Discussion:
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part I)
Add Reply
abu
2005-11-11 09:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part I)

["We are all children of Adam, and Adam was made of dust. Best among us
are those who are best in warding off evil."]


I am posting Aryan Refugee Theory in four parts.

Each religious revolution in "Aryan" West Asia sent a group of Aryan
refugees to India.

The Zoroastrian Revolution in Iran sent the defeated party to India.
Failure of the counter-revolution of Gaumata to reintroduce the
pre-Zoroastrian paganism in Iran sent the defeated party to India.

The failure of Mani sent the defeated party to India.

Outside the followers of Mani, there were many other Sabiun-Nasara
groups among Sakas, Albanians, Thelos, and possibly Hittite remnants.
They were persecuted for heresy when they could not hide in the
mountains. Therefore, they possibly sent some members to India.

When Manichaeism spread in Central Asia, the defeated party could come
to India.

The Christianization of Armenia and its neighborhood probably sent the
defeated party to India.

Islamic invasion of Iran possibly sent a defeated party to India.
Saffari Revolution of Muslim Ayars in Sistan possibly sent some
non-Muslims to India. From Qiqan they went to Kankan.

Each of the older revolutions contributed to what became Hinduism.
There was no wall between India and its west. So people of unique
importance duplicated in the border region according to the position
they are given.

A saint of the defeated party became the devil of the winning party.
They were two images of the same person.

An evil but highly influential priest by the name Zak, leader of the
Kigs and Kharaps, opposed Zartusht (b.660BCE) in "Balkh" region.
According to an Iranian story, defeated Zak fled to Tibet, which at
that time began further west in Afghanistan.

Since we find only Jakkha (Yaska) in Indian history, and he was from
Paraskara desah, and of undated period, it is most likely that this Zak
is Jakka, and Paraskara is Persia. There is a second possibility that
Zak is Jakkha's father.

The second option is less likely but we can keep it open at this stage
since we do not know the exact time of Jakkha.

The spirant should not stop the identification. Many Bangladeshi
pronounce the letter for the palatal voiced unaspirated stop of the
pundits almost as za, and the semivowel used in Sanskrit words for y as
a consonant ja.

In Turan, it appears, Yaykhan was hereditary title of the priests.
These people were bad, as we see in Dede Korkut. Kafir king Soekli
refused Prince Kazan's request for his captive mother.

Soekli replied that he would give her to the son of Yaykhan the priest,
and when the son of Yaykhan the priest would have a son, they would
make this son an enemy of Prince Kazan.

Gaumata (spelled Gaomata in an earlier post) was a magus. In India, a
Magus was a Bhoja or Magha. Gaumata supported the cause of Bardiya
(Smerdis), or assumed Bardiya's identity. This Bardiya appears to be
the historical person behind Baladev (Balarama, Baladeva).

There are scholars who studying only Hindu traditions concluded that
Krishna story was superimposed on an older story of Baladev.

These stories were much diffused before the padrees came to India. Here
is one example. One suspects that Baladev was also the ultimate
inspiration of the name Badiuzzamal of the Saiful Mulk story. Abdul
Hakim (fl.1700?) was a Bengali poet who also wrote on Saiful Mulk.

In Abdul Hakim's "Lalmoti Saiful Mulk" Saiful Mulk had two wives namely
Lalmoti and Rokbanu. These two women compare with Radha (Lala) and
Rukmini, two important wives of Krishna.

For further information on Bardiya-Baladev and Chirst-Krishna duality
search internet. See for example, "Deshi People." See also "The
Parthian Connection" to be posted soon. A link to historical Bardiya:
http://www.livius.org/sj-sn/smerdis/smerdis.html

Those who claim that Krishna was in 1000BCE, can build their theory on
the abundance of the name Kara/Kala among (presumably) white Japhetians
meeting black (=krishna) people. In fact, Krishna himself fought a
mighty Kala Jaban (Yavana). Suddenly a king of 3102BiChi fights the
Indo-Greeks!

In Krishna fighting Kala Javan, or Keshav and HrsiKesh (Krishna)
fighting Keshi we may see a common sectarian tendency in old religious
stories of undated and doubtful origin. The version of a competing
group is discrediting the version of another group.

Yet we see these names kept two names of Jesus. While Keshta (a Bengali
form of Krishna) shows the Christ connection, (su)kesha interpreted as
master (isha) of happiness (delight, aahlaad) shows the Jesus (Isa)
connection.

[I did not invent the interpretation of (su)kesha as master (isha) of
happiness. A reference with the proper sibilants and aspirants can be
found in Professor Bimanbehari Majumdar's "Krsna in History and
Legend," Univ. of Calcutta, 1969. I only connected master with Isa.]

If any of the Hindu books containing Hindu Krishna story was composed
in India even before c.250BCE (forget 600BCE), we would have an
inscription by Asoka the Great in that language.

