Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:18 PM   #71

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

What the Greek source describes is class system of North Western India. Its not even a caste system that was well established. Not to mention, it says nothing about majority of what we call "India" today.

Did you read the highlighted excerpt from Bhuridatta Jataka that I posted earlier? What does it imply to you?

Col. Ibbetson surveyed and studied Indian society for many years during Colonial period and finally concluded that the four varna model is just a projection, but not a reality of Indian caste system.

Buddha in the Pali canon, while discussing Brahmin's caste system, describes that there were other places where there are no castes or the caste system is different. He mentions Kamboja where there were only two "castes" in his time - master and slave.


Greek source can only be taken as a definitive proof of well established caste system in India as much as Brahmanic sources can be taken as a definitive proof that Greeks are Kshatriyas (i.e. identify themselves as such). Do you agree with it or not?
Rakshasa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:24 PM   #72

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
What the Greek source describes is class system of North Western India. Its not even a caste system that was well established. Not to mention, it says nothing about majority of what we call "India" today.
When did the capital of the Mauryan empire become N.W. India? Megasthenes is talking about the social structure he observed while he was going around India. But some sort of social structure was VERY much established. It may not be rigid thing you may know it today.

Quote:
Greeks are Kshatriyas (i.e. identify themselves as such). Do you agree with it or not?

Do you know how many times Greeks, Chinese, Persians, etc, etc, etc, etc. were considered barbarians?

Last edited by Aberc; April 2nd, 2013 at 12:32 PM.
Aberc is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2013, 12:28 PM   #73

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
The first chapter of "Greater Magadha" by Johannes Bronkhorst gives various excerpts from Satapatha Brahmana and various other sources to support his claim. The source of all his evidence is referenced in the book.

Ok I read the introduction and the conclusion of the chapter 1 of that book. I didn't find any excerpts that says that the Magadhans were austroasiatic people. It will be appreciated if you quote the exact excerpts saying as such. It just says that the MAgadha had different culture thats all.

Btw I don't buy the theory that before the rise of the Sangas, the brahminical influence in the magdha was very minimum and that both mauryas and nandas had nothing to with the Brahmins. Chankya was brahmin and was prime minister of Mauryas. And to certain extent Buddhism was a response to the undesirable customs of vedic religion. So logically if there wouldn't have any influence of Brahminism or vedic religion in that area then there wasn't any need for the reaction either!!! ITs like saying that protestantism originated in the area where there was rarely any influence of Catholicism!!!!
Jinit is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2013, 10:10 AM   #74

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Ok I read the introduction and the conclusion of the chapter 1 of that book. I didn't find any excerpts that says that the Magadhans were austroasiatic people. It will be appreciated if you quote the exact excerpts saying as such. It just says that the MAgadha had different culture thats all.

Btw I don't buy the theory that before the rise of the Sangas, the brahminical influence in the magdha was very minimum and that both mauryas and nandas had nothing to with the Brahmins. Chankya was brahmin and was prime minister of Mauryas. And to certain extent Buddhism was a response to the undesirable customs of vedic religion. So logically if there wouldn't have any influence of Brahminism or vedic religion in that area then there wasn't any need for the reaction either!!! ITs like saying that protestantism originated in the area where there was rarely any influence of Catholicism!!!!
At least you do agree that the Caucasian Brahmin Indo-Aryans had an Eastern and Southern limit to the region that they called home in India? The sources are pretty clear about it. Patanjali not only talks about what is the region that is the home of Indo-Aryans, he also says that Brahmins are supposed to be "whiter" compared to the native races. Which cannot be ignored.

Now considering that the Indo-Aryans were the first pure Caucasoids (Dravidians are Australoids, with some Caucasoid influence, though minimal) to have entered India - which implicitly means, as per the above, that the inhabitants of Greater Magadha at that time were the Australoids. Even today the Australoids are predominantly found in the Chhotanagpur region (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa & Bengal).


