Kashmir is regarded as paradise as the original birth place of Aryan Hindus whose ancient homeland extended from Ganga-Yamuna rivers in the east to Araxes (Amu Darya) & Gomal rivers in west (Afghanistan). Kashmir upto Pamir (Mount Meru) in the north and confluence of River Saraswati and Arabian Sea in Gujarat formed the southern borders. From the ports of Gujarat commercial ships went around the world even during 3500 B.C, a few centuries before the ages of Ramayana and Mahabharata (3102 B.C) to Babylonia, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, etc. River Araxes is Arjikeya in Vedas, Kubha (Kabul) and Sveti (Swat valley in North Pakistan) rivers are regularly mentioned as western most extent of Aryandom. (Rig Veda - 10/75/5). Sea voyages for commerce clearly mentioned. (R. V - 1/116/3, 4/55/6, 7/88/3)
Kashmir was at the centre of this entire region. River Saraswati in its earliest form before changing course many a times and merging with Sutlej in West and Yamuna in East flowed from Indus in Kashmir to the Gujarat coasts via Punjab, Haryana and through Rajasthan forming the boundary of Mewar and Marwar regions. Northwest India to the west of Saraswati upto River Indus (also called Sushoma and Drishtavati for its prominent characteristics) was called Brahmavarta - the land of Aryan Rishis of Vedas, actually the original Aryan Hindu homeland. Kashmiri Hindu Pandits are the most pure and unmixed descendants of the ancient Aryans. They still have no caste divisions like the Vedic Aryans but later migrated throughout the world specially to the east in Aryavarta (North India) and to the west to Europe via Iran and Turkey (Hittite & Mittani Vedic Hindus) and Greece. Original Kashmiri Hindu migrants are hence also called Saraswats or people from Saraswati River bank. Like the Vedic people of Turkey (before advent of Turks & Islam) much of pagan Europe (before advent of Christianity) also followed corrupt form of Vedic Hinduism and their Gods. Hindus civilized Europe by making it their colony and gave them their languages like Iranian, born of Sanskrit like English, French, German, Greek, Latin, etc. Zend Avesta of Persians in actual Sanskrit spelling is 'Dhyan Abostha'! Vedic people had no caste or Varna divisions by birth but only according to nature and intermarriage & change of occupation was widespread. Rig Veda - 7/64/2 & 8/11/6 call Mitra and Varun as Kshatriyas in the 'powerful' sense as neither they were Kshatriya born nor were there any Kshatriya race, then. Similarly, Agni is also called Vipra or Brahmin in the sense of 'intelligent'. R.V (112/3) says: I am a carpenter, my son a doctor and my daughter a wheat grinder. This was possible as there were no caste or work distinction based on birth. Purusha Sukta (R.V - 10/90/12) is a later inclusion and total crap as most Sanskrit Grammarians have proved its language to be most modern and not that of ancient Vedic age. However division of Vedas into 4 parts first mentioned here. Further, it has some impossible verses saying that to strengthen their position the Devtas born like 4 Varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishya & Shudra) of humans and all living and non-living beings from different parts of the Great Purusha (Almighty God); sacrificed this Purusha in Yagna (Alter Fire)! Aryan Hindus were the people of 5 rivers or 7 rivers (including Saraswati & Kubha/Kabul) of Northwest India clearly mentioned again and again throughout the Vedas and there is no question of their being outside invaders! (R. V - 8/39/8, 1/100/12, 2/2/10, 1/89/10, etc) But to the southeast of their land there were other races of people too like Nishads (Austric Tribals) & Tritsu/Tramid/Dravid/Tamil/Das. Tritsu/Dravidians are probably the mixed race of Aryans and Austrics. In Rig Veda 3/53, Vishwamitra the Rishi of Aryans pray about Austrics to Indra Deva: "What to do with the cows of the Kikatas (Jharkhand Tribals)? They do not give enough milk to brighten the milk pots and are only worthy of sacrifice and mixed with Soma for Yagna! Bring them along with all the wealth of their King Pramaganda to us!" However, not all but only the anti-Vedic human sacrificing tribals were referred as Rakshasas! King Turbasha of the Confederacy of 10 Aryan Kingdoms of northwest India fought with King Sudas of the non-Aryan Tritsu/Tamil/Dravidian King Sudas of southeast India. Vashista was the Rishi of the Dravidians. These Dravidian/Das or Dasyus (meaning a seperate anti-Aryan race & not anything negative) like descandants of first Aryan King Mandhata (on whose honour a Himalayan Peak is named) were equally Hindus, prayed to same Devtas (Indra, Varun, etc) and even composed Vedic Hyms like Dravidian Sage Vashista! (R. V - 6/22/10) Tamil/Dravidian King Sudas was the son of mighty King Pijban and unlike as many western scholars preach had enough horses, too. (R. V - 7/18, 3/133/9, 7/33/3) Rishi Vashista prayed to Indra & Varun for extermination of Aryan forces and Das/Dravidian coherts who attacked King Sudas coming east, "You heard our prayer and saved Sudas. It was only for your grace that the ferocious and mighty 10 Aryan Kings even unitedly failed to hurt Tritsu/Dravidian King Sudas." Kashmir was believed to be the Swarg/Paradise where the Devtas like Indra, Varun, etc lived. (R. V - 7/83) The Tritsu/Dasyu/Dravidians were anti-Aryan (but, pro-Vedic race) and probably mix of Aryans and totally anti-Vedic Austric tribals in Vedic age. Hence, Vedas amply testify the presence of there races during Aryan rule - Aryans, Dravidians and Austrics. From R. V - 8/24/27 we come to know that the non-Aryan Austrics and mixed Dravidians were jointly called Das/Dasyus by Aryans. The Aryans in the land of 7 rivers (Northwest India) prayed to God for ouster of Dasyus from their land so that they can capture and rule. Later all the three races mixed to such an extent that modern Indian Hindus were born. Aryans were generally fair skinned than Dasyus but later Lord Krishna the 8th Prophet of God in Hinduism was born with Dark Skin which emphasises complete assimilation & varied charecterictics among same family as His siblings were of bright skin. These modern Hindus also moved away from Vedas to a large extent and made Bhagvad Gita the word of Lord Krishna as the new 'Holy Book' which declares that it is the synopsis of all earlier knowledges revealed since Vedas! 