The fact is Asoka did not know their language, and they too could not
read what Asoka wrote when half-Rajput Sultan Feroz Shah Tuglok, asked
them to read one of the inscriptions discovered in his time.

At present except that Besnagar inscription of Heliodorus mentioning
Vaasudev, has been dated towards the end of the second century BCE, or
at the beginning of the first century BCE, by some noted scholars, no
other supposed proof of Hindu Krishna actually predates Parthian Jesus,
though it may predates Greco-Roman Jesus.

The allegation that Christian considerations affected the dating of the
Indo-Parthian rulers is available in scholarly literature. However, it
is not clearly understood that Indo-Parthian Jesus story could be older
than the Greco-Roman story of Jesus.

Faulty chronology is the main reason that people are overlooking
powerful multiple-image theory of Jesus as evident in Bar Pantiri and
carpenter, and in Hindu literature, in achutya (infallible=Krishna) and
sutaja (son of a carpenter=Karna) to give some examples. For Karna
between Christ and Krishna see "Sarathi, Chhutar and Bar Pantitri
Carpenter."

Yet this chronology does not have much basis. It reached present time
by repeating an error that everything is all right when it was not. Now
some sober historians care damn for its basis.

I shall not make any comment about the time of Besnagar inscription
now. The inscription is beyond my reach. One can see in the literature
how the time of Antialkidas has been guessed. This type of guessing is
most likely to hide error. In view of Alvar Ellegard's "Jesus--One
Hundred Years before Christ," it is not much what we need.

The main reason for my not making a comment on the Besnagar inscription
is that my study of the real significance of vs sound in India among
various immigrants with (ultimately) Ossetian connection is not yet
complete.

I believe that Isadev (Jesudev) inspired the belief of Jesus-Krishna as
Vasudev and Vaasudev. However, the vs sound has more significance and
older elements could be mixed up.

So far, we discussed about only one type of refugees, that is, the
religious refugees. Other type of refugees also came to India. As
population pressure increased from the west and from the
Turko-Mongoloid worlds, weaker parties came to India.

Vedic Saka invasion took place in the border region of Afghanistan and
Pakistan. During this time, there was strong Bani Sem presence in the
Indus valley. Among them were Bani Aram, Pannis, and the so-called
Dravidian group of Brahuis.

Pannis appears to be a mixed Dehi-Cananites legacy in the east mostly
connected with trade (panya=commodity). The Assyrians drove out
Arameans from Hindan (in Iraq). Bani Aram caused the name Sind to come
into existence in this part of the world.

Earlier name of Sind was Meluhha, which is clearly a Malay-Molucca
legacy in view of the extension of the Malay world from Malawi-Malagasy
to Nusantara.

However at that time difference among various Malay-Munda-Mon tribes
was much less than what we perceive now. We see that some Munda tribes
such as Suwars (Sabar) and Indo-Mongoloid Sharkis show possible Sind
connection. Sind was also called Souvira. We can compare Santal Manjhi
with Mohenjo.

This word Meluhha has been identified with Pali milakkha. Those who
hated the people of Meluhha as mleccha, today claim the credit for
Indus Valley Civilization!

It is due to the persistent efforts of few non-Indian scholars, today
the common sense identification of Meluhha with mleccha is accepted
among scholars. Many people are still chanting old garbage.
abu
2005-11-11 09:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part II)

In an earlier article we suspected that a well-known South Indian group
originated from Dom (Drom) military supplants among the Chera
(so-called Dravidian) people. Apparently, my finding hurt some people.
As they say, they make the law and they become its first victims.

We believe that Doms are also human. They are as worse or as better as
other human is. There is nothing to be ashamed of Dom association. The
same word gave the name of Rome. Later immigrants stole their name, and
the credit for their achievement, and marginalized them as Gypsies.

In India because of the imposed caste system one party of them were
degraded further. They ended up as scavengers. In Kashmir where higher
religions such as Buddhism prevailed, they assumed high posts. It is
said that under the Cakravarman the Domba virtually filled all high
positions.

In Bengal, as the nursery rhyme says aagdoom baagdoom ghoraadoom saaze,
Doms were soldiers and sowars. The word damal (irresistible applied to
young man) could be connected.

There is a Bengali tribe called Damal. Hara Prasad Shrasti thought they
were behind the name of the ancient town of Tamluk (Damalipti). I take
it as an example of the following principle. Where there is Lut there
is Dom. Tamluk was an important town of Ladam (Rarh). Rome and Latium
or Latin provides another example of this duality.

People cannot decide who killed President Kennedy in 1963, but they
rush to declare that "Aryans" are not guilty for the destruction of
Indus Civilization c.1700-1500BCE. Who is responsible for the
destruction, or desertion of the Indus Civilization then?

