The Vedic World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok I give up man.

I'm actually reading all the papers.

While you are having an internet debate with liberal lashings of mythology.

Pandit ji angrezi mein likha hai.

Paper padho.

Cheers, Doc
You will be surprised to know that I have read everything you posted in detail. It is for this reason that I can recall easily what you posted here. I have argued my case based on what you have posted. Unfortunately you have not understood english or probably you are poor at understanding things or may be you have filters in your eyes and brain which prevent you from seeing the true picture. Every theory of every person who talks of Into India theory, fails when we compare the genetics. Now you have started another theory and Called R1a as a non aryan gene. Please tell me which is the aryan gene?
Do you know that there is nothing called aryan Race? Arya is a sanskrit word which means a person of non common lineage. Rya is a commoner. The Brahmins and kings used to be called Arya and even the top most people of every varna were called Arya. We even have Arya Vaishya in India. read about Shettys. Aryan race is a figment of imagination of Germans and people like you have fallen for the stupidity to call yourself aryans to somehow claim superiority which is alien to you. I believe in people. Everyone is equally superior and equally inferior to eachother. We are all equals. some are first among equals. Thats it. I rest my case.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Aravind and vsdoc
"Researchers in David Reich's lab at Harvard have tested what possible groups could be combined to create the ANI element in South Asians. After exhaustive comparisons, they find ANI is best modelled as a combination of the Pontic pastoralists and early Neolithic Iranian farmers!"

Now look at the spread of genes into India.

oclrgbvtis-1522607914.png


Do you need further explanation about R1a and R1a1a @vstol Jockey ?

The ANI got made by the collision if two streams.

The Iranian and the Pontiac Steppes pastoralists.

The Pontiac Steppes pastoralists also migrated towards Europe ... another arm. Which does not have any ASI.

ANI has ASI.

Iranian has no ASI.

And very little R1a ... backflow from collision in the IVC in all likelihood.

Some IVC also backflowed at a later date into the Turan.

Hope this is getting clearer now ....

Cheers, Doc
 
You will be surprised to know that I have read everything you posted in detail. It is for this reason that I can recall easily what you posted here. I have argued my case based on what you have posted. Unfortunately you have not understood english or probably you are poor at understanding things or may be you have filters in your eyes and brain which prevent you from seeing the true picture. Every theory of every person who talks of Into India theory, fails when we compare the genetics. Now you have started another theory and Called R1a as a non aryan gene. Please tell me which is the aryan gene?
Do you know that there is nothing called aryan Race? Arya is a sanskrit word which means a person of non common lineage. Rya is a commoner. The Brahmins and kings used to be called Arya and even the top most people of every varna were called Arya. We even have Arya Vaishya in India. read about Shettys. Aryan race is a figment of imagination of Germans and people like you have fallen for the stupidity to call yourself aryans to somehow claim superiority which is alien to you. I believe in people. Everyone is equally superior and equally inferior to eachother. We are all equals. some are first among equals. Thats it. I rest my case.

I apologize for losing patience momentarily.

Cheers, Doc
 
I've pointed you clearly in the direction.

If you want me to take the effort, I will, once I'm off my phone.

Cheers, Doc

The term Aryan, which is a linguistic cultural term, is associated with gene, a purely biological term, as if this is a proven scientific fact. Let me elaborate..

Indians and ancient Iranians are probably the only people known to have used the term 'Arya' as ethnolinguistic marker. When I say probably I'm being generous, they are actually the only ones two unambiguously use that term. Thanks to their ancient literature, coupled with some archaeological discoveries, we roughly know that ancient Indians (vedic people) and ancient Iranians (Avestans) have lived in their current geographic locations for atleast 3500 years now. Thanks to the system of endogamy, the forms may have varied in the respective societies, we can also be assured that the socioethnic make up of these societies have remained pretty much the same during those 3500 years.