Dhyanabhadra was a Magadhan Buddhist monk who studied in the Nalanda monastery and who was sent by the abbot of the monastery to Sri Lanka to study the principle of "Prajna". After staying in Sri Lanka he made a voyage to Far East and served as a court Buddhist for Korean as well as Chinese kings. Later he wrote a brief travelogue. Following is what he wrote about the Kalinga region:

Quote:
On the way to my teacher, I first of all passed through the country of Lo-lo-hsu (Raadhaka i.e. Raadhapura in Bengal).Here I found someone explain- ing the Lotus Scripture. I talked with him and cleared up some of his difficulties. In the country of Danta (3) the men and women live promiscuously and without clothing. I showed them the Great Way. At Kaa~n- ówówówówówówówówówówówów 1 Parakkama-Baahu IV ? 2 Evidently this was the correct answer to Saman- prabhaasa's riddle; but the meaning is obscure. 3 Dantapura, the capital of Kalinga.
New Light on Buddhism in Medieval India

The above description obviously refer to the Australoid population of Kalinga, because the Caucasoids - due to having migrated from colder regions - had a different dressing style and did not live without clothing.


Regarding Chankaya, it is not confirmed yet if he is the same person as "Kautilya" who wrote Arthashastra. The Jains claim Chanakya was a Jain, not a Brahmin. So there is some dispute. Also Buddhism was no response to Brahmanism. It is another popular misconception of the Hindus and requires a completely different thread by itself, which I plan to create in future. Shramanic religions have been popular among the native population of India even before the influence of Brahmins (Indo-Aryans). In fact, most of modern Hinduism is influenced directly by Buddhism. Hindu Tantra, for example, is almost completely plagiarized from Buddhist Tantra. A PEEP INTO THE LATER BUDDHISM

Your Hindu Tantric scholars admit the influence of Buddhist tantra in Hindu Tantra:

Quote:
[Many seem to hold Buddhist Tantras as being close to Hindu Tantras because of the similarity in rituals or mantras. But a core principle or view that guides these rituals is what really determines the outcome of the ritual and thus, the two cannot be clubbed together. Buddhism is as different from Hinduism as Christianity or other religions, if not more. One should look beyond the garb of culture which creates a misnomer of similarity between the concepts of the two systems. Two systems cannot be judged based on rituals or practices alone as philosophy is what really defines a philosophical system. Rituals and other aspects are useful but secondary elements of a philosophical framework. As Tathagata says, the same ritual when employed by a Hindu gives a different result and a different one when used by a Buddhist as the goals are different, the view behind the activity is different and the entire perception that is key to achieving the fruit of the ritual is different. While this aspect of right view is subtle, it does really make a difference when a lofty goal is considered. Please note that the author of the piece below is biased towards mahAyAna and some of the things he states should be taken with a pinch of salt. This article, for what it’s worth, can be a good starter for the ignorant who see the two systems as same or similar based on popular practices or cultural exchanges. We can consider Jainism next.]
- By Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya


Thus Benoytosh Bhattacharya in his Introduction to Buddhist
Esoterism. has come to the conclusion, "it is possible to declare. without
fear of contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the
Tantras into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the
Buddhists in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism
was an outcome of Saivaism",
(p.147)

-- Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya

http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/retrieve/638001/bot_02_01_02.pdf
http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/bauddhatantra.html

Kamakotimandali is a popular resource of Hindu Tantric sect in the internet.

Last edited by Rakshasa; April 3rd, 2013 at 10:42 AM.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old April 3rd, 2013, 12:30 PM   #75

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
At least you do agree that the Caucasian Brahmin Indo-Aryans had an Eastern and Southern limit to the region that they called home in India? The sources are pretty clear about it. Patanjali not only talks about what is the region that is the home of Indo-Aryans, he also says that Brahmins are supposed to be "whiter" compared to the native races. Which cannot be ignored.

Now considering that the Indo-Aryans were the first pure Caucasoids (Dravidians are Australoids, with some Caucasoid influence, though minimal) to have entered India - which implicitly means, as per the above, that the inhabitants of Greater Magadha at that time were the Australoids. Even today the Australoids are predominantly found in the Chhotanagpur region (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa & Bengal).


Dhyanabhadra was a Magadhan Buddhist monk who studied in the Nalanda monastery and who was sent by the abbot of the monastery to Sri Lanka to study the principle of "Prajna". After staying in Sri Lanka he made a voyage to Far East and served as a court Buddhist for Korean as well as Chinese kings. Later he wrote a brief travelogue. Following is what he wrote about the Kalinga region:

New Light on Buddhism in Medieval India

The above description obviously refer to the Australoid population of Kalinga, because the Caucasoids - due to having migrated from colder regions - had a different dressing style and did not live without clothing.