We find no suspicious movement during 1700-1500BCE. I am assuming that
the date is not a mistake. It seems that all large-scale population
movements near Sind occurred about 1200BCE or later.

However, the surviving legacy did not disperse to the west and the
northwest. Thus, pressure was from the west and the northwest.

Hurrian and Indo-European speaking tribes that were already affected by
the civilizing teachings of the Middle East, and that came to live in
Sind are less likely to destroy without rebuilding. Thus, Jats,
assuming they were a Japhetian legacy, and related to Gutians, are
above suspicion.

I think a group of Doms already established themselves in Elam, which
was actually called Haltamtu.

Could it be that some roaming "Aryan" tribes of Doms or Meds were
responsible for the destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization? In
c.1500BCE Meds were not civilization builders near the subcontinent.

The time also roughly coincided with two Indo-European speaking
incursions into West Asia, namely that by the Hittites and Mitanni, and
another group with almost Indian sounding deities. This third group was
Galzu.

References for Galzu: 1. J. A. Brinkman, "Materials and Studies For
Kassite History," The Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago, 1976.

2.Walter Sommerfield, "The Kassites of Ancient Mesopotamian: Origins,
Politics, and Culture" in vol 2 of J. M. Sasson ed. "Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East", Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995.

Not much is known about the Galzus (Kassites, Khuzestanis). However,
geographic and historical continuity suggest what we want to prove or
disprove. Questions arise whether Galzu had any connection with Celt in
the west, and Khalash now living in Pakistan.

The present meaning of Khalash could be a later taunt inspired by their
old name when the need for differentiating them arose, either because
their history was different from other Galzu such as victorious Khilgis
(ancestors of modern Ghilzai), or because most of them did not become
Muslim.

Khalash speak Nuristani. They were suspected to be the earliest wave of
Aryans in the subcontinent by Barrow and others. Parpola suggests that
Proto-Nuristani came to India after Proto-Dardic sometime between 1300
to 800BCE.

[See Asko Parpola, Page 156, "Deciphering the Indus script". CUP
London, 1994. "The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the
Cultural and Ethnic Identity of the Dasas", Studia Orientalia vol 64,
Helsinki, 1988.]

Because of mixing, language difference alone is not a sufficient
criterion here. Possibly Khalash were Galzu living among other groups
of defeated people under Meds or Catheans or Kams who were among the
most powerful groups when Alexander the Great came to Afghanistan.

One suspect that Khilgis (Khalladg) living in Turan, and possibly
occasionally forming kingdoms in Afghanistan near the border with
Pakistan, were nothing but Galzu of later period.

This follows from the continuous connection of Elam and Afghanistan.
Two places by the name Cissia mentioned by Herodotus provide one
example of this connection. Much older examples are available in the
literature.

Then these people took the ks legacy in Kashgar, Kosi and in the Pamir,
giving rise to the Chinese word for Parthia, and west generally. In
fact, originally Galzus could be a mixed legacy of Turan, and they were
connected to metalwork.

We then expect those Galzus settled in the border region of Afghanistan
and Pakistan running incursions deep into India, just as in later time
Khilgis did.

It is thus possible that one of the first so-called "Aryan" kingdoms in
India was actually formed by Galzu, and Kasi and Kosalya were Galzu
legacy. Some of the kl sounds now merged with Chera legacy in India
could be actually Galzu legacy.

Another suspect is Luts who came to the east long before Luts from
Lydia came. With the Gutians threatening the states of Sumer we find
another tribe called Lullu or Lullubi living in the Zagros mountains.
The Lullubi became a threat during the rule of Naram-Sin. In southwest
Iran there is a people called Lur. I think all these were originally
Luts.

In the Bible we find another tribe called Merathaim attached to Pekod
(Jeremia 50:21). This may suggest that ancestors of the Marathas like
Paktons were Hittites who settled in South Iraq. The true identity of
the Merathaim is unknown. The word has been interpretted literally
giving a bad meaning.

According to Gustav Oppert Marathas got their name from Maharastra
which got its name from Mhars. Religious tradition of Mhars shows
western influence. One suspects that Mhars of West Coast of India and
Mehras of Yemen were originally the same people. There are also Bharrs
of the U.P.

Akkadian king Sharru-ken conquered a region in Iran, north(?) of Elam,
called variously as Barakhshi or Markhashi or Warahshe. Possibly their
remnants in Iran were found by the early Muslims as Bariz. They are
more likely to be related to Parsa-Baluch legacy.

Defeated by the Iranians (Avestan Sakas), Vedic Sakas were pushed into
India. Wars between Cyrus the Great and Sakas, and those between
Alexander the Great and Aryan ancestors of Ashkuns, Catheans, Kam,
Kambujias and Gureans must have sent some Vedic refugees to India.

