Questions for those who believe that Aryans came out of India

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,275
Des Moines, Iowa
#1
This thread is aimed at those who believe that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) urheimat lies within the Indian subcontinent, and that all of the Indo-European languages which have existed in world history have their ultimate origin in the Indian subcontinent.

To begin, I would like to note that the popular term "Out-of-India Theory" (OIT) is quite misleading, for it gives the impression that all of India existed as one entity in the distant past and that Aryans were indigenous to the entire subcontinent. The more accurate term should be "Out-of-Sapta-Sindhu Theory" (OSST), since there is absolutely no evidence that the people who composed the early Vedic literature like Rig Veda had any significant awareness of places like Tamil Nadu, Orissa, or Assam (which are part of the geographical region known as "India"), much less that they regarded the peoples living in those areas as fellow Aryas. The geographical horizon of the people who composed the early Vedas seems to be restricted to the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and more specifically, to the region known as Sapta-Sindhu or Land of Seven Rivers. Thus, even the people who believe in the so-called "OIT" (really, the OSST) still need to grapple with the fact of Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic expansion throughout India, just not expansion into the northwest (which the proponents of OSST regard as the original Aryan homeland).

We know that virtually all of North India as well as much of Central India and the northern Deccan (Maharashtra) came to be dominated by Indo-Aryan languages. However, South India to this day continues to speak Dravidian languages which are highly distinct from Indo-Aryan languages. Even if you reject the very idea of a "Dravidian language family" as "evil Britisher colonial propaganda," you still must concede that the language of the Vedas is much, much closer to the language of Iranians than to the language of South Indians. I can demonstrate this by a simple comparison of the same passage written in Avestan (Iranian), Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), and Tamil (Dravidian):

Avestan (Iranian):
Ýô ýatha puthrem taurunem
Haomem vañdaêta mashyô
Frâ âbyô tanubyô
Haomô vîsâite baêshazâi

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
yō yathā putram taruṇam
sōmam vandēta martyaḥ
pra ābhyas tanūbhyaḥ
sōmō viśatē bhēṣajāya

Tamil (Dravidian):
oru meṉmaiyāṉa makaṉ
sōma paruttu eṉa muṉṉum
piṉṉumāka pōṉṟa naparkaḷ uṭalkaḷ
sōma kuṇamaṭaiya varukiṟatu yār.


Now, we also know that South Indians received an immense amount of influence from Indo-Aryans over the last 3000 or so years. This influence has resulted in the Hinduization of the South Indian peoples, and the Sanskritization of their languages. However, even after thousands of years of Indo-Aryan influence and acculturation, the language spoken by the typical South Indian is still far more divergent from the language spoken by the typical North Indian than the language of Vedic Aryans is divergent from the language of Iranians. What this demonstrates is that cultural acculturation or influence alone cannot account for the spread of Indo-European languages, and especially not the spread of Indo-Aryan into places like Iran and Central Asia. In order for the languages of the latter to be so close to the languages of the former, we must postulate a direct invasion/migration (there is no meaningful distinction between these two terms in pre-modern history) of people from one area into another, whereby the language of the conquering/migrating party was imposed on the conquered party. There are numerous incidences throughout history of such linguistic expansion following conquest and migration; to name a few prominent examples, the Arabization of Egypt, the Turkification of Anatolia, and the Anglicization of Britain all fall in this category.

Why, then, did the Indo-Aryan languages spread throughout North India but not South India? As we have seen, mere cultural or religious expansion cannot explain this, because South India retains its linguistic divergence in spite being heavily Hinduized. A typical Tamil is no less of a devout Hindu than a typical Bihari, but there is absolutely no doubt that the language of the Bihari is far closer to the language of the Vedic Aryans than the language of the Tamil. The answer to this question of ethno-linguistic expansion (as opposed to cultural or religious expansion) seems to lie in the spread and domination of Indo-Aryan clans. We know that Indo-Aryan clans like the Haihayas and Bhojas established themselves as the ruling elites in central India and Maharashtra, and similar clans became masters of the Indo-Gangetic plain, but no such clans are recorded to have established themselves in South India during its formative period. This is probably why the former regions became speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, while the latter region continued to speak the distinct Dravidian languages.

