Aryan Migration Theory update

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
The problem is that both sides have their own agenda and stupidity. On one side they claim that India before Aryans was one homogenous population block speaking one language family(Dravidian) and looking same and on the other it is claimed that Humans somehow magically appeared in India as one peoples and the rest of the things happened. This is getting more and more ridiculous on both sides.
Yes, India is a land of Migrants as are every other nations on the Earth. Aryans were mostly like diffused migrants like the previous ones who build Indus valley civilization and all the previous people to that. What's wrong or uncomfortable about that? Aren't there other nations who believe they are the migrants and are peaceful and prosperous? No country has a homogenous,unmixed and culturally pure people including India. We are all mixed and that's perfectly fine and we can be proud of that unless you have unnecessary complexes in your mind.
1. Of course, humans did not appear in India magically. As per the currently accepted theory, they arrived by coast hopping from Africa.
2. Indian were varied lot even before Aryans came to India, especially as far as their languages, cultures and beliefs went. You see that in Australian aboriginals and all other native people too.
3. Aryans too, did not have blue blood. They were also mixed people.
4. The problem is that in this forum there is a majority of Indians who support the linguistically and archaeologically unsupported 'Out of India' theory.
5. And the reason for that is that these people deny that Hinduism is the indigenous religion of India and does not derive from Vedas or the Aryans. Hindus worship only those Aryan Gods (Vishnu and Rudra) who got associated with indigenous Gods.
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,569
USA
The problem is that both sides have their own agenda and stupidity. On one side they claim that India before Aryans was one homogenous population block speaking one language family(Dravidian) and looking same and on the other it is claimed that Humans somehow magically appeared in India as one peoples and the rest of the things happened. This is getting more and more ridiculous on both sides.
Yes,India is a land of Migrants as are every other nations on the Earth. Aryans were mostly like diffused migrants like the previous ones who build Indus valley civilization and all the previous people to that. What's wrong or uncomfortable about that? Aren't there other nations who believe they are the migrants and are peaceful and prosperous? No country has a homogenous,unmixed and culturally pure people including India. We are all mixed and that's perfectly fine and we can be proud of that unless you have unnecessary complexes in your mind.
We don't have to forcibly imagine to have mixed just for seeming cool. Everybody knows that people mix and have mixed all the time. If one party can claim that certain languages originated in certain region, certain others can claim a different origin. There is nothing wrong in doing so. In fact, there has to be an origin of any language, and obviously it could not have been happening in every single place on earth.

The most untrustworthy people are people who seem to agree with anything and everything just to look balanced.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,569
USA
1. Of course, humans did not appear in India magically. As per the currently accepted theory, they arrived by coast hopping from Africa.
2. Indian were varied lot even before Aryans came to India, especially as far as their languages, cultures and beliefs went. You see that in Australian aboriginals and all other native people too.
3. Aryans too, did not have blue blood. They were also mixed people.
4. The problem is that in this forum there is a majority of Indians who support the linguistically and archaeologically unsupported 'Out of India' theory.
5. And the reason for that is that these people deny that Hinduism is the indigenous religion of India and does not derive from Vedas or the Aryans. Hindus worship only those Aryan Gods (Vishnu and Rudra) who got associated with indigenous Gods.
If there is any theory that is both linguistically and archaeologically supported, it has to be 'Out of India' theory. Repeating the same lie about Aryan migration everywhere does not make it a truth.

Your claim of indigenous Gods has been busted many times, yet you keep singing the same tune. For all this time on this forum, I have yet to see one evidence from you regarding any indigenous (such an abused word) philosophy of India.

Regarding human migration from Africa, theories change year after year. New evidences are found every single time that challenge existing theories. Whether people migrated via coastal routes or otherwise, seriously nobody knows for sure. We would not have had so many theories otherwise.

To make a statement like this:

"Indians were varied lot even before Aryans came to India, especially as far as their languages, culture and beliefs went".

One has to have positive evidence of:

1. Aryans came from outside of India - Unfortunately it is moving towards 100% negative
2. We have evidences of what exactly were non Aryan beliefs before such a mix happened - We have no clue.
3. They had different culture and languages - Not a clue.

What are you harping about?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
2. We have evidences of what exactly were non Aryan beliefs before such a mix happened - We have no clue.
3. They had different culture and languages - Not a clue.
2. The first eight avataras of Lord Vishnu were indigenous regional Gods who fused into a minor Aryan God Vishnu. Krishna is doubly intriguing. Perhaps it is a mix of two Gods, the herder God of Mathura region and the King of Dwarika.
3. Don't we have umpteen languages in India and cultures of people speaking them? 21 National Languages other than English, and many state-recognized regional languages (there is a demand from 42 languages to be included along with the 22 Scheduled languages (Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India - Wikipedia).
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,569
USA
2. The first eight avataras of Lord Vishnu were indigenous regional Gods who fused into a minor Aryan God Vishnu. Krishna is doubly intriguing. Perhaps it is a mix of two Gods, the herder God of Mathura region and the King of Dwarika.
3. Don't we have umpteen languages in India and cultures of people speaking them? 21 National Languages other than English, and many state-recognized regional languages (there is a demand from 42 languages to be included along with the 22 Scheduled languages (Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India - Wikipedia).
Ha ha ha.