It seems from their names and some other traditons that Cathean, Kam,
Kambo, and Kambujia were originally Meds. However, these Meds were
"cultured" people like the people of Media in Iran, not roaming Meds of
older time.

Many people do not see how much of Hindu Aryanism remains if they set
the Rajput-Gurjars (Gujar, Gujjar, Gurjjar, Gurjara) aside from other
Indians. Yet these Rajput-Gurjars entered India after 400CE!

A big migration of the Rajput-Gurjars to Pakistan and India must have
happened in 557 CE after the Haithals (White Huns) suffered at the
combined effort of the Persians under King Khosrau Anushirvan Adil, and
Turks under a Khan, who divided their kingdoms.

Gurjars that remained in Central Asia got mixed up with Turks, and are
known as Kazar. In the past, some Sanskrit scholars denied the
connection of Gurjars and Kazars. Possibly some still do.

One suspects that some lost Scythian tribes of Eurasia, and couple of
Indo-European speaking tribes lost in ancient Turkey became some of the
Rajput clans in India.

We cannot call these high caste Hindus refugees. In Central Asia they
had to face population pressure from two sides while they were
continuously fighting in the southern front with the Iranians. They
came to India as Babur did, and became India's ruling caste.

In India they became the Rajput (king?s son) which implies in a sense
that Hindu History began with them. Chalukya Rajputs were
Brahma-Khatriya (Brahma-Kshatri). That is, they were also Brahman in
addition to being warriors.
The remnants that Rajput-Gurjars left in Afghanistan later entered the
subcontinent as Muslim soldiers. In Pakistan Rajput-Gurjars became
Muslim.

In general, to say that the newcomers were refugees does not mean
necessarily that invasions did not take place locally. There were
clearly invasions of India by "Aryan tribes." However, the Jadav races,
which carried out great military invasions, are most likely to be
considered foreigners by Indians.

We include all Indian tribes namely Yadu (Vedic period), Chedi (Puranic
and Jain period), Asii-Kushan and White-Huns (historical period),
Bhattis and Rajput-Gurjars (immediate pre-Islamic period) as related
and different waves of the same Jadav people.

We believe that the tribe of Yadu (Jadavs) was called Haithal in
Perso-Arabic literature. It appears that Biblical Meshek, Greek
Mycenaeans, Massagetae who fought Cyrus, and the Scythians whom
Alexander routed were all related White Hun tribes from different time
and place.

One of the people related to these Jadavs in India were "nr" related
tribes from the neighborhood of Lake Van. They were a mixed race,
initially of Urartuan and Kaldi (possibly Galzu), then of other nations
of the Turan including possibly Gurjars-Kazars.

Urartians called their own country to be Biainili or Biaina (Van). One
of the names of the Urartians was Nairi. [See "Urartu" by R.D. Barnett
in In The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol iii, part 1, CUP, 1982. J.
Boardman et. al. edited.]

Because of the connection with Lake Van, Nairi most probably meant
people from (land close to) water or nahar. We can compare this Nairi
with the Iranian Kajar surname Nairi, the Nayers of the Malabar Coast
of India, and the Newaris of Nepal.

There was a king of Musasir, a city of Urartu, named Urzana. Arjun was
a warrior and the Nayers, a military aristrocracy, respected him much.
The connection is deeper because in the Puran, Arjun and Sri Krisna are
the combined rebirth of Nara and Narayana (goings of water).

In addition, the city of Musasir ruled by Urzana, could become the sea
port of Musiris in Malabar. Lake Van or Biainili can be compared with
the medieval kingdom of Venad in South India centered at Kollam or
Quilon. Venad = Ven + natu, natu means district.

The South Indian Nayers most probably came from the Gulf following the
Aramaeans and Southern Chaldeans. Though not all nr related tribes were
Aryan, those settled in Iran and India became Aryans.

Actually, the word Aryan makes little sense in India. In fact, it makes
little sense to anybody other than the Albanians and lost Iranians
mixed-up mostly among Hispanics and Azeris.
abu
2005-11-11 09:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part III)

We should use the word Saka to mean the waves of the so-called New
Aryans in India. To differentiate them from later Sakas in Indian
history, we can call them Ancient Sakas or Vedic Sakas and
Rigvedic-Avestan Sakas.

Shaakataayana (Sakatayana) and Shaakapunni (Sakapuni) were Vedic
Rishis. Therefore, there is no reason to be ashamed of Saka
association.

I believe that Kai Soasp (Saiaspa), father of Kharjasp (Arjataspa), was
the legendary Saka hero whom the Indians and Tibetans call Kashyapa.
There was no scope of having two different heroes with gigantic
influence among the Sakas of that period. Any such an influence would
leave two or more images.