Regarding Chankaya, it is not confirmed yet if he is the same person as "Kautilya" who wrote Arthashastra. The Jains claim Chanakya was a Jain, not a Brahmin. So there is some dispute. Also Buddhism was no response to Brahmanism. It is another popular misconception of the Hindus and requires a completely different thread by itself, which I plan to create in future.

Again seperate culture doesn't mean the seperate race. no matter how much distinct that culture is. Show me some convincing evidance that confirms that Magadhans were austroasiatic while the brahmins were not.

Second as for the boundries of Aryavarta I have read many differant sources. According to some by 3rd century BC even the Anga desh (east to the Magdha) was already part of Aryavarta. Only BAngal and Kalinga were excluded from it.

Cultural History Of India - Om Prakash - Google Books


Quote:
Patanjali not only talks about what is the region that is the home of Indo-Aryans, he also says that Brahmins are supposed to be "whiter" compared to the native races. Which cannot be ignored.
Forget about the Skin colour. And show me the exact quote by patanjali which that Brahmins were foreigners.

Infact show me any source (buddhist, Jain or vedic) which says directly that Brahmins or the Aryas were the foreigners in comparison to other people.

Quote:
Regarding Chankaya, it is not confirmed yet if he is the same person as "Kautilya" who wrote Arthashastra. The Jains claim Chanakya was a Jain, not a Brahmin. So there is some dispute
Fair enough. For a sake of Argument even if we believe that Chankya was jain, its hard to deny that he studied and even probably born in Aryavarta. By your logic he wasn't the part of that distinct magadhan culture then!!!

Quote:
Also Buddhism was no response to Brahmanism. It is another popular misconception of the Hindus and requires a completely different thread by itself, which I plan to create in future. Shramanic religions have been popular among the native population of India even before the influence of Brahmins (Indo-Aryans). In fact, most of modern Hinduism is influenced directly by Buddhism. Hindu Tantra, for example, is almost completely plagiarized from Buddhist Tantra
My theological knowledge of both Hinduism and Buddhism is very shallow. So I won't go deep into that. There are many aspects of Buddhism that were incorporated into Hinduism. However Buddhism in a part was reaction to the Brahminism. Buddhist works are critical to the Brahminism. If there wouldn't have been any influence of Brahminism in the area then there wasn't any need for reaction either.

Last edited by Jinit; April 3rd, 2013 at 12:39 PM.
Jinit is offline  
Old April 5th, 2013, 01:17 PM   #76
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: Chennai, India
Posts: 1

It is true that Indo-Aryans (or Vedic Aryans) were not the only caucasoids to enter India. The Persians, Greeks, Sakas, the Huns and a number of other caucasoid tribes too entered India and mingled with the local austro-asiatic (Dravidian) population to produce the peoples we have in India today. Even in North India, except for Kashmir, Punjab and other north western regions, the people are of predominantly austro-asiatic descent though they may be speaking Aryan languages. This should not be a surprise because the conquered peoples invariably forget their languages and tend to adopt the language of the ruling classes. This happened in South America and Mexico with the Native Americans. If the British had continued to rule for another 300 years, the whole of Indian population may have switched over to English - a process that is happening albeit much slowly even after the british left India due to English becoming an international language. In the case of South India, the Dravidian langauges still hold fort and although somewhat Sanskritised (with Tamil being the least influenced), they have not gone the way of the Dravidian languages of the north. I find it absurd to keep listening to the proposition that the "British invented the Aryan invaded India and overpowered the Dravidians and Kolarians theory" so as to 'divide Indians' or to 'justify their own imperialism'. No conquering race would like to identify themselves with the conquered; it is like the Spanish inventing a theory suggesting a common origin for themselves and the Native Americans! The theory of a common origin of the Indo-European languages was based on philology and is very sound. Most of the work in this regard was done by Germans who had nothing to gain or lose by spreading false theories. In fact, one of the first persons to cast doubts on the Aryan invasion/immigration theory was the English historian Montstuart Elphinstone who first put forward the notion that Aryans were native to India and may have migrated out of India - a theory which has very little basis except for the fact that the Vedas do not contain any 'memory' of the Indo-Aryans' origin in centrl Asia. But the Dravidians and Kolarians too do not carry any such memories of their migrations into India - as surely they must have at some distant time in the past since modern humans originated in East Africa about 150,000 - 200,000 years ago and migrated out of Africa. In fact, at that point of time, Hindus were more keen to identify themselves with the Aryan invasion theory as it established their kinship with the fair-skinned Europeans. For example, Bal Gangadhar Tilak thought that Aryans had an Arctic homeland. He would be surprised to find that his descendants of today subscribing to Hindutva ideology are more behind Elphinstone than Tilak. It is again nonsensical to say that the British 'divided' us. The divisions in Indian society and polity were not created by the British. The religious, language and ethnic divisions were already there. It was Brahmanism which created and perpetuated the divisions based on caste which forbade inter-dining and inter-marriage; created rules of touchability and pollution; and pushed vast sections of the Hindu population to a sub-human existence for centuries. How do you expect the Hindu society to be united if 25% of Hindus were not allowed to enter temples; 85% of Hindus were not allowed to read the scriptures; and 95% of Hindus were not permitted to become priests in temples? Of course, the British made use of these divisions - just as our politicians of today do it. We have only ourselves to blame for our internal divisions - we divided ourselves, the British ruled!
Raja is offline  
Old April 6th, 2013, 01:55 AM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: noida
Posts: 199