Beyond the Indians and Iranians, associating the term Arya with any other socioethnic group anywhere in the world is extremely tenuous at b
 
  • Agree
Reactions: vsdoc
"Researchers in David Reich's lab at Harvard have tested what possible groups could be combined to create the ANI element in South Asians. After exhaustive comparisons, they find ANI is best modelled as a combination of the Pontic pastoralists and early Neolithic Iranian farmers!"

Now look at the spread of genes into India.

oclrgbvtis-1522607914.png


Do you need further explanation about R1a and R1a1a @vstol Jockey ?

The ANI got made by the collision if two streams.

The Iranian and the Pontiac Steppes pastoralists.

The Pontiac Steppes pastoralists also migrated towards Europe ... another arm. Which does not have any ASI.

ANI has ASI.

Iranian has no ASI.

And very little R1a ... backflow from collision in the IVC in all likelihood.

Some IVC also backflowed at a later date into the Turan.

Hope this is getting clearer now ....

Cheers, Doc
Even this diagram fails when we consider The Rig veda. We have very accurately found the date of birth of Lord Rama to be Jan 10th 5114 BC.
Lord Ram was born in 5114 BC
SUNIT BEZBAROOWA & ARVIND JOSHI
TIMES NEWS NETWORK SATURDAY,
NOVEMBER 08, 2003 02:12:42 AM
"Ram was and is for real. He was born on January 10, 5114 BC," Saroj Bala, IRS, Commisioner of Income Tax says, calmly, with the assurance of one who has tangible facts.
Taking on the contemporary historical interpretation of Ramayana as a religio-literary text, and Lord Ram as a semi-mythical figure, is this unassuming person who zealously devotes her spare time to research in history when she's not playing the tax mandarin.
And she has chosen the unusual combination of astronomy, Internet and literary texts to provide us a startling picture of Shri Ram. This might change the way we look at history and religion. We might refuse to begin reading Indian history from that comma, or hyphen called 'Indus Valley.' We might have to stretch the beginnings by a few thousand years because, as Saroj Bala says - Ram was born on January 10, 5114 BC.
Excerpts of an interview with the lady who has the intellectual courage to go beyond the obvious:
What got it all started...
As an amateur historian, I've always been interested in Indian culture and heritage. I am proud that we're Indians and the products of one of the oldest civilisations. However, British rule changed us; we developed a sense of being somehow inferior.
But I could never reconcile to theories like the theory of Aryan invasion to India in 1500 BC. That would make Indian civilization only 3,500 years old.
And if you choose archaeology to dig beyond 7,000 years, you'd have to dig more than 60 metres - something not being done in India as yet. So, archaeology is not the only answer. There's a lot of objective research of another kind that needs to be carried out in earnest.
So, how can we say Ram was born on January 10, 5114 B.C...
My colleague Pushkar Bhatnagar of Indian Revenue Service is the real originator of this theory. He acquired a software named Planetarium, used to predict planetary movements and configurations.
By entering in this software, precise details of planetary positions vis-à-vis zodiac constellations described by Maharishi Valmiki in the Valmiki Ramayan, it is possible to determine important dates starting from Shri Ram's birth-date to the date of his return to Ayodhya.
More than just Ram's date of birth...
The results have not just thrown up Shri Ram's date of birth; it has actually traced the entire sequence of incidents throughout Ramayan.
Pushkar Bhatnagar starts with tracing Ram's birth. Then he moves ahead in the narrative. Valmiki Ramayan states Ram was 25-years-old when he went to exile. When the configuration of planets described at this point is fed into the software, the date thrown up matches perfectly with Ram's age at that juncture of his life - 25 years.
Again in the 13th year of Ram's exile, during a war with Khar and Dushan, Valmiki describes a solar eclipse. The software proves that on that given day there was indeed a solar eclipse (with Mars in the middle). This solar eclipse and the particular configuration of planets could be seen from Panchavati (longitude and latitude plainly shown in the software).
Hanuman Saw 8 Constellations while flying to Lanka...
