in the early and middle RV. It is possible that some
'old names' may not be mentioned in early RV but came to be mentioned
only in the late RV. But to argue that not even one of the Mitanni names
were not mentioned in early RV (despite them being in use) is sounds like
a 'conspiracy theory'. In fact, such a situation is simply implausible.

Finno-Ugric (FU) and OIT

While it is true that FU has several loanwords from Iranian and IA, we
have yet to come across a single uncontested FU loanword in IA. As
mentioned above, FU borrowings are not from PIE but from IIr (Indo-
Iranian) branch. S.S. Misra and Talageri point out that it is impossible
for a language to lend several words and borrow none as it appears to be
the case here. Bryant[xiii] accepts that it is one of the few positive arguments given in support of OIT (until 2000 when Talageri's second book
was published). But as pointed out earlier, some scholars try to find FU loanwords in IA vocabulary. Klejn[xiv] cites the following words as FU
loans into IA: 'rasA' (Mordovian 'ravo' for Volga), 'rep' (Greek 'Ripean' ridge) and '?arabha' (Ugric '?orp'). It is generally accepted that RV
does not have any extraterritorial knowledge. Some western scholars
identify these supposedly FU words as 'Vedic evidence' for the migration.

Continues in Part 2

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)