Thus, in order to explain the distribution of Indo-European languages throughout Eurasia, the proponents of OSST would have to believe that Indo-Aryans, in the course of their expansion outside of Sapta-Sindhu, enjoyed at least as much influence and dominance as Indo-Aryans in the Gangetic plain, and decidedly more influence and domination than they enjoyed in South India (since South India, unlike Iran or Central Asia, was never host to any Indo-European language). Or, to put it in another way, the proponents of OSST have no choice but to believe that the Indo-Aryan expansion out of Sapta-Sindhu involved conquest and domination, since even a very high degree of religious influence and cultural acculturation - by itself - is insufficient to change the linguistic landscape, as proven by the historical case of South India. Given these facts, my questions to the proponents of the OSST are as follows:

1. What exactly were the motivations of the Indo-Aryans to leave Sapta-Sindhu and invade and dominate regions in central Asia, which are extremely desolate and offer absolutely nothing for someone based in the Indus valley? The only logical avenue of expansion would be east into the lush plains of North India. Based on archaeological evidence, it seems that there was indeed an eastwards migration from the Indus Valley into the Gangetic plains during the 2nd millennium BCE, probably caused by increasingly arid conditions in the northwest, but I can see no impetus for an expansion out of the Indus valley into central Asia.

2. How exactly were the Indo-Aryans able to achieve dominance over such vast regions to their north and west? Keep in mind that the peoples of the Central Asian steppe were fierce horsemen and conquered large swathes of India numerous times throughout history (as seen with the Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas, Turks, Mughals, etc.), but at no point in recorded history did any Indian empire conquer large swathes of Central Asia.

3. If Indo-Aryans somehow succeeded in establishing their dominance over vast swathes of central Asia, why do we lack any evidence of Hinduism or Vedic religion in this area? After all, while it is conceivable that a certain people spreads their religion and culture to a certain area without the inhabitants of that area changing their native language (as I have already pointed out with the case of South India), it is inconceivable that a conquering people is able to impose their language on a wide area without having any other effect on local cultures.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,115
New Delhi, India
#2
(there is no meaningful distinction between these two terms in pre-modern history)
Excellent questions. I wait for the OIT people to answer them. Nice example from Avestan and Sanskrit. However, I differ on the point that I have selected from your post. There is a difference if the initial migration of Aryans across the Suleiman mountains did not constitute a horde and they came as individuals seeking sustenance, just like Sage Agastya who is believed to be the first person to have crossed the Vidhyas and ventured into South India. I think the first comers were brahmins/priests, who wanted to earn their living by propagating their religious beliefs and practices (Yajnas). They met stiff resistance from the indigenous religion (Destruction of Daksha's yajna by Shiva, defeat of Indra by Krishna and the ban on worship of Indra by coining him a rapist). These brahmins/preists ended up accepting the indigenous Gods and Goddesses (Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, etc.). In time Aryans did establish their kingdoms. Some of them were of mix ancestry, like the Kauravas and Pandavas, and many indigenous people became Aryans by being accepted into the Aryan four-fold division of the society during the assimilation. The word 'Aryan' lost its meaning of belonging to a particular tribe but became just synonym of a nice person. There is no record of an invasion by Aryans in India.
 
Last edited:

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,947
Canary Islands-Spain
#3
1. What exactly were the motivations of the Indo-Aryans to leave Sapta-Sindhu and invade and dominate regions in central Asia, which are extremely desolate and offer absolutely nothing for someone based in the Indus valley? The only logical avenue of expansion would be east into the lush plains of North India. Based on archaeological evidence, it seems that there was indeed an eastwards migration from the Indus Valley into the Gangetic plains during the 2nd millennium BCE, probably caused by increasingly arid conditions in the northwest, but I can see no impetus for an expansion out of the Indus valley into central Asia.