In the Sunderkand, when Valmiki describes Hanuman crossing the sea and returning from Lanka to Rameshwaram, he gives details of 8 constellations. Usually, one can see not more than 6 constellations at a given point of time. But since Hanuman was flying across, and it must have taken him approximately 4 hrs to get there, he could see 8 constellations - in two hours one constellation would have moved out of sight and another become visible. So, in a period of 4 hrs he saw 8 constellations!
Historicising Shri Ram. Man or God...
After researching on Shri Ram, I do believe he's a man who walked the earth in flesh and blood. There is an essential difference between the Valmiki Ramayana and the Tulsi Ramayana. Tulsidas was a devotee who looked up to Ram, but Valmiki was a contemporary. Valmiki has written Ram's life-history, as a biographer does - he's a contemporary of Ram, and this is not very different from what happens all over the world. Kings have always had their life-history written.
The submerged bridge...
Recently, NASA had put pictures on the Internet of a man-made bridge, the ruins of which are submerged in Palk Strait between Rameshwaram and Sri Lanka. This clearly should be treated as historical evidence that corroborates its mention in Valmiki Ramayana.
The puzzle of Indian history...
The presence of Ramayana, Mahabharata and Vedas cannot be explained by the short period between the decline of the Indus valley civilization and the Rig Vedic period. A civilization cannot suddenly burst into advanced writing.
One needs to look at various sources of history to re-build it. Especially when looking at ancient history. One needs to excavate, look at literature, ancient texts, astronomy.
Government apathy to archaeological diggings and investigation in this direction...
There's been a very strange development in the media and the people of India. We have started seeing ancient India as something equivalent to the word 'Hindu'. The very word Hindu came into circulation only after the advent of Islam in India. In Ramayana and the Vedas , there is no mention of the word 'Hindu'. At the most, there is only mention of terms like 'Aryavrat' or 'Bharatvarsh' and residents here are called as 'Aryans'. Since centuries, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs have been living in this country and it's their land as much as it is to a Hindu. Anything that has happened on this land in the past is their common heritage. But, unfortunately, politicians with vested interests have divided the people on artificial religious lines and making it appear that anything related to ancient India was perhaps related to Hindu, which is not the case and should not be the case.
There has never been any strong will...
It is not that researches have been not taken place. There has been excellent work done by noted historians like Sir Alexander Cunningham and Dr Lal. Cunningham has written as many as 21 volumes on ancient Indian history. But one needs special permissions to access these texts.
Unfortunately, Cunningham's work that has very important information has not seen the light of the day. Dr. Lal has pictured the ancient city of Dwarka and it can be read in 'The lost city of Dwarka'. He has listed out 1000 artifacts. Only 9 crores needed to be sanctioned by the government in placing a transparent tube to the sea-bed that could allow people to see for themselves the wonder that was Dwarka.
And now people equate the sum total of ancient history to 'a temple or no-temple' at Ayodhya. Delay in research also because science hadn't arrived...
Without the aid of science it is practically impossible to manually calculate the exact planetary configuration 7, 000 years back. It is science which is going to validate our history and prove that it is much older than 3, 500 years.
What would be the implications of your research on the society?
I seriously feel that there can only be positive effects of my research. In fact, Indians should seriously re-look how old is our history and culture. This is not the end of the research; it's just the beginning. People should be encouraged to do more in-depth research by all means such as archaeology, dating methods and oceanography.
Max Mueller had come up with the theory that Aryans had come to India in 1500 B.C. In the Internet, Max Mueller Foundations says that that they have re-looked at this theory and is of the opinion that this theory is no longer valid because Indian history is much older than that period. It's just that people have to open up their minds and find out the answers for themselves.
 
I've pointed you clearly in the direction.

If you want me to take the effort, I will, once I'm off my phone.