Kharjasp was the founder of Sistan (Sakastan) according to
Tarik-i-Sistan. These ancient Sakas persecuted the ancient Arab Kindah
tribes (Kenites) in Afghanistan. Jainism originated as a religious
movement among Sakas under Sabian influence of the Kindahs. For this
reason, Jains hated Sakas.

Later descendants of all Vedic Sakas settling in India inherited the
hate of the Jains, thus losing their original Saka identity.

For political convenience, many people disown their own ancestors. One
will find in Bangladesh many descendants of Urdu-speaking Mir Jafarian
nobles who hate Urdu-association, or who love Tagore songs, more than
any other Bengali does, Bengali who does not know Urdu-Hindustani for
more than seven generations.

Entire Hittite related groups namely Luts, Laks (Rakkhas), Palaeans
migrated to India, as did remnants of Haiheha or Ekavira who possibly
settled mostly in Armenia.

As in the case of Haiks in Armenia, and Hakhamanish (Achaemenians,
possibly Greek Achaeans, and Ahhiyawa of Hittite records) in Iran, the
lower orders of Haiheha or Ekavira in India were Kurdis, the nomadic
people of Iran. They became Kaibarta in Bangladesh.

A Phrygian (Bhrigu) wave became ancient Vrijji (Vajji) in North India.
They evolved into Majhis in Bengal and its periphery.

I think Phrygians like the "Aryan-speaking" Afghans had an Abrahamic
connection. They could have been the more "aryanized" counterpart of
the ancient Brahuis who are mixed-up with Cheras in language but with
Iranians in appearance.

Brahui-Kurdi interactions are well known, and continuous in time.

Ganesh looks like an elephant, Bengali haatee, because he came from
Hatti, ancient Turkey. Hatti gave the name of the Hittites. In Bengali,
an elephant is haatee not hastee, because original Bengali is older
than Sanskrit, and Bengali had more Hittite connections.

It appears that Ganesh was brought to Pakistan and Kashmir by the pagan
ancestors of the Niazis whom Alexander the Great found as Nysaean
republicans. Then Ganesh was El-Kurnisa, and he became the god of
"gana" because of the guild of Nysaeans.

The claim that Kineas, founder of Ai-Khanum situated in Badakhshan, was
a Greek has been criticized by A. K. Narain ["On the Foundation and
Chronology of Ai-Khanum: A Greek: Bactrian City," in Gilbert Pollet ed.
"India and the Ancient World", Departement Orientaistick, Leuven,
1987].

Another lost "Aryan" tribe was Bithyni. Bithynians were evicted from
present Armenia when Haiks occupied this country of Bani Aram and stole
their name.

I think that like the Darads from Dardanalese, Bithynians also came to
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and became the ancestors of Bitani Afghans.

[I wonder whether the surnames Patak and Pathak can be related to the
Bithyni. Pat could be a Bithyni surname. Pathak later denoted a group
of Bhojpuri Brahmans. In Bangladesh Patak is a group of laborers
working with stones (pathar).

In Bangladesh, we meet both the surnames mostly in the history of
Mominshahi and Sylhet. Several Pathaks, unlike other Hindus, sided with
the Muslim Fakirs to fight the British occupation. Even with Titumir,
there was a sannyasi by the name Deokee Phatuck.]

During the colonial time many well-to-do families, Bais, Bharrs and
Ahirs, around Baiswara (South Oud, not far from Gwalior) claimed Bais
ancestry (P. Carnegy, Bengal Asiatic Journal, vol, XLV, p300-2). This
is because Bais were considered Rajputs.

Colonial writers gave too much emphasis on later Hindu terms like
Rajput, and tried to force a sharp division between people of
Afghanistan, East Iran, Turan in one hand, and Indians in the other.

They disregarded totally multiple layers of immigration, and effect of
liberal religions having higher concepts on the singleness of humanity.


Although the Bible has a Table of Nations, padrees themselves confused
Bani Adam (Sons of Man) with Son of Man perhaps because Son of Woman
was the first Messiah, and they were not interested in the second
Messiah.

Then they hated Muslims. As a result Muslim descendants of Bhatta
(swami, master) they declared to be Bhat (baffoon), and Hindu Bhat they
declared Bhatta.

The name Bithyni also compares with Besnagar, which is situated near
Bhilsa in the old Gwalior State not far from South Oudh. Krishna's
tribe was Vrshni, a Jadav clan. One coin of a Vrsni king found by
Cunningham is dated to first century BCE (Bimanbehari Majumdar's "Krsna
in History and Legend").

Variants of Bais are Bes, Bensla, and Besla. See "A Short History of
the Gurjars" by Rana Ali Hasan Chauhan, 1998. In this book we find that
some Gurjars claim Sri Krishna?s family as Gurjar.

