Aryan Migration Theory update

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
No. Brahmins had to mix the indigenous with the Vedic, because there were no takers for purely Vedic. There was strong resistance to Aryan Gods as indicated by stories of Daksha's yajna, Govardhana lifting and Indra's escapades.
 
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
No. Brahmins had to mix the indigenous with the Vedic, because there were no takers for purely Vedic. There was strong resistance to Aryan Gods as indicated by stories of Daksha's yajna, Govardhana lifting and Indra's escapades.
Its more like mixing of the Gaud (Bengali) culture with Saraswat (Haryana) culture rather than mixing of a central Asian or foreign element with a subcontinental element

Here, the Gaud also represent the SaamVeda (singing culture) whereas Rigveda is (as is well known) Saraswat
 
Jul 2017
510
Sydney
Then why this 'in well' thinking? :)
It is not 'in well' thinking that you are presuming but a lot of cross-checking and a healthy amount of doubt (as should be held in any scientific enquiry) that lead me to question some of the established framework

My background leaves me in the possession of a plethora of unique oral history, as yet unrecognized by British era authors who shaped Indian history in its current form

This oral stream I've tested against a lot of what is in print and I can't find much fault in it. And when we consider this oral account true a lot of Indian history appears in a different light than what is currently portrayed in
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hansolo

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,379
Australia
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?
Then you should quote that post with the date stamp . Otherwise .....
 
Sep 2018
2
Pollachi, India
This is not:

Ramana's view
Ramakrishna/Vivekananda's view
Shankara's view
Gaudapada's view
Badarayana's view
Upanishadic view

Which Rshi are you talking about?

FYI, nobody bars anybody from believing or not believing. Advaita is a "state", not a "dogma".
This is not:

Ramana's view
Ramakrishna/Vivekananda's view
Shankara's view
Gaudapada's view
Badarayana's view
Upanishadic view

Which Rshi are you talking about?

FYI, nobody bars anybody from believing or not believing. Advaita is a "state", not a "dogma".
Yes. Those Mahavakyas Aham Brahmasmi and Ayam Atma Brahma are to be understood in the right perspective. Of course, they should be realised rather than understood. If someone sees that in line with atheism, it is not the fault of Mahavakyas.