Paganism is our native religion

Post Reply New Topic

Majority of Indians closer to Chinese???? Please CITE. YOUR. SOURCES! Sounds to me like you're making this up. Also, the aboriginal languages of Australia are most definitely NOT Indo-European. Furthermore, Dravidians not only have black skin but are platyrhine(flat-nosed) and have full lips. There ARE Dravidian speaking peoples in India who have nappy hair and negroid features like the Bonda people. Mongoloid peoples who live in India are found predominately in the NE near the Himalayan foothills but these people are by NO means anywhere close to being the majority . BTW, the timetable give for the Hindu civilization predates the presence of modern humans in the Indian subcontinent.

I think with the Chinese reference fish might have been confusing Nepali people with Indians.

The word Aryan pre-dates both the vedic era and Persian usage of the term. Many of the Dravidian kings of the south also labelled themselves as Aryan, there is no such thing as an Aryan race it's a misconception caused by a poor understanding of the words meaning and usage in ancient times. the languages of Sanskrit and Dravidian are very different, but the fact that they share many words suggest that they are related. the bulk of Hindu religion came from both south and north India, and sure there would be elements of middle eastern influence in latter Hinduism but even then these influences were wrapped around existing beliefs and teachings. Many Hindu texts are also much older than Zoroaster so im not sure why your bringing that into the equation :S

Considering the time gap between Indian civilisation and Iranian civilisation im not even sure why you would want to bring them up.

the fact of the matter is that from the light tanned people of the north and the dark skinned of the south there is no genetic evidence to suggest that there has ever been a large influx of middle eastern/Europeans into the Indian gene pool nor that there is any significant division between south and northern Indians other than adaptation. Trying to divide them as separate races based on what you can see with your eyes is crude and medieval at best. the aboriginal also range greatly in skin colour, many in the south speak Dravidian, but those in areas like Pakistan where most are descended from aboriginal stock speak Sanskrit. You can tell the difference between the two by the shape of the skull and forehead not by the skin colour or facial features.

The Chinese reference was specific to the fact that Indian skulls are closer to mongoloid then they are Caucasian.

I also never purposed an out of India theory either, i just stated the fact that what is now India was the main settling point for humans migrating from Africa and from there many then migrated to other parts.

From the North-South and West-East gradients in the physical appearances of Indians, it is very clear that mixing of different races has taken place in India over the millenia (as practically everywhere else on this planet).
White Caucasian people entered from the North-West, Mongoloid people entered from the North and North-East, Negroid people entered earlier from Africa (by sea or by land) and Austrics may have lived there from even earlier times.

Denying the migrations and mixing of races in India is merely a reaction to the fallacious and ridiculous idea that all the good things in the hindu religions came from the white immigrants. In fact the deeper, more advanced spirituality of India was already present on the continent for many millenia among the darker and mongoloid populations whereas the original religion of the white invaders was spiritually speaking still rather primitive. The white invaders treated the aboriginals as outcasts and their priests even described them as monkeys and demons (see Ramayana epos) but in fact they eventually adopted most of their culture and integrated their superior forms of spirituality (as can be seen in the later Vedas).

Just because the idea of migrations was first given by Europeans doesn't mean that this idea was especially created to degrade the superior aspects of Indian culture and religion as imported. It is very fashionable in non-western nations to belittle the role of western science, but there are other in my view much better ways to put western civilization in its proper place. The idea of no migrations and a "totally out of India Aryan myth" is too ridiculous to even consider.

The fact that people of all racial mixes started to call themselves Aryan in later millenia doesn't mean that they didn't start out as all white. It only means that none of the white immigrants could over the millenia keep themselves from mixing with other peoples and eventually the priest cast lost its associations with being Caucasian.

The language is a different matter. Some people say that the white immigrants spoke Vedic and that this language was very close to the older Sanskrit of the pre-aryan India. I find this hard to understand, but many languages of this world share common roots so it could somehow be true.

Physical appearance aside, genetics still show no evidence of the bulk of the Indian population being the result of years and years of mixing races they show that the peoples of India are all very closely related in terms of race and unique to India. which would promote the idea that India was the central migration point for early humans coming straight out of Africa.

Given this hard evidence from dna testing id say its more likely that Indians would be better of being labelled as a proto-Eurasian race (as in the proto race for Europeans to the east Asians not just the people of the Eurasian borders) which would also explain why their physical appearances vary so much despite their genetics.

I am sure the word Arya predates the Zoroastrian and Vedic usage, but I highly doubt that Dravidian kings before the advent of Sanskrit labeled themselves as Arya. The fact that the Dravidian languages and the Sanskrit share many words suggests that they've been influenced by each other due to the thousands of years they've coexisted. Urdu shares a lot with Arabic and Persian, does this mean they are a related language? No, it's been clearly influenced (In the case of Arabic. Persian IS related to Urdu--Indo-Iranian--but it retains the Persian origin when used).

I believe there must be a distinction from what was the Vedic practices and what is the modern Hindu practices. The Sramanas had a big influence on the Vedic people. While the Vedic people were busy sacrificing animals to appease the Devas, the Shramanas were wandering around naked living on alms. The Pancaratras and the Bhagavatas very clearly had a major influence. From them came the more personal aspect of God. None of these were Vedic (monasticism or devotion).

