Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[TCO]

I looked up the wiki article on sati and it said this:

This article is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users, like "aneeshm" from editing it. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection.

[Barnabas]

How much time must pass before asians stop being ultra nationalistic wackos and become more self hating?

[Heresson]

They should kill some Jews to achieve that

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But thats just silly even if AIT is true - it identifies nationality with race, and doesnt admit of cultures aborbing each other, and of the way nationality is rooted in culture. Its like the idiots who think that if they can show substantial racial connection between the Khazars and Ashkanazi Jews, it would mean the Ashkanizim arent "really" Jewish - as if the Jewish nation were defined purely by blood, and wasnt always open to religio-cultural absorption of others into its national being.

The fact is, Hindu civilization was built IN India, and apparently had elements native to India, and imported elements, and that it became historically the civilization of all India, and of almost all Indians. AIT is not relevant to that narrative.

True as that may be, mobs and lower castes don't believe that, they don't want to believe that Brahmins are the same as they are. The Marxists who control intellectual institutions (thanks to the patronage of the state, due to its Nehruvian nature, for over fifty years) absolutely hate Hinduism, considering it nothing more than a crude opiate of the masses. This gets reflected even in school textbooks. I remember how I felt when Brahmins were constantly denounced as the source of everything wrong that ever happened in India (including the evils of the Muslim system, too!).

I've decided one thing now - in the next few days, I'm going to go out and buy the CBSE history textbooks for the twelve years of school, and search out every anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu reference I can find, and put it on the internet in one compiled report. That will act as a nice resource, and will give you guys a concrete idea of what I'm talking about.

I've realised that unless you actually come to India, and study it in detail for a few years, you can't see the pervasive bias of the system as it is now. Foreign journalists accept as gospel truth whatever their Indian contacts tell them.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
How much time must pass before asians stop being ultra nationalistic wackos and become more self hating?

Self-hatred is a very, very bad thing. It stops you from building on the positives of the past.

[Dinner]

And ultra nationalism blinds people to obvious social evils which end up not being addressed when they really should be dealt with decisively.

[Arrian]

I've decided one thing now - in the next few days, I'm going to go out and buy the CBSE history textbooks for the twelve years of school, and search out every anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu reference I can find, and put it on the internet in one compiled report

This is an obsession, man. But by all means, post the stuff. You might want to pay attention to any anti-something else references too, though. Pretend you're a Muslim and look for "anti-Muslim" stuff.

Otherwise it's kinda pointless. Your mind is already made up that they're out to get you. You will then read through a textbook looking for examples of what you already "know" and when you find some, you will have "proven" the bias you already believe exists.

That's the sort of thinking that got us (USA) into Iraq.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
True as that may be, mobs and lower castes don't believe that, they don't want to believe that Brahmins are the same as they are. The Marxists who control intellectual institutions (thanks to the patronage of the state, due to its Nehruvian nature, for over fifty years) absolutely hate Hinduism, considering it nothing more than a crude opiate of the masses. This gets reflected even in school textbooks. I remember how I felt when Brahmins were constantly denounced as the source of everything wrong that ever happened in India (including the evils of the Muslim system, too!).

I've decided one thing now - in the next few days, I'm going to go out and buy the CBSE history textbooks for the twelve years of school, and search out every anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu reference I can find, and put it on the internet in one compiled report. That will act as a nice resource, and will give you guys a concrete idea of what I'm talking about.

I've realised that unless you actually come to India, and study it in detail for a few years, you can't see the pervasive bias of the system as it is now. Foreign journalists accept as gospel truth whatever their Indian contacts tell them.

I firmly believe that our society has made great strides towards eliminating the medieval social conditions that the Western media likes to harp upon, but this "us vs. them" mentality that pervades your political posts makes me doubt this.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by MRT144
let's be honest; the real problem isnt that aryans invaded india, its that the caste system is continued to be used as a social system. dont hate the players, hate the game aneeshm. You've had 2000+ years india, why does this antiquated systems remain?

It doesn't, actually. When it comes to institutions, the situation is completely reversed. In fact, if our current vote-grubbing government mandates quotas in the private sector in employment, I'm getting the hell out of this country as soon as possible. That is possibly the ONLY thing which could convince me to leave my Motherland, but if it's done, it's Bye Bye India. A lot of Brahmins in the south have already fled - they don't want to live in a state where the only politicians who get elected are the ones who compete to curse Brahmins the most.