Cheers, Doc

The term Aryan, which is a linguistic cultural term, is associated with gene, a purely biological term, as if this is a proven scientific fact. Let me elaborate..

Indians and ancient Iranians are probably the only people known to have used the term 'Arya' as ethnolinguistic marker. When I say probably I'm being generous, they are actually the only ones two unambiguously use that term. Thanks to their ancient literature, coupled with some archaeological discoveries, we roughly know that ancient Indians (vedic people) and ancient Iranians (Avestans) have lived in their current geographic locations for atleast 3500 years now. Thanks to the system of endogamy, the forms may have varied in the respective societies, we can also be assured that the socioethnic make up of these societies have remained pretty much the same during those 3500 years.

Beyond the Indians and Iranians, associating the term Arya with any other socioethnic group anywhere in the world is extremely tenuous at best, even if any such association is made, its done by scholars as part of an academic exercise. Linguistic affinities notwithstanding, there is no straight forward cultural association between Indian-persian societies with other societies that are today broadly grouped as Aryan cultural groups.

In the best case scenario we can easily talk about a shared Aryan gene among the Indians and Persians, but not between other groups. Which is why I stay away from this Aryan gene hypothesis as best as I can.
 
Now let me come to other parts. If Lord Rama was born in 5114BC, how old is Indian civilization? The picture you posted above has its starting point 7000BCE. Which means that Indian civilization was booming much before that. Lord rama was the 19th in the line of Ikshvaku. And before Ikshvaku we had Manu, Brahma and Kashyap who married Aditi from whom Aditya was born and the son of Aditya was Ikshvaku. The time period of Rig Veda places the events to over 10-12K years back from present era. Now tell who came in and who went out?
 
I've pointed you clearly in the direction.

If you want me to take the effort, I will, once I'm off my phone.

Cheers, Doc

The term Aryan, which is a linguistic cultural term, is associated with gene, a purely biological term, as if this is a proven scientific fact. Let me elaborate..

Indians and ancient Iranians are probably the only people known to have used the term 'Arya' as ethnolinguistic marker. When I say probably I'm being generous, they are actually the only ones two unambiguously use that term. Thanks to their ancient literature, coupled with some archaeological discoveries, we roughly know that ancient Indians (vedic people) and ancient Iranians (Avestans) have lived in their current geographic locations for atleast 3500 years now. Thanks to the system of endogamy, the forms may have varied in the respective societies, we can also be assured that the socioethnic make up of these societies have remained pretty much the same during those 3500 years.

Beyond the Indians and Iranians, associating the term Arya with any other socioethnic group anywhere in the world is extremely tenuous at best, even if any such association is made, its done by scholars as part of an academic exercise. Linguistic affinities notwithstanding, there is no straight forward cultural association between Indian-persian societies with other societies that are today broadly grouped as Aryan cultural groups.

In the best case scenario we can easily talk about a shared Aryan gene among the Indians and Persians, but not between other groups. Which is why I stay away from this Aryan gene hypothesis as best as I can.
 
The term Aryan, which is a linguistic cultural term, is associated with gene, a purely biological term, as if this is a proven scientific fact. Let me elaborate..

Indians and ancient Iranians are probably the only people known to have used the term 'Arya' as ethnolinguistic marker. When I say probably I'm being generous, they are actually the only ones two unambiguously use that term. Thanks to their ancient literature, coupled with some archaeological discoveries, we roughly know that ancient Indians (vedic people) and ancient Iranians (Avestans) have lived in their current geographic locations for atleast 3500 years now. Thanks to the system of endogamy, the forms may have varied in the respective societies, we can also be assured that the socioethnic make up of these societies have remained pretty much the same during those 3500 years.

Beyond the Indians and Iranians, associating the term Arya with any other socioethnic group anywhere in the world is extremely tenuous at best, even if any such association is made, its done by scholars as part of an academic exercise. Linguistic affinities notwithstanding, there is no straight forward cultural association between Indian-persian societies with other societies that are today broadly grouped as Aryan cultural groups.

