https://grahamhancock.com/ashcf1/
Animated GIF

abstract
Sheldon Pollock is by no means the first one to build on the mythology that has overgrown the factual core of a link between racism in general, National-Socialism in particular, and the study of Indo-European and Sanskrit. In his case, the alleged National-Socialist connection of Sanskrit is heavily over-interpreted and emphatically taken to be causal, as if the interest in Sanskrit has caused the Holocaust. We verify the claims on which he erects this thesis one by one, and find them surprisingly weak or simply wrong. They could only have been made in a climate in which a vague assumption of these links (starting with the swastika, which in reality was not taken from Hinduism) was already common. Yet, even non-specialists could easily have checked that Adolf Hitler expressed his contempt for Hinduism, repeatedly and in writing.
Pollock’s attempt to even link the Out-of-India Theory with the Nazi worldview is the diametrical opposite of the truth; it was the rivalling Aryan Invasion Theory (which Pollock himself upholds) that formed the cornerstone and perfect illustration of the Nazi worldview. This linking could only pass peer review because of the general animus against Hinduism and Indo-European indigenism in American academe. The whole forced attempt to associate Hinduism with National-Socialism suggests a rare animosity against Hinduism.,
Caldwell quotes Burnell, The Indian Antiquary, 1872.shiv wrote: He {Caldwell} says that Kumarila Bhatta refers to an Andhra-Dravida bhasha where "Dravida" probably refers specifically to Tamil. he says Kumarila Bhatta was from the south. I don't know
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05022.htmThen he went to the Godavari, a river that falls directly into the sea. There he was freed from his sins. And he reached the sea in the Dravida land, and visited the holy spot passing under Agastya's name, which was exceedingly sacred and exceptionally pure.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08012.htmThat wielder of the Gandiva, Savyasachin, seated on his car, would alone be able to devastate the whole world. And likewise the victorious and high-souled Krishna, the lord of the three worlds, incapable of defeat is able to do the same. What mortal would stand before him who is the one worthiest person in all the worlds and who discharges his multitude of arrows that roar like the clouds, covering all sides, like flights of swiftly-coursing locusts? Alone on his car, holding the Gandiva, he had conquered the northern regions as also the Kurus of the north and brought away with him all their wealth. He converted the people of the Dravida land to be a portion of his own army.
Note: Dravida is distinct from Pandya, Chola, Kerala.When that host was being thus struck and slain by heroic warriors the Parthas, headed by Vrikodara, advanced against us. They consisted of Dhrishtadyumna and Shikhandi and the five sons of Draupadi and the Prabhadrakas, and Satyaki and Chekitana with the Dravida forces, and the Pandyas, the Cholas, and the Keralas, surrounded by a mighty array, all possessed of broad chests, long arms, tall statures, and large eyes.
The Dravida, the Andhaka, and the Nishada foot-soldiers, urged on by Satyaki, once more rushed towards Karna in that battle, from desire of slaying him.
It might be worthwhile getting this list of 56 Deshas.There are said to be three Krantas or geographical divisions of India, of which roughly speaking the North-Eastern portion is Vishnukranta, the North-Western Rathakranta and the remaining and Southern portion is Ashvakranta. According to the Shaktamarigala and Mahasiddhisara Tantras, Vishnukranta (which includes Bengal) extends from the Vindhya range to Chattala or Chittagong. From Vindhya to Tibet and China is Rathakranta. There is then some difference between these two Tantras as to the position of Ashvakranta. According to the first this last Kranta extends from the Vindhya to the sea which perhaps includes the rest of India. According to the Mahasiddhisara Tantra it extends from the Karatoya River to a point which cannot be identified with certainty in the text cited, but which may be Java. To each of these 64 Tantras have been assigned. One of the questions awaiting solution is whether the Tantras of these three geographical divisions are marked by both doctrinal and ritual peculiarities and if so what they are. This subject has been referred to in the first part of the Principles of Tantra wherein a list of Tantras is given.
In the Shakta division there are four Sampradayas, namely, Kerala, Kashmira, Gauda and Vilasa, in each of which there is both outer and inner worship. The Sammohana Tantra gives these four Sampradayas, also the number of Tantras, not only in the first three Sampradayas, but in Cina and Dravida. I have been informed that out of 56 Deshas (which included besides Hunas, places outside India, such as Cina, Mahacina, Bhota, Simhala), 18 follow Gauda extending from Nepala to Kalinga and 19 follow Kerala extending from Vindhyacala to the Southern Sea, the remaining countries forming part of the Kashmira Desha; and that in each Sampradaya there are Paddhatis such as Shuddha, Gupta, Ugra. There is variance in Devatas and Rituals some of which are explained in the Tarasukta and Shaktisamgama Tantra.