I have no wish to degrade myself by working with people who have come up solely because of the accident of birth and not merit. Even today, in colleges, there is a 50% quota for lower castes, and it has led to the degradation of academic standards (because the quote must be filled only by the lower castes, even if they're more than 10% or even 50% below the academic average for that college), and of the college atmosphere (because passing standards are lowered for these people, with the consequence that many don't really care about studies too much).






It's funny you should mention that, though:

Valmiki the Sage (author of the first epic, the Ramayana) was by birth the hunter caste - one of the lowest on the later hierarchy
Vyasa, the author of our holy books (the Vedas, Puranas, and Mahabharat) was the son of a fisherwoman, and is dark-skinned
Chandragupta, the emperor of the first Indian empire, was the son of a goatherd (and he was groomed for the position of emperor by a Brahmin who recognised his worth)
Krishna, one of our supreme gods, is dark-skinned and the son of cattle-grazers
Rama is dark-skinned
Shiva is dark-skinned
Kali is dark-skinned
Shivaji, a modern-day Marathi and Hindi icon, was by birth low caste, but by his actions his caste became the rulers of Maratha India. He also trusted his empire to the regentship of the (Brahmin) Peshwas, who maintained it faithfully as long as humanly possible


The examples can be multiplied - these were just the ones off the top of my head. This doesn't fit in with idea of a totally rigid caste hierarchy. There is a beautiful definition of "Who is a Brahmin" in one of the Upanishads. Essentially the same definition can be found in the dialogue of the Yaksha and Yudhishthira. I will quote both below:

If it is said that birth makes the brahmana, it is not so, for there are many species among creatures, other than human, many sages are of diverse origin. We hear from the sacred books that Rsyasrnga was born of a deer, Kaushika of kusha grass, Jambuka from a jackal, Valmiki from an ant-hill, Vyasa from a fisher girl, Gautama from the back of a hare, Vasistha from Urvasi (the celestial nymph), Agastya from an earthen jar. Despite their birth, there are many sages who have taken the highest rank, having given proof of their wisdom. Therefore birth does not make a brahmana.

If it is said that knowledge makes a brahmana, it is not so, because among kshatriyas and others there are many who have seen the highest Reality and attained wisdom. Therefore knowledge does not make a brahmana.

Then if it is said that work makes a brahmana, it is not so, for we see that the work commenced in the present embodiment or accumulated during the previous or to commence on a future embodiment is common to all living creatures and that good men perform works impelled by their past karma. Therefore work does not make a brahmana.

Then if it is said that the performer of religious duties is a brahmana, it is not so, for there have been many kshatriyas and others who have given away gold--a religious duty. Therefore the performer of religious rites is not the brahmana.

Then who, verily, is the brahmana? He who, after directly perceiving, like the amalaka fruit in the palm of one's hand, the Self--without a second, devoid of distinctions of birth, attribute and action, devoid of all faults such as the six infirmities, and the six states, of the form of truth, wisdom, bliss and eternity, that is by itself, devoid of determinations, the basis of endless determinations, who functions as the indwelling spirit of all beings, who pervades the interior and the exterior of all, like ether, of the nature of bliss, indivisible, immeasurable, realisable only through one's experience and who manifests himself directly (as one's self)--and, through the fulfilment of his nature, becomes rid of the faults of desire, attachment, etc., and endowed with qualities of tranquillity, etc., rid of the states of being, spite, greed, expectation, bewilderment, etc., with his mind unaffected by ostentation, self-sense and the like, he lives. He alone, who is possessed of these qualities, is the brahmana. This is the view of the Vedic texts and tradition, ancient lore and history. The accomplishment of the state of the brahmana is otherwise impossible. Meditate on Brahman, the Self who is being, consciousness and bliss, without a second; meditate on Brahman, the Self who is being, consciousness and bliss without a second. This is the Upanishad.

Sama Veda, Vajrasucika Upanishad 1-9
Translated by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan

The dialogue between the Yaksha and Yudhisthira (it's quite an interesting dialogue in itself, you can find it here)

The Yaksha asked,--'By what, O king, birth, behaviour, study, or learning doth a person become a Brahmana? Tell us with certitude!'

Yudhishthira answered,-'Listen, O Yaksha! It is neither birth, nor study, nor learning, that is the cause of Brahmanahood, without doubt, it is behaviour that constitutes it. One's behaviour should always be well-guarded, especially by a Brahmana. He who maintaineth his conduct unimpaired, is never impaired himself. Professors and pupils, in fact, all who study the scriptures, if addicted to wicked habits, are to be regarded as illiterate wretches. He only is learned who performeth his religious duties. He even that hath studied the four Vedas is to be regarded as a wicked wretch scarcely distinguishable from a Sudra (if his conduct be not correct). He only who performeth the Agnihotra and hath his senses under control, is called a Brahmana!'