I think that only because colonialism spread from Bengal to North
India, and padrees could work freely in the south and in the seacoast,
real Krishna story of North India, that of Rajput-Gurjars, is not well
represented in modern literature. These Rajput-Gurjars lived side by
side with Luts.
abu
2005-11-11 09:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part IV)

Luts and Laks were the most important Indo-European speaking people of
India, Maldives and West Bengal. They must have played an important
role in spreading "Aryan" languages in the sub-continent.

West Bengal was virtually a Lut country (Rarh=Ladam). The form Raghu
could originally be an Indo-Mongoloid form.

I believe that persecuted Nasara-Sabiun follwers attached to Hazrat
Zakaria, John the Baptist and Virgin Mary, some of whom were possibly
fighting the pagan Romans with the help of the Indo-Parthians, took
shelter among the Luts in Afghanistan.

People consider Rustam a Saka hero. It appears to me that he was a Lut
hero. Laks migrated to the East mainly Arakan (Rakhapur) and Vietnam,
and got mixed-up with the Chinese.

Piecing elements of legends, with the help of the history of migrations
of diverse people and their story, one can still see that a Lak king
founded Lakhnauti, the medieval capital of Bengal. Muslim legends call
him Shangal. He could be the Rakkhas Hingulaj.

These people now criticize missionary Max Muller. They simply talk out
of convenience. I do not think these people understand what harm
padrees did. These padrees started the spinning that destroyed the
one-to-one correspondence of versions by different tribes.

Before they appeared Vishnu was Fish Noah, Brahma was Abraham, Indra
was Handha, Kartik was Khizir, Skanda was Alexander, Kesta (Krishna)
and Raghunandan were Christ.

Difference of opinions was only in interpretation. People understood
they were talking about the same persons, because tribes moved from one
place to another.

Liars and forgerers always show interest in archeological and
biological proofs. Finer is the technique, heavier is the burden of
maintaining clarity and chain of custody. They prove nothing.

Proficiency in science does not guaranty that a scientist would tell
the truth. In fact, it may not even guaranty that a scientist is
capable of differentiating truth from self-interest or gang-interest.

Today Hindu is frantically searching Hindu's ancestors. Out of love
for Hindu, we also joined the search. Will Hindu try hard to understand
what we found?

People, who gave the name Hindu/Hindi, know Hindu's history. Instead
of ganging up with motivated missionaries, or their modern
counter-parts carrying out garbage-in-garbage-out experiments with
microscopic variables to deny macroscopic facts, Hindus should listen
to these people.

Like Sultan Firoz Shah Tuglok, they are Hindu's half-brother in
India, if not full-brother left in Iran, Turan, Arab countries and East
Africa.

Else, when the missionaries will change their theory to meet the demand
of political urgency or of the scheme of dividing and converting, Hindu
will be in a whirlpool of confusion regarding their own ancestors.
---------The End ------
abu
2005-11-11 09:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part IV)

Luts and Laks were the most important Indo-European speaking people of
India, Maldives and West Bengal. They must have played an important
role in spreading "Aryan" languages in the sub-continent.

West Bengal was virtually a Lut country (Rarh=Ladam). The form Raghu
could originally be an Indo-Mongoloid form.

I believe that persecuted Nasara-Sabiun follwers attached to Hazrat
Zakaria, John the Baptist and Virgin Mary, some of whom were possibly
fighting the pagan Romans with the help of the Indo-Parthians, took
shelter among the Luts in Afghanistan.

People consider Rustam a Saka hero. It appears to me that he was a Lut
hero. Laks migrated to the East mainly Arakan (Rakhapur) and Vietnam,
and got mixed-up with the Chinese.

Piecing elements of legends, with the help of the history of migrations
of diverse people and their story, one can still see that a Lak king
founded Lakhnauti, the medieval capital of Bengal. Muslim legends call
him Shangal. He could be the Rakkhas Hingulaj.

These people now criticize missionary Max Muller. They simply talk out
of convenience. I do not think these people understand what harm
padrees did. These padrees started the spinning that destroyed the
one-to-one correspondence of versions by different tribes.

Before they appeared Vishnu was Fish Noah, Brahma was Abraham, Indra
was Handha, Kartik was Khizir, Skanda was Alexander, Kesta (Krishna)
and Raghunandan were Christ.

Difference of opinions was only in interpretation. People understood
they were talking about the same persons, because tribes moved from one
place to another.

Liars and forgerers always show interest in archeological and
biological proofs. Finer is the technique, heavier is the burden of
maintaining clarity and chain of custody. They prove nothing.

Proficiency in science does not guaranty that a scientist would tell
the truth. In fact, it may not even guaranty that a scientist is
capable of differentiating truth from self-interest or gang-interest.

Today Hindu is frantically searching Hindu's ancestors. Out of love
for Hindu, we also joined the search. Will Hindu try hard to understand
what we found?