Quote:
The Persians, Greeks, Sakas, the Huns and a number of other caucasoid tribes too entered India and mingled with the local austro-asiatic (Dravidian) population to produce the peoples we have in India today.
Much nonsense as persians never controlled northern india, nor did the greeks who were in few thousands at most, and we do not have evidence for any huna migration of swamping the demographics.

How is that Indo aryan languages are not affected by scythian or greek if modern day northern indians are mix of hunas and austro asiatic descent?

This is nothing but pamphlet literature of dravidian and austro asiatic lunatic groups.

We are told that hunas exterminated the indo aryans and since india is and was not united , so in that corridor where hunas predominate the languages must be eastern iranian like sogdians.

A few thousand turks converted anatolia into turkic speaking areas, so how these people failed to impact the linguistic identity of haryana as in haryana 70 percent of people are of caucasoid phenotypes.

There is no evidence of any cultural change brought by these central asiatic invaders .

Mongols and manchu languages are not spoken in china simply because they were salt in the dish just as saka and hunas were in Haryana and punjab region.

It is a rule of thumb that if new race comes and fails to impact languages, it is because of simple reason that it was like water in sand.


Please do not talk about India being populated or such nonsense as hunas operational area was haryana and not india so their descendants must speak hunic or other central asiatic languages.

if they do not, it means that they were absorbed in haryana and punjabi society which already was heavily populated.


infact it is ridiculous that people think they can identify huna genes and phenotypes but are unable to show any sign of huna langauges.

the dravidian barbaric languages were impacted even without any north indian migration, so how come upper class north indians speak indo aryan languages but are of huna stock?


India in 1500 bc was a thinly populated area but by the time hunas arrived the punjab haryana region alone had some 6-7 millon people in which a few thousand huna soldiers evaporated.


There is no evidence in world history of tribes adopting the conquered ones culture and language if they are in sizeable numbers.



Tell me which is scythian out of these two personalities


Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.





The first one is untouchable ( by traditional caste ) and second man is of " scythian genes " as he is a jat.


I do not see any difference in these two and can not identify austro asiatic or scythian phenotypes.


Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by vikas; April 6th, 2013 at 01:59 AM.
vikas is offline  
Old April 6th, 2013, 02:12 AM   #78
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: noida
Posts: 199

@ rakshasa and raja


could you both ( this is my humble and direct request ) please show us any austroasiatic or dravidian literature before 200 bc ?

Yes, I know that sangam would be mentioned at drop of hat but that is

1. not austroa asiatic
2.is dwarf infront of a single work called Mahabharata which is itself a part of vast sanskrit literature?
3. not pre 200 bc


So, since you are going after indo aryans as destroyers of culture, so show us what was austro asiatic culture ?

also, we have not a single page of dravidian literature before 200 bc which means that before 200 bc dravids were underdeveloped.