Both of these repudiate the idea of the Brahminical order being based only on birth. That is why you find great individuals always inducted into that order irrespective of caste (as can be seen from the examples I gave).

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by aneeshm



I've decided one thing now - in the next few days, I'm going to go out and buy the CBSE history textbooks for the twelve years of school, and search out every anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu reference I can find, and put it on the internet in one compiled report. That will act as a nice resource, and will give you guys a concrete idea of what I'm talking about.

This is almost exactly the opposite of a scientific process, which is what some people keep pointing out to you.
You may be right about whatever your point is (or not, I dont know), but this futile exercise you are doing can be done to prove anything.

[Arrian]

aneeshm, as a member of the highest(?) caste, this persecution complex you have is pretty silly. It reminds me a lot of the "angry white man" syndrome in the states, which probably has more justification than the temple-sized chip you have on your shoulder.

You grew up privileged, did you not? You live comfortably on money provided by your parents. The lower castes for whom there are university quotas... how many of them had such advantages?

Yet you whine about the attempt by the government to level the playing field. It's not the ultimate solution - just as "affirmative action" here in the USA should be phased out eventually. But what is with the "woe is me, poor brahmin that I am" routine?

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oerdin
And ultra nationalism blinds people to obvious social evils which end up not being addressed when they really should be dealt with decisively.

The VHP, denounced as a regressive organisation, reached a unanimous conclusion in its second "World Hindu Conferences" that the erasure of untouchability and casteism is one of the prime duties of Hindu institutions today (even if these institutions be in a pitiable state). This was way back in 1979.

And these people represent the orthodox, traditionalist point of view. And precisely because they represent that view, they can do this job more effectively than most other institutions, because even traditional and orthodox people - the same people who are usually the biggest resistance to reform - look up to them as upholders of the faith, and can accept something said by them much more easily than something said by urban modernists who have basically lost touch with the real India.

Nationalism is the wrong word to use here, because it implies exclusivism. Indian nationalism is inclusive, not exclusive. You can make that out from our civics books, from the traditional view of India as Akhand Bharat, and in the statements of the RSS.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I firmly believe that our society has made great strides towards eliminating the medieval social conditions that the Western media likes to harp upon, but this "us vs. them" mentality that pervades your political posts makes me doubt this.

Who is "us"? And who is "them"?

People who deny the territorial integrity of India will definitely not be included in any sane definition I create of "us".

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Who is "us"? And who is "them"?

In this particular instance, "us" = those who identify as persecuted Brahmins, and "them" = those identified by the "us" as "mobs and lower castes."

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
aneeshm, as a member of the highest(?) caste, this persecution complex you have is pretty silly. It reminds me a lot of the "angry white man" syndrome in the states, which probably has more justification than the temple-sized chip you have on your shoulder.

You grew up privileged, did you not? You live comfortably on money provided by your parents. The lower castes for whom there are university quotas... how many of them had such advantages?

Yet you whine about the attempt by the government to level the playing field. It's not the ultimate solution - just as "affirmative action" here in the USA should be phased out eventually. But what is with the "woe is me, poor brahmin that I am" routine?

-Arrian

First of all, I'm against all caste based discrimination, whether traditional or reversed. The only thing it serves to do is to reinforce caste identities, which is the LAST thing we want do be doing right now.

If you HAVE to try to level the playing field, at least do it sensibly - by building a network of decent primary and secondary schools, for instance.

But that takes work and effort and political will, work which the Congress and similar governments do not want to do. That is why they choose to outsource the problem, so to speak. They simply mandate quotas, even going to the extent of mandating them in private institutions, which is wrong.

These quotas have never, in actual fact, helped the lower castes. Do you know that the majority (as much as 90%) of seats reserved for the lower castes go unfilled due to lack of applicants?

Why are there no applicants? Because they had no access to primary education. Those who apply would have had the means necessary to get there anyway, but those who don't, who are the real sufferers, are not helped by this measure AT ALL.

Building schools would also be a much fairer system - the poor upper caste boy, who would have been denied education, also gets it. Help based on economic considerations is far better than ill-implemented help based on caste considerations.

If the government HAS to interfere, might as well do it in a (relatively more) sensible way.





Quotas were introduced at the time of independence, for a limited period of fifteen years ONLY, to be phased out within that time, and were opposed by the greatest lower caste leader alive at that time, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. But nobody had the guts to phase them out (fear of loss of votes), so even when it was shown that they're not working, they were not scrapped.


Another thing you may not know is that Brahmins are always spoken of as a homogeneous group in the history books.