In the best case scenario we can easily talk about a shared Aryan gene among the Indians and Persians, but not between other groups. Which is why I stay away from this Aryan gene hypothesis as best as I can.

Was simply trying to bust the OOI R1a myth.

Linguistics and literature can only tell us that much.

Genetics and statistics is where we will finally find the answers ...

Minus the politics ... if that can happen.

Cheers, Doc
 
Was simply trying to bust the OOI R1a myth.

Linguistics and literature can only tell us that much.

Genetics and statistics is where we will finally find the answers ...

Minus the politics ... if that can happen.

Cheers, Doc

On the contrary I think the solution, if it happens, will be found in the realm realm of Linguistics. Remember it was Linguistics where we found that there was a problem in the first place. I think in the nexts 50 years we would have Deciphered the Indus script and know for sure what language the IVC people spoke. Imagine if we discovered that the IVC spoke a common proto form of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan.
 
Last edited:
@vsdoc please sir, you have been talking everything about Vedic world. the people, their gene set, possible origins and migration patterns. All the data you have been quoting is regarding Indians( native Indians or say, Vedics).
You are claiming Iranian origin of Vedics too. Why don't you provide the genetic data of Iranians (Zoroastrians). If you are comparing R1 component in both South and North India, you should also provide data of ancestral Iranians.
Fyi, this is the fifth time I am asking you the data of Parsis who remained ethnically secluded throughout the history.
Provide me a research paper or detailed study of present day Parsis.
 
@vsdoc please sir, you have been talking everything about Vedic world. the people, their gene set, possible origins and migration patterns. All the data you have been quoting is regarding Indians( native Indians or say, Vedics).
You are claiming Iranian origin of Vedics too. Why don't you provide the genetic data of Iranians (Zoroastrians). If you are comparing R1 component in both South and North India, you should also provide data of ancestral Iranians.
Fyi, this is the fifth time I am asking you the data of Parsis who remained ethnically secluded throughout the history.
Provide me a research paper or detailed study of present day Parsis.
In the very begining of this thread I had stated that ANi & ASI are one set of people. The leaked data from Rakhigarhi skeletons shows complete absence of R1a1a gene in them. The skeletons are supposed to be over 4500 yrs old. So all this theory of into India migration falls flat. The DNA of the skeletons very clearly show the DNA of present day south Indian population from Nilgiris. I had used language as a tool to prove my point when I asked how is it that Baloch speak a dialect of Tamil and why do we have lots of words from south Indian languages in sanskrit.
I have posted the data about birth of Lord Rama and it has been found to be correct as per Ramayana. In vedic culture, we recorded events based on astrological position of planets and Astrology was an essential part of vedas as it was called vedanga. Every mahurata was calculated based on astrology/astronomy. There is no such text or civilization which had such a system of time keeping. Even the people who migrated from steppes did not have it. How come and from where did they acquire this knowledge if it was not native to them?

Ramayana was written in sanskrit on tree leaves or bark of a tree. there is no record of anyother civilization of that era using anykind of writing material. People of lower mesopotamia were still using tablets. Now please don't tell me that even Rishi Valmiki was a fraud and born much later in history than 5000BC. Because if you do say so, you will not be able to explain how he was able to conjour up the exact planetary positions which coincided exactly with every event of the life of Lord Rama.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandeep0159
In the very begining of this thread I had stated that ANi & ASI are one set of people. The leaked data from Rakhigarhi skeletons shows complete absence of R1a1a gene in them. The skeletons are supposed to be over 4500 yrs old. So all this theory of into India migration falls flat. The DNA of the skeletons very clearly show the DNA of present day south Indian population from Nilgiris. I had used language as a tool to prove my point when I asked how is it that Baloch speak a dialect of Tamil and why do we have lots of words from south Indian languages in sanskrit.
I have posted the data about birth of Lord Rama and it has been found to be correct as per Ramayana. In vedic culture, we recorded events based on astrological position of planets and Astrology was an essential part of vedas as it was called vedanga. Every mahurata was calculated based on astrology/astronomy. There is no such text or civilization which had such a system of time keeping. Even the people who migrated from steeppes did not have it. How come and from where did they acquire this knowledge if it was not naticve to them?