The Mangolion needs to be careful with Paki style rejections - whatever the problems of its misinterpretations - the Smiritis of which Manu's compendium is one such have contributed to the very legal codes of the current Constitution and has been a guiding force for our civilization. Even if some nasty aspects turn out to be true or if there has been malicious drivel towards the Hindus it is still a mighty body of work that has contributed more than any other legal system has to the current world.UlanBatori wrote:Manusmriti, sorry to say, is something that we reject 400% in Ulan Bator. It is the start of the problems of "Yindooism".
There is ambiguity in the conclusions Caldwell has reached to pin down a definition of "Dravida" and referring to a group of languages and hence "Dravidian" languages.A_Gupta wrote:Mentions of "Dravida" in the Mahabharata that I could find:
Possibly. Or it is a later insertion. But whichever it is, the point is that, assuming the translation is accurate, that the understanding **at that point of time** when the insertion occurred, to whomever inserted it, is that Pandyas, Cholas are distinct from Dravida.Dipanker wrote:If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?
The people, not the named empires.Dipanker wrote:If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?
"Race".SriJoy wrote:Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?
Not going to bite..SriJoy wrote:
Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?
Also cretinA_Gupta wrote:"Race".SriJoy wrote:Can you give a single example of a mis-used word leading to cession of using it in formal context ?
"Negro".
"imbecile" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
"mental retardation"
Arya, not AryanSriJoy wrote: Because the facts are simple:
1. 'Aryan' as a term existed before Aryan invasion theory or Aryan superiorist theory
Traditional and widespeard usage of a racist term does not legitimize it much as you might want it to be that waySriJoy wrote: 2. 'Aryan' has been universally used - whether in racial superiority or simply as ethnic group or even cultural barometer. Even Hindu authors who are anti-aryan superiorst theories, have used the term 'Aryan' in English.
As an individual it is your right to reach what I feel are ridiculous conclusions. Disagreement will continue on your insistence on legitimizing a racist termSriJoy wrote: these two facts simply lead to the conclusion that 'Aryan' is the English word for 'Arya', not specifically racial interpretation of it. Otherwise, someone would've used the term 'arya' in English.
I'd rather re-claim a word abused by foreigners than give it up in dhoti shiver.
You emphasized that in your last post itself!A_Gupta wrote:Possibly. Or it is a later insertion. But whichever it is, the point is that, assuming the translation is accurate, that the understanding **at that point of time** when the insertion occurred, to whomever inserted it, is that Pandyas, Cholas are distinct from Dravida.Dipanker wrote:If Pandyas and Cholas find a mention in Mahabharata that makes them contemporary to Mahabharata, doesn't it?
But the Dravidas must have been around long before there was Jainism.the six dravyas (substances) that characterize the Jain view of the world: sentient (jīva), non-sentient (pudgala), principle of motion (dharma), principle of rest (adharma), space (ākāśa) and time (kāla).[1] It is one of the most important Jain works and has gained widespread popularity. Dravyasaṃgraha has played an important role in Jain education and is often memorized because of its comprehensiveness as well as brevity.[1]
The South African Negroes from Northern Congoland to Natal may vary in
physical type, but their speech, like the Aryan tongues of Europe and Western Asia,
can be traced back to an original mother-tongue, termed hypothetically " Bantu."
Just as the blond Aryans of the Baltic countries overran all Europe (except Spain),
Asia Minor, Persia, and India in prehistoric times and rapidly imprinted their speech
on the five or six races of white men with whom they came into contact, so at a time
not long distant — not more, perhaps, than 5,000 nor less than 3,000 years ago — some
Central Sudanese Negroes created a new speech — the Bantu mother-tongue — under the
impulse of a Hamitic invasion (of Galas or Egyptians).
In marked contrast to the fair group
are the black or brunette Caucasians with
their black hair and eyes, and a skin varying in colour from white through different
shades of swarthy olive to black. In this section is included the bulk of the population
of the south of Europe, Northern Africa,
and South-west Asia ; so that the races
commonly known as Aryan, Semitic, and
Hamitic come under this designation.