No Vishnu, no avataras of Vishnu - as simple as that. And I know, you have no choice but to accept Vishnu is a Vedic God.

Here we are:

Matsya - indigenous regional God - may I ask you which region? (Hint: Go look for this in Shatapatha BrAhmaNa)
KUrma - ??
VarAha - ?? (Again, Shatapatha BrAhmaNa)
Narasimha - ??
VAmana - ?? (dwarf BrAhmin and Trivikrama - Sounds like a Vedic thought, check Rig Veda)
ParashurAma (Rig Vedic Seer, unfortunately for you).
RAma (King from IkshvAku lineage, who is a Rig Vedic figure)
Krishna (mentioned in Chandogya Upanishat of SAma VEda, as a disciple of GhOra AngIrasa)
Buddha - We all know, so no debate.

Yes, all these were regional Gods that fused not in reality but in your imagination.

Yes, there are many regional languages. But unfortunately many trace their ancestry to Vedic, and of the others, some are dubiously posited to be of different origin, and some may be different. But how does that prove that Vedic people came from outside of India?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
And I know, you have no choice but to accept Vishnu is a Vedic God.

Here we are:

Matsya - indigenous regional God - may I ask you which region? (Hint: Go look for this in Shatapatha BrAhmaNa)
KUrma - ??
VarAha - ?? (Again, Shatapatha BrAhmaNa)
Narasimha - ??
VAmana - ?? (dwarf BrAhmin and Trivikrama - Sounds like a Vedic thought, check Rig Veda)
ParashurAma (Rig Vedic Seer, unfortunately for you).
RAma (King from IkshvAku lineage, who is a Rig Vedic figure)
Krishna (mentioned in Chandogya Upanishat of SAma VEda, as a disciple of GhOra AngIrasa)
Buddha - We all know, so no debate.

Yes, all these were regional Gods that fused not in reality but in your imagination.

Yes, there are many regional languages. But unfortunately many trace their ancestry to Vedic, and of the others, some are dubiously posited to be of different origin, and some may be different. But how does that prove that Vedic people came from outside of India?
When, in heavens, did I deny that? Sure, Vishnu was a minor God in RigVeda with six hymns dedicated to him.

Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrisimha - probably South India; Vamana - Kerala (Mahabali), the three strides in RigVeda are ascribed to Vishnu as also some other Gods; Parashurama - Not definite, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat (Bhrigu Kachha) or even South India; Rama - Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; Krishna - Vraja and Gujarat.

We are discussing the migration of Aryans and how the two people, their Gods and mythology got mixed up.
 
Jun 2017
537
usa
When, in heavens, did I deny that? Sure, Vishnu was a minor God in RigVeda with six hymns dedicated to him.

Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrisimha - probably South India; Vamana - Kerala (Mahabali), the three strides in RigVeda are ascribed to Vishnu as also some other Gods; Parashurama - Not definite, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat (Bhrigu Kachha) or even South India; Rama - Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; Krishna - Vraja and Gujarat.

We are discussing the migration of Aryans and how the two people, their Gods and mythology got mixed up.
Aupji, till not very long ago you were calling Vishnu indigenous. Now you are calling him minor Aryan god. Please check your posts from last year.
What made you change your opinion?
 
Sep 2015
440
Sri Lanka
Aupji, till not very long ago you were calling Vishnu indigenous. Now you are calling him minor Aryan god. Please check your posts from last year.
What made you change your opinion?
I Doubt very much , that Aupy ever mentioned Vishnu was an "Indigenous" Deity by origin --IF My dementing memory serves me right ,he always maintained that Vishnu was a minor "Aryan deity"--Over to you now Sir !
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Aupji, till not very long ago you were calling Vishnu indigenous. Now you are calling him minor Aryan god. Please check your posts from last year. What made you change your opinion?
No Sir. My views today are the same as they were last year. Vishnu is an Aryan God of RigVeda who, like the Aryan people who migrated to India, became indigenous in time. Same for Rudra and Saraswati.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,569
USA
When, in heavens, did I deny that? Sure, Vishnu was a minor God in RigVeda with six hymns dedicated to him.

Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrisimha - probably South India; Vamana - Kerala (Mahabali), the three strides in RigVeda are ascribed to Vishnu as also some other Gods; Parashurama - Not definite, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat (Bhrigu Kachha) or even South India; Rama - Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; Krishna - Vraja and Gujarat.

We are discussing the migration of Aryans and how the two people, their Gods and mythology got mixed up.
That is exactly what I am trying to drive home - that the mix up is in your mind.

And what are you even talking? Probably South India - You have no clue and it is quite possible that you haven't read anything. The entire Brahminic tradition in South India is traced to North India. And the worship of ten avatars of Vishnu is primarily driven by Brahmins.