I have read all your points,sir. I also agree with the time mapping of Sri Rama who succeeded Manu Vaivasvata and his line. And there are different Manvantaras! I was simply asking him his data to analyse and rebute his theory of Iranian roots of Vedics. Atleast a single Haplogroup data is enough to support our claim of outward migration of Vedics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey
We are all Africans. The sentinel, aboriginal and Polynesian people are great examples of how the oceanic migration happened from Africa. Those who moved north and to the middle east towards India by land lost skin pigmentation due to weather adaptation and interbreeding. From where did Ram, Mohammed, Jesus appear and which of them is right?
 
Bhrigu Angirasa conflict – sreenivasarao's blogs

i just noticed this blog, even though i have studied history of Vedic people for a very long time, this piece of history was unknown to me till last couple of days. i myself belong to Bhrigu branch/clan/tribe via Aurva, the grandson of the great sage. Bhrigus were classified as separate tribe by Vashistha in Rigveda and during Battle of 10 kings we fought alongside Vishwamitra(who was one a Bhrigu as well) and lost thus we migrated to the Bharuch region of Western India and colonized land as far away as Kerala i believe. Grandson of Aurava was Parashurama himself who according to local folklore took the land from the sea after throwing his axe and naming entire konkan and KErala Parashurama Kshatra.
 
Bhrigu Angirasa conflict – sreenivasarao's blogs

i just noticed this blog, even though i have studied history of Vedic people for a very long time, this piece of history was unknown to me till last couple of days. i myself belong to Bhrigu branch/clan/tribe via Aurva, the grandson of the great sage. Bhrigus were classified as separate tribe by Vashistha in Rigveda and during Battle of 10 kings we fought alongside Vishwamitra(who was one a Bhrigu as well) and lost thus we migrated to the Bharuch region of Western India and colonized land as far away as Kerala i believe. Grandson of Aurava was Parashurama himself who according to local folklore took the land from the sea after throwing his axe and naming entire konkan and KErala Parashurama Kshatra.
Vishwamitra was a Bhrigu? I thought he was a rajrishi as opposed to Vashishta who was a Brahmarishi.
 
Bhrigu Angirasa conflict – sreenivasarao's blogs

i just noticed this blog, even though i have studied history of Vedic people for a very long time, this piece of history was unknown to me till last couple of days. i myself belong to Bhrigu branch/clan/tribe via Aurva, the grandson of the great sage. Bhrigus were classified as separate tribe by Vashistha in Rigveda and during Battle of 10 kings we fought alongside Vishwamitra(who was one a Bhrigu as well) and lost thus we migrated to the Bharuch region of Western India and colonized land as far away as Kerala i believe. Grandson of Aurava was Parashurama himself who according to local folklore took the land from the sea after throwing his axe and naming entire konkan and KErala Parashurama Kshatra.
Bhrigu rishi was the maternal grandfather of Parshurama. The daughter of Bhrigu rishi Renuka married rishi Jamdagni and Parshurama was her son.
 
Vishwamitra was a Bhrigu? I thought he was a rajrishi as opposed to Vashishta who was a Brahmarishi.

according to Rigveda he was the Purohit of king sudas of Bharata tribe like his father, his mandala of the RV also contains large number of hymn written by Jamadagni and support of Jamdagni and Bhrigu to Vishwamitra's cause proves our point. i believe he also called himself son of jamdagni if i am not wrong in rigveda.

Puranic traditions are later inventions thus hold no water to older and original Rigveda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.