2. How exactly were the Indo-Aryans able to achieve dominance over such vast regions to their north and west? Keep in mind that the peoples of the Central Asian steppe were fierce horsemen and conquered large swathes of India numerous times throughout history (as seen with the Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas, Turks, Mughals, etc.), but at no point in recorded history did any Indian empire conquer large swathes of Central Asia.

3. If Indo-Aryans somehow succeeded in establishing their dominance over vast swathes of central Asia, why do we lack any evidence of Hinduism or Vedic religion in this area? After all, while it is conceivable that a certain people spreads their religion and culture to a certain area without the inhabitants of that area changing their native language (as I have already pointed out with the case of South India), it is inconceivable that a conquering people is able to impose their language on a wide area without having any other effect on local cultures.

I'm in no way supporter of the OIT, but there are some flaws in this proposal:


1. Some groups could find useful for them to move west than east. Resources comparation is not the only point to consider, but easy to travel, political relations etc For example, Gypsies moved west from northern India in an age of turmoil. Movements of nomadic peoples like that have reshaped the ethnic map in many areas of the world (for example, the Fula in Africa)

2. At the time the IE expansion took place, horse riding and chariot warfare was starting. In fac, proto-IE were probably responsable of the large scale expansion of such practices, and their successful expansion was most probable due to the dominance over bronze and chariotry. It is true, that signs of such developments are found in the Near East and the Pontic steppe, more than in any other places, which goes against the OIT

3. The basic gods of the Iranians and the IE are the same than those of Hinduism. Just there happened regional variations. The very first mention of Aryain deities comes, in fact, from Mitanni
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,660
Australia
#4
This thread is aimed at those who believe that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) urheimat lies within the Indian subcontinent, and that all of the Indo-European languages which have existed in world history have their ultimate origin in the Indian subcontinent.

To begin, I would like to note that the popular term "Out-of-India Theory" (OIT) is quite misleading, for it gives the impression that all of India existed as one entity in the distant past and that Aryans were indigenous to the entire subcontinent. The more accurate term should be "Out-of-Sapta-Sindhu Theory" (OSST), since there is absolutely no evidence that the people who composed the early Vedic literature like Rig Veda had any significant awareness of places like Tamil Nadu, Orissa, or Assam (which are part of the geographical region known as "India"), much less that they regarded the peoples living in those areas as fellow Aryas. The geographical horizon of the people who composed the early Vedas seems to be restricted to the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and more specifically, to the region known as Sapta-Sindhu or Land of Seven Rivers. Thus, even the people who believe in the so-called "OIT" (really, the OSST) still need to grapple with the fact of Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic expansion throughout India, just not expansion into the northwest (which the proponents of OSST regard as the original Aryan homeland).
One would think that such Indian 'experts ' would realize such a basic point in their own history.

Its rather embarrasing .... for them .

We know that virtually all of North India as well as much of Central India and the northern Deccan (Maharashtra) came to be dominated by Indo-Aryan languages. However, South India to this day continues to speak Dravidian languages which are highly distinct from Indo-Aryan languages. Even if you reject the very idea of a "Dravidian language family" as "evil Britisher colonial propaganda," you still must concede that the language of the Vedas is much, much closer to the language of Iranians than to the language of South Indians. I can demonstrate this by a simple comparison of the same passage written in Avestan (Iranian), Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), and Tamil (Dravidian):

Avestan (Iranian):
Ýô ýatha puthrem taurunem
Haomem vañdaêta mashyô
Frâ âbyô tanubyô
Haomô vîsâite baêshazâi

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
yō yathā putram taruṇam
sōmam vandēta martyaḥ
pra ābhyas tanūbhyaḥ
sōmō viśatē bhēṣajāya

Tamil (Dravidian):
oru meṉmaiyāṉa makaṉ
sōma paruttu eṉa muṉṉum
piṉṉumāka pōṉṟa naparkaḷ uṭalkaḷ
sōma kuṇamaṭaiya varukiṟatu yār.