People, who gave the name Hindu/Hindi, know Hindu's history. Instead
of ganging up with motivated missionaries, or their modern
counter-parts carrying out garbage-in-garbage-out experiments with
microscopic variables to deny macroscopic facts, Hindus should listen
to these people.

Like Sultan Firoz Shah Tuglok, they are Hindu's half-brother in
India, if not full-brother left in Iran, Turan, Arab countries and East
Africa.

Else, when the missionaries will change their theory to meet the demand
of political urgency or of the scheme of dividing and converting, Hindu
will be in a whirlpool of confusion regarding Hindu's own ancestors.
---------The End ------
abu
2005-11-12 03:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think some people though educated, are posting comments on history
and culture of Bangladesh, from merely personal experience, and from
experience of colonial and post-colonial periods. They seem to have no
clue of what life was before 1750 in Bangladesh, or 1560 in Indonesia,
and what happened to the education process just after the defeat.

If you want to have peace (practical level) in the subcontinent you
must read and try to understand what I am saying. [I even saw one idiot
calling the subcontinent Indian subcontinent, using the very name that
makes most non-Indian people in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal
and Bhutan uncomfortable.]

Aami anubhab kari je bujhe ebang sat saahaser saathe sei bujh prakaash
karte paare eman bhaalo loker sankhya Bangladeshe khubi kam.