Among the lower types of the group ai'e
classed the so-called Dravidian tribes of
India, such as the Gonds and Toclas, some
of which may perhaps have an intermixture
of Negro (Negrito) blood, as well as the
Veddas of Ceylon, the Toalas of Celebes,
the hairy Ainu of Japan, and the Mautzi
of China.
Their
identity with the Anam-
ese Mans is shown by
their physical characters,
the latter being also a
fine Caucasian race, with
long head, oval face,
small cheek-bones, eyes
without the Mongol fold,
skin not yellowish, but
rather swarthy or
browned by the sun, and
regular -features, in
nothing recalling the
yellow races, but " pre-
senting striking affinities
with the Aryan type."
Iran — that is, the
land of light, of the civilised
and settled high-born peoples
of Iranian or Aryan speech —
will then clearly coincide with
the Iranian table-land lying
between the Persian Gulf and
Mesopotamia in the west and
India in the east, and mainly
inhabited by the kindred Per-
sian, Afghan, and Baluchi
nations, all of Indo-European
stock, and all speaking lan-
guages of our common Aryan
mother-tongue.
alcha family — that is, those primitive Aryan
highlanders who, although now mostly speaking
Persian, are not Iranians, nor yet Indians, but
apparently the original Indo-European stock from
which both Iranians and Hindus migrated to
Irania and India some thousands of years ago,
while the Galchas themselves remained and still
remain in the original Aryan cradle-land. This is
well seen in our Kafirs, who have best preserved
the original Aryan physical characters — tall
stature ; brown or bronzed and even white skin ;
ruddy cheeks, recalling the Englishman ; black,
chestnut, red or light hair, smooth, wavy or
curly ; full brown or ruddy beard ; blue, grey,
or brown eyes, never oblique like the Mongol ;
long, shapely, and slightly curved nose ; oval
face; stout, vigorous frame, as described by
a kurdish mountain chief (chiep of tribe).
other abominations which were later developed with the Hindu
trinity — Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and their endless avatars (incarnations). These gross
corruptions, which, after driving Buddhism from the field, have prevailed for over
1,000 years throughout the peninsula, were due to the intermingling of the Vedic
Aryans with the masses of black heathendom prevalent in Aryavarta and the Dekkan
before their arrival. The comparatively pure worship of the ethereal deities became
debased and saturated with the worship of the primitive chthonic gods (earth-gods),
and thus it happened that in imparting their higher culture, arts, and letters to the
Dravido-Kolarian aborigines the Vedic Aryans received a deep taint, from which their
Iranian and European kindred have long since expurgated themselves.
Rubbish. See quotes from book I have posted above, Aryan is used in a racist sense alone.SriJoy wrote:False. English speakers have not used the term 'Aryan'.shiv wrote: Arya, not Aryan
Your problem not mine. But I will repeat every time you say it. Zillion + 1: Aryan is a racist termSriJoy wrote:False, reason has been provided. Until you can counter the reasoning provided, repeating something a zillion times won't make it true.Aryan is as racist a word as they come. Like Gollywog
Sure call me names and take comfort from your predictions and cook up statistics.SriJoy wrote: thank you for admitting that evidence and reasoning does not matter to your propagandist views. Keep repeating away, it won't matter to 99.999% people, because evidence is against you.
When did I say there were no horses at other places? Is it Arabian horse that you found in Sumeria?SriJoy wrote: Legends of horse-gifting means diddly squat over actual archaeological evidence. We find horse-drawn carts (solid wheel) in Sumeria. We find chariots in New Kingdom Egypt and Hittite empire, as well as Old Assyrian Empire- all of whom out-date the semi-mythological 'king Solomon'.
Moron and idiot too I believeshiv wrote:Also cretinA_Gupta wrote:
"Race".
"Negro".
"imbecile" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile )
"mental retardation"
Seems like you have nothing to contribute on Arabian Horse.SriJoy wrote: Arabian horse is from Arabia. Sumeria was in Arabia- which is defined as the entire region sans Egypt, turkey, Iran and Israel (even in Roman times).
You must be pretty irritated to call people names and imagine their behavior to be categorized as dhoti shivering, whatever that means. And that actually makes me happy although it shouldn't in this academic debateSriJoy wrote: the only thing cooked up here, is by you and dhoti-shiverers who cannot deal with the fact that before AMT came, along with Aryan superiority, the Brits still used Aryan as the term and were considering an 'Out Of India' theory, when their empire building & need for white superiorism came to the forefront.