4 Varna system (complicated into multiple castes with time) took root in Hindu society in this comparatively modern times when after mixture of the 3 races of Aryan, Dravidian and Austric along with some foreign imports from east (Mongoloid Kirats) and west (Huns) first the sages of all of them became Brahmins like Aryan Vishwamitra or Dravidian Vashista are now called. Then the soldiers & royal clans among all races became Kshatriyas and the defeated Dasyus the Das or Shudra serving others. The commoner businessmen or farmers became Vaishyas. So, Hindu caste system is the synthesis of long war between Aryans and non-Aryans since Vedic times and final assimilation of all as Indian Hindus in the Indian 'Melting Pot' like the American Mulattos - mix of Black Africans and White Europeans! Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
|||
rkm, your interpetation are
rkm, your interpetation are totally false!!!
Aryans were not fair skinned people!
Original Aryans were dark skinned like nowadays indians!
Nameste, next time i give
Nameste, next time i give my meaning, i"m very happy
This Max Mullar seems to be
This Max Mullar seems to be an idiot by birth or an anti-national element like the real-time missionary Max Mueller, who came here to unburden the so-called white man's burden.
A FICTITIOUS FABRICATION. NO
A FICTITIOUS FABRICATION. NO sources or hard evideme. alL hindoo/bahman mythology/ superstition/fables/folklore. no truth in THE article whatsoever.
A fact: varna jati system created in 600 B.C.E
ARYAN MIGRATION IS PROVEN FACT.
HINDOO.BAHMAN RIGHT WING ANALYSIS OF ARYAN M'INVASION' AIT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
Dear Max mueller I think you
Dear Max mueller
I think you are the most foolish person on earth.I will tell you some facts.
1)Do you know that Bible is alter invention, on the altair of Gospels.Intrestingly all gospels differ from each other.
The Old Testament "Evidence"
Let us consider the so-called biblical evidence first. Despite the claims of Christian apologists, there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament (OT) that is of relevance to our question, apart from the possible fact that some prophets may have thought that an "anointed one" (a rescuer king or priest) would once again assume the leadership of the Jewish world. All of the many examples of OT "predictions" of Jesus are so silly that one need only look them up to see their irrelevance. Thomas Paine, the great heretic of the American Revolution, did just that, and he demonstrated their irrelevance in his book An Examination of the Prophecies, which he intended to be Part III of The Age of Reason. b
The New Testament "Evidence"
The elimination of the OT leaves only the New Testament (NT) "evidence" and extrabiblical material to be considered. Essentially, the NT is composed of two types of documents: letters and would-be biographies (the so-called gospels). A third category of writing, apocalyptic, c of which the Book of Revelation is an example, also exists, but it gives no support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, it would appear to be an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang - a Jewish apocalypse that was reworked for Christian use. 8 The main character of the book (referred to 28 times) would seem to be "the Lamb," an astral being seen in visions (no claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of ancient astrology. 9
The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire book, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice! While Revelation may very well derive from a very early period (contrary to the views of most biblical scholars, who deal with the book only in its final form), the Jesus of which it whispers obviously is not a man. He is a supernatural being. He has not yet acquired the physiological and metabolic properties of which we read in the gospels. The Jesus of Revelation is a god who would later be made into a man - not a man who would later become a god, as liberal religious scholars would have it.
The Gospels
The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era') knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor.
It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarize d (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus e and would-be historical details. Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot both be correct - we must ask why real eye-witnesses would have to plagiarize the entire ham-hocks-and-potatoes of the story, contenting themselves with adding merely a little gravy, salt, and pepper. A real eye-witness would have begun with a verse reading, "Now, boys and girls, I'm gonna tell you the story of Jesus the Messiah the way it really happened..." The story would be a unique creation. It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry. Both can be dismissed as unreliable without further cause. We can know nothing of Jesus' childhood or origin!
All Bible,Gospel and jesus theory etc is a MOCKERY to fool people around.
Today people like you are using fabricated stories,hiding true history just to get converts, and fool all the people.
It is a shame on Christianity and christians