So people should read my posts, ponder and try to write some reply. I
am assuring you that I will not reply back. I am also learning. Thank
you.
abu
2019-06-25 06:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abu
Aryan Refugee Theory (Part I)
["We are all children of Adam, and Adam was made of dust. Best among us
are those who are best in warding off evil."]
I am posting Aryan Refugee Theory in four parts.
Each religious revolution in "Aryan" West Asia sent a group of Aryan
refugees to India.
The Zoroastrian Revolution in Iran sent the defeated party to India.
Failure of the counter-revolution of Gaumata to reintroduce the
pre-Zoroastrian paganism in Iran sent the defeated party to India.
The failure of Mani sent the defeated party to India.
Outside the followers of Mani, there were many other Sabiun-Nasara
groups among Sakas, Albanians, Thelos, and possibly Hittite remnants.
They were persecuted for heresy when they could not hide in the
mountains. Therefore, they possibly sent some members to India.
When Manichaeism spread in Central Asia, the defeated party could come
to India.
The Christianization of Armenia and its neighborhood probably sent the
defeated party to India.
Islamic invasion of Iran possibly sent a defeated party to India.
Saffari Revolution of Muslim Ayars in Sistan possibly sent some
non-Muslims to India. From Qiqan they went to Kankan.
Each of the older revolutions contributed to what became Hinduism.
There was no wall between India and its west. So people of unique
importance duplicated in the border region according to the position
they are given.
A saint of the defeated party became the devil of the winning party.
They were two images of the same person.
An evil but highly influential priest by the name Zak, leader of the
Kigs and Kharaps, opposed Zartusht (b.660BCE) in "Balkh" region.
According to an Iranian story, defeated Zak fled to Tibet, which at
that time began further west in Afghanistan.
Since we find only Jakkha (Yaska) in Indian history, and he was from
Paraskara desah, and of undated period, it is most likely that this Zak
is Jakka, and Paraskara is Persia. There is a second possibility that
Zak is Jakkha's father.
The second option is less likely but we can keep it open at this stage
since we do not know the exact time of Jakkha.
The spirant should not stop the identification. Many Bangladeshi
pronounce the letter for the palatal voiced unaspirated stop of the
pundits almost as za, and the semivowel used in Sanskrit words for y as
a consonant ja.
In Turan, it appears, Yaykhan was hereditary title of the priests.
These people were bad, as we see in Dede Korkut. Kafir king Soekli
refused Prince Kazan's request for his captive mother.
Soekli replied that he would give her to the son of Yaykhan the priest,
and when the son of Yaykhan the priest would have a son, they would
make this son an enemy of Prince Kazan.
Gaumata (spelled Gaomata in an earlier post) was a magus. In India, a
Magus was a Bhoja or Magha. Gaumata supported the cause of Bardiya
(Smerdis), or assumed Bardiya's identity. This Bardiya appears to be
the historical person behind Baladev (Balarama, Baladeva).
There are scholars who studying only Hindu traditions concluded that
Krishna story was superimposed on an older story of Baladev.
These stories were much diffused before the padrees came to India. Here
is one example. One suspects that Baladev was also the ultimate
inspiration of the name Badiuzzamal of the Saiful Mulk story. Abdul
Hakim (fl.1700?) was a Bengali poet who also wrote on Saiful Mulk.
In Abdul Hakim's "Lalmoti Saiful Mulk" Saiful Mulk had two wives namely
Lalmoti and Rokbanu. These two women compare with Radha (Lala) and
Rukmini, two important wives of Krishna.
For further information on Bardiya-Baladev and Chirst-Krishna duality
search internet. See for example, "Deshi People." See also "The
http://www.livius.org/sj-sn/smerdis/smerdis.html
Those who claim that Krishna was in 1000BCE, can build their theory on
the abundance of the name Kara/Kala among (presumably) white Japhetians
meeting black (=krishna) people. In fact, Krishna himself fought a
mighty Kala Jaban (Yavana). Suddenly a king of 3102BiChi fights the
Indo-Greeks!
In Krishna fighting Kala Javan, or Keshav and HrsiKesh (Krishna)
fighting Keshi we may see a common sectarian tendency in old religious
stories of undated and doubtful origin. The version of a competing
group is discrediting the version of another group.
Yet we see these names kept two names of Jesus. While Keshta (a Bengali
form of Krishna) shows the Christ connection, (su)kesha interpreted as
master (isha) of happiness (delight, aahlaad) shows the Jesus (Isa)
connection.
[I did not invent the interpretation of (su)kesha as master (isha) of
happiness. A reference with the proper sibilants and aspirants can be
found in Professor Bimanbehari Majumdar's "Krsna in History and
Legend," Univ. of Calcutta, 1969. I only connected master with Isa.]
If any of the Hindu books containing Hindu Krishna story was composed
in India even before c.250BCE (forget 600BCE), we would have an
inscription by Asoka the Great in that language.
The fact is Asoka did not know their language, and they too could not
read what Asoka wrote when half-Rajput Sultan Feroz Shah Tuglok, asked
them to read one of the inscriptions discovered in his time.
At present except that Besnagar inscription of Heliodorus mentioning
Vaasudev, has been dated towards the end of the second century BCE, or
at the beginning of the first century BCE, by some noted scholars, no
other supposed proof of Hindu Krishna actually predates Parthian Jesus,
though it may predates Greco-Roman Jesus.
The allegation that Christian considerations affected the dating of the
Indo-Parthian rulers is available in scholarly literature. However, it
is not clearly understood that Indo-Parthian Jesus story could be older
than the Greco-Roman story of Jesus.
Faulty chronology is the main reason that people are overlooking
powerful multiple-image theory of Jesus as evident in Bar Pantiri and
carpenter, and in Hindu literature, in achutya (infallible=Krishna) and
sutaja (son of a carpenter=Karna) to give some examples. For Karna
between Christ and Krishna see "Sarathi, Chhutar and Bar Pantitri
Carpenter."
Yet this chronology does not have much basis. It reached present time
by repeating an error that everything is all right when it was not. Now
some sober historians care damn for its basis.
I shall not make any comment about the time of Besnagar inscription
now. The inscription is beyond my reach. One can see in the literature
how the time of Antialkidas has been guessed. This type of guessing is
most likely to hide error. In view of Alvar Ellegard's "Jesus--One
Hundred Years before Christ," it is not much what we need.
The main reason for my not making a comment on the Besnagar inscription
is that my study of the real significance of vs sound in India among
various immigrants with (ultimately) Ossetian connection is not yet
complete.
I believe that Isadev (Jesudev) inspired the belief of Jesus-Krishna as
Vasudev and Vaasudev. However, the vs sound has more significance and
older elements could be mixed up.
So far, we discussed about only one type of refugees, that is, the
religious refugees. Other type of refugees also came to India. As
population pressure increased from the west and from the
Turko-Mongoloid worlds, weaker parties came to India.
Vedic Saka invasion took place in the border region of Afghanistan and
Pakistan. During this time, there was strong Bani Sem presence in the
Indus valley. Among them were Bani Aram, Pannis, and the so-called
Dravidian group of Brahuis.
Pannis appears to be a mixed Dehi-Cananites legacy in the east mostly
connected with trade (panya=commodity). The Assyrians drove out
Arameans from Hindan (in Iraq). Bani Aram caused the name Sind to come
into existence in this part of the world.
Earlier name of Sind was Meluhha, which is clearly a Malay-Molucca
legacy in view of the extension of the Malay world from Malawi-Malagasy
to Nusantara.
However at that time difference among various Malay-Munda-Mon tribes
was much less than what we perceive now. We see that some Munda tribes
such as Suwars (Sabar) and Indo-Mongoloid Sharkis show possible Sind
connection. Sind was also called Souvira. We can compare Santal Manjhi
with Mohenjo.
This word Meluhha has been identified with Pali milakkha. Those who
hated the people of Meluhha as mleccha, today claim the credit for
Indus Valley Civilization!
It is due to the persistent efforts of few non-Indian scholars, today
the common sense identification of Meluhha with mleccha is accepted
among scholars. Many people are still chanting old garbage.
I wonder how many people, scholars and idiots, read this article?
Loading...