Another boast. Ho humSriJoy wrote:i will post evidence of this after coming weekend to completely blow apart your nonsensical view.
syam wrote: Where did Arabian horse come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horseThe Arabian or Arab horse (Arabic: الحصان العربي [ ħisˤaːn ʕarabiː], DMG ḥiṣān ʿarabī) is a breed of horse that originated on the Arabian Peninsula. With a distinctive head shape and high tail carriage, the Arabian is one of the most easily recognizable horse breeds in the world. It is also one of the oldest breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses in the Middle East that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses have spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and strong bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.
It also has a different number of ribs from the Eurasian horse and guess what - the Rig Veda's mention of the number horse ribs coincided with the number of ribs Arabian horses have.Dipanker wrote:[quote]The Arabian or Arab horse (Arabic: الحصان العربي [ ħisˤaːn ʕarabiː], DMG ḥiṣān ʿarabī) is a breed of horse that originated on the Arabian Peninsula. With a distinctive head shape and high tail carriage, the Arabian is one of the most easily recognizable horse breeds in the world. It is also one of the oldest breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses in the Middle East that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses have spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and strong bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.syam wrote: Where did Arabian horse come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse
An epicure dining at Crewe
found quite a large rat in his stew
Said the waiter 'Don't shout,"
"and wave it about"
Or the others will want one too
SriJoy wrote:
Amdst all this bluster, still waiting for you to substantiate your allegation of Akso Parpola being 'racist European' category for favouring an Aryan-Dravidian divide in linguistics.
Let me not indulge in the mindless triumphalism that you chose to exhibit by saying 'Now you're learning"SriJoy wrote: It has been corrupted into racist moniker, just like Swastika has been corrupted as a sign of racial superiorism in the west.
From "Indo Aryan controversy" edited by Edwin BryantSriJoy wrote: Amdst all this bluster, still waiting for you to substantiate your allegation of Akso Parpola being 'racist European' category for favouring an Aryan-Dravidian divide in linguistics.
I have already quoted David Anthony's lies:Part II titled “Archaeology and Linguistics,” begins with Asko Parpola and
Christian Carpelan’s chapter “The Cultural Counterparts to Proto-Indo-European,
Proto-Yralic and Proto-Aryan.” Their contribution is to sketch out a scenario in
which the archaeological data matches the cultural and linguistic data in the hypothe-
ses of Indo-European expansion. They argue first through etymological data, and
then through archaeological discussion, that Indo-European and Uralic proto-
languages were both spoken in the archaeological cultures of Eastern Europe.
Building on the work of David Anthony (1995, 1998), they also attempt to correlate
Indo-European and Uralic linguistic groups with archaeological cultures
shiv wrote: The following paragraph is from my own notes, unpublishedI repeat that no Vedic scholar agrees that the Vedas were meant for translation. They are not histories. Griffiths translation sounds stupid. Ancient Hindus look like stupid morons if you read the translation. The link below is what Griffiths wrote. (Rig Veda 10:18.1 to 10.18.14)The Eurasian steppe region has many ancient graves in which horses or parts of horses have
been buried along with humans. Some of these burials are elaborate and seem to be the graves of
important or wealthy people. It is claimed that burials of this type are described in the Vedas. This
is patently untrue. Not a single verse in the Vedas describes how to dig or construct a grave. No
Vedic hymn describes the burial of a king. Yet one single word in one hymn of the Rig Veda
(10.18.13) is widely quoted by archaeologists, linguists and historians as linking the Rig Veda with
“kurgan” type burials in the Eurasian steppe. David Anthony, an anthropologist and author of the
book “Horse, Wheel and Language” has commented in a paper entitled “Archaeology and
Language” 13 by saying: “One hymn (Rigveda 10.18) describes a covered burial chamber with posts
holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay—a precise description of
Sintashta and Andronovo grave pits.”
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10018.htm
Tell me where it says what David Anthony the archaeologist claims: "a covered burial chamber with posts holding up the roof, walls shored up, and the chamber sealed with clay"
These people are liars. Every single one of them.
Aryan is not an Indian word. There is nothing to reclaim.SriJoy wrote: Hasn't happened yet, does not mean it will never happen.
As i said, if the jews can reclaim 'jew' from being a derogatory term, Hindus should show a bit more spine than you and reclaim Aryan. Jew didn't start off as a racist term (just like Aryan) but it remained a racist term for far longer than Aryan has.