The reason why I brought up Zoroastrianism is to show the connection of another Aryan-branch of religion which is not Vedic. They do not use Arya to signify anything other than a distinct group of people. The Language of Avesta is dated to 1000 BCE. It is not that far off from the (later) Vedas which date to around the same period. Sanskrit shares much more in common with Avestan than with Dravidian languages. The battles in the Rig Veda are said to have been between ARYAN clans, not this Aryan (whites) v Dravidian (blacks) : Winner Takes All (of India). The whole study (Aryan migration) wasn't based on color.


One thing that is captivating here: If there was no migration, where are the horse remains? The horses which the Vedas adore, and even prescribed sacrifices of, are not native to India. No bones are found in the Harappa. None before 2000BCE or so. What gives? How could Krishna ride around in his chariot if none were around 5000 years ago?




Indians proto-eurasian?

That's why I wondered if any American living in the US still remains Pagan wherever he came from. It seems that you don't understand me. I WONDERED IF THEY STILL FOLLOW THE TRADITIONS OF THEIR MOTHERLAND BEING FAR FROM HOME. So, I've got your reply.
"I would say that most people here do not live on their native soil. For most Americans, there IS no motherland-they're a genetic mixture of a dozen ethnicities, and some even have two or even three different races in their genes." - that's clear. but it's not you who has to speak for them, but they themselves if they visit the forum.
By the way, you say WE too often, although I've read "I'm pagan", "I, for one, am pagan, but also an atheist" among the replies... Speak for yourself, not for every American!
And there's a great difference between "he was Christianized" and "he chose to be a Christian".
"And no, none of us know anything about the old ways in the Ukraine, simply because we're not from there" - so, what the problem is? I didn't ask for a lection about the mixing of different religions throughout the whole world, I asked a definite question, and there was a very interesting discussion, thank you all, guys, who took part in it.

Does anyone remember that, wherever you live?

pezar said - NO!

Last edited by Chaotica on 23 Jul 2008, 6:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

To oscuria: have you heard about that legend I'd mentioned above, about tall blonds with blue eyes??? You see, I think that after the death of Hyperborea the Aryans lived among the Indians for a long time, hence so much resemblances between the Slavic languages and Sanskrit. What do you think about that?

Until you CITE. YOUR. SOURCES I refuse to take any of this BS seriously. Bear in mind that I am also NOT the only one who takes this stance . AFAIC you are pulling this straight out of your Ass.

As for this statement:

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAODINARY EVIDENCE
So yeah Fish, keep up with pedaling Hindu Pseudoscience here in a thread about pantheism......

I gave sources for the genetic research on the Indian population earlier when u asked, infact i think i gave at least two sources. it was you who failed to cite the sources for your claim that genetic research shows that most north Indians are related to european..

and yeah im not Hindu, i just find your white men made everything theory ridiculous, especially when none of you have showed any reputable sources for your so called facts. but i guess you'd just prove my point if you posted links to some red neck neo-Nazi sites

Since WHEN did I promulgate the theory that *white men made everything*? What I claimed was that India and All of SE Asia was originally populated by Negroid peoples. In the case of India, caucasians from central asia invaded and conquered the *veddoid* peoples of the Indus Valley and co-opted their culture and civilization, kind of like when the Akkadian conquest of Sumer.

Nothing makes you look worse than the way you shamelessly wear your politics on your sleeve.

The degree of actual gene flow into India is debated and is possibly fairly low. HOWEVER, it is not debated that 1) The "out of India" model is complete hogwash, and the fact that some of your sources cited it is a critical hit to your argument, and 2) The Indo European Languages did not originate in India. Even IF you were right, your assertion that there aren't credible sources for the idea for an Aryan migration INTO India displays a complete lack of familiarity with the subject.




Mallory, JP (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson.


Wells, Spencer (2002), The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, Princeton University Press .


Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India 2004.


Strazny, Philipp (Ed). (2000), Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (1 ed.), Routledge,

The "Out of India" model is a "lunatic fringe" "devoid of scholarly value".
Erdosy, George, ed. (1995), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Pretty much every study which currently challenges the Aryan MIGRATION hypothesis (it isn't even the Aryan invasion anymore) states that their was little genetic inflow DESPITE adopting the Indo-European language, for example

This trend is also seen in Europe:

Paleolithic and neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool.
M. Richards, H. Côrte-Real, P. Forster, V. Macaulay, H. Wilkinson-Herbots, A. Demaine, S. Papiha, R. Hedges, H. J. Bandelt, and B. Sykes
Department of Cellular Science, Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Returning briefly to the genetic inflow problem, although their appears to be evidence that there was comparatively little inflow of genes, the r1a Y chromosome haplogroup is still widely regarded as having its origin somewhere around the north of the Black Sea:

Wells et al. (2001), “The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (18): 10244–9

Wikipedia cites Chauby et al. as saying "The virtual absence of India-specific mtDNA haplogroups outside of India precludes a large scale population movement out of India." although frankly I don't care enough to bother to read through it.
Chaubey et al. (2007), “Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India”, BioEssays 29 (1): 91-100 .

Since you're a little dense, I'll spell it out for you: the degree to which the Indo-Aryans influenced the gene pool is a subject of debate to this day, but what is not ambiguous is that the Indo-European languages didn't originate in India, and the Out of India hypothesis is totally deprecated among mainstream scientists.

Anyway, different sources show that most inventions were made by white men, the same as for philosophy
I'd rather go to bed. The more the discussion continues, the more all of you digress from the topic...
And Aryans came not FROM India, but at first TO India, and then left.

LEARN HISTORY BY MANY SOURCES!

Why is all this ancient history so important to you?

It's the history of my ancestors and my blood appeals to the search of Truth.

Fair enough.

Seek and ye shall find ...