Sorry my friends, civilization is not equal to hunter gatherer societies particularly when we have more developed ones.

we study about Newton and Einstein and not about Mali and zimbabwe because of obvious differences.

If you people are so enraged that austro asiatics are not given prominence, show us their literature and sciences.

If not accept that austro asiatics were too savage to be mentioned as civilized people.

the tribes that were not in contact with aryans were just hunter gatherer , head hunting, promiscous people.

Just take a look at santhals in 1800s and see the facts.


When there is grapevine, who would want to taste neem leaves?

so it is necessary that tribes are not given any importance and their civilization is not mentioned as civilization is not correct word for a hunter gatherer society.
vikas is offline  
Old April 6th, 2013, 02:15 AM   #79
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: noida
Posts: 199

Quote:
In the country of Danta (3) the men and women live promiscuously and without clothing. I

So even your fabled buddhistic authors regarded austro asiatics as promiscous .I can see this is evidence from horse mouth.

so both brahmins and buddhists were agreed that austro asiatics were barbarous at that time.
vikas is offline  
Old April 6th, 2013, 02:25 AM   #80
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: noida
Posts: 199

@ Rakshasa

you called my reasonably argued post as bullshit which said that buddhist philosophers were brahmins and tried to engage in linguistic casuistry by telling that there were chinese brahmins.

this is from wiki and each claim is backed up by articles written by prominent authors ( certainly not brahmins )


Quote:
Many of the best-known Buddhist visionaries were born in a Brahmin family. They include Vasubandhu and his key disciples Sariputra[1] and Mahakasyapa (founders of MahayanaBuddhism); Nagarjuna[2] and Asvaghosa,[3] the reformer of Theravada Buddhism; Buddhaghosa (founder of Vajrayana Buddhism; Padmasambhava, founder of Tibetan Buddhism;Shantideva, author of The Way of the Bodhisattva; Bodhidharma, founder of Zen Buddhism and Kung Fu and Kumarajiva, both of whom brought Buddhism to China and beyond;Nagasena, the debater of Milinda Panha; Manjushri, mentor of Ashoka and Radhaswamy, the person who brought Ashoka to Buddhism, and scholars of Nalanda such as Aryadevaand Shantarakshita (one of the Kashmiri Pandits, who taught Buddhist and Hindu doctrine.
People born in Brahmin families feature extensively in Buddhist Tripitakas, and are found among the Buddha's chief disciples. The Brahmana Varga (section on Brahmins) in theDhammapada lists the Buddha's views on Brahmins.[4] Peter Masefield writes, "The canonical texts show the early Buddhists seeking their sustenance mostly from brahmin families, and the dhamma-cakkhu (the insight into the Four Truths) that led to liberation was given almost exclusively to men of brahmin descent."[5] Scholar Asim Chatterjee adds, "No one can deny that the Brahmin pupils of Gautama had save the Sangha in its hour of peril. The rebellion of Devadatta was foiled by Sariputta, and after the demise of the teacher, Mahakassapa, by convening the first council, at Rajagrha, practically rescued the entire Buddhist Sangha from sinking into oblivion".[6] Gurmukh Ram Madan states, "Also brahmans appear to have been taken up; but they were the distinguished representatives of a cultured laity - a secular strata of nobles who formed the majority of Buddha's disciples".[7]


Please note that these people have lengthy life stories and all of them are described as born in hindu families and in childhood being fierce orthodox brahmins but later on got converted.


so this is the most powerful evidence that buddhism was nurtured by indo aryans ( both linguistically and racially as brahmins are certainly caucasoids.)


kill Buddha, mahavira, nagarjuna, ashvaghosa , buddhaghosa, kumarjiva and nagarjuna and then there would be no budhism or jainism either.


so , in either ways, indo aryans have dominated the country be by brahmanism or buddhism.


Please show us some acharyas who were on par with these men and born in low castes ( of course buddhist and jain acharyas ) .

If not , stop imaginary mental ecstasy of " austroasiatic " buddhists .
vikas is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
caucasoids, india, indoaryans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Aryans? Mohammed the Persian General History 66 January 1st, 2017 06:28 PM
Indo-Aryans and Semites Disciple Middle Eastern and African History 30 February 15th, 2014 05:06 PM
The First Indo-China War The Amyclae Asian History 13 December 24th, 2012 09:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.