Now, we also know that South Indians received an immense amount of influence from Indo-Aryans over the last 3000 or so years. This influence has resulted in the Hinduization of the South Indian peoples, and the Sanskritization of their languages. However, even after thousands of years of Indo-Aryan influence and acculturation, the language spoken by the typical South Indian is still far more divergent from the language spoken by the typical North Indian than the language of Vedic Aryans is divergent from the language of Iranians. What this demonstrates is that cultural acculturation or influence alone cannot account for the spread of Indo-European languages, and especially not the spread of Indo-Aryan into places like Iran and Central Asia. In order for the languages of the latter to be so close to the languages of the former, we must postulate a direct invasion/migration (there is no meaningful distinction between these two terms in pre-modern history) of people from one area into another, whereby the language of the conquering/migrating party was imposed on the conquered party. There are numerous incidences throughout history of such linguistic expansion following conquest and migration; to name a few prominent examples, the Arabization of Egypt, the Turkification of Anatolia, and the Anglicization of Britain all fall in this category.

Why, then, did the Indo-Aryan languages spread throughout North India but not South India? As we have seen, mere cultural or religious expansion cannot explain this, because South India retains its linguistic divergence in spite being heavily Hinduized. A typical Tamil is no less of a devout Hindu than a typical Bihari, but there is absolutely no doubt that the language of the Bihari is far closer to the language of the Vedic Aryans than the language of the Tamil. The answer to this question of ethno-linguistic expansion (as opposed to cultural or religious expansion) seems to lie in the spread and domination of Indo-Aryan clans. We know that Indo-Aryan clans like the Haihayas and Bhojas established themselves as the ruling elites in central India and Maharashtra, and similar clans became masters of the Indo-Gangetic plain, but no such clans are recorded to have established themselves in South India during its formative period. This is probably why the former regions became speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, while the latter region continued to speak the distinct Dravidian languages.

Thus, in order to explain the distribution of Indo-European languages throughout Eurasia, the proponents of OSST would have to believe that Indo-Aryans, in the course of their expansion outside of Sapta-Sindhu, enjoyed at least as much influence and dominance as Indo-Aryans in the Gangetic plain, and decidedly more influence and domination than they enjoyed in South India (since South India, unlike Iran or Central Asia, was never host to any Indo-European language). Or, to put it in another way, the proponents of OSST have no choice but to believe that the Indo-Aryan expansion out of Sapta-Sindhu involved conquest and domination, since even a very high degree of religious influence and cultural acculturation - by itself - is insufficient to change the linguistic landscape, as proven by the historical case of South India. Given these facts, my questions to the proponents of the OSST are as follows:

1. What exactly were the motivations of the Indo-Aryans to leave Sapta-Sindhu and invade and dominate regions in central Asia, which are extremely desolate and offer absolutely nothing for someone based in the Indus valley? The only logical avenue of expansion would be east into the lush plains of North India. Based on archaeological evidence, it seems that there was indeed an eastwards migration from the Indus Valley into the Gangetic plains during the 2nd millennium BCE, probably caused by increasingly arid conditions in the northwest, but I can see no impetus for an expansion out of the Indus valley into central Asia.
Because the rest of the world was very short on 'professional workers' , and Indians like to travel (away from home ) (eg, the great doctor shortage of 1900BC )

Employment by occupation



2. How exactly were the Indo-Aryans able to achieve dominance over such vast regions to their north and west? Keep in mind that the peoples of the Central Asian steppe were fierce horsemen and conquered large swathes of India numerous times throughout history (as seen with the Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas, Turks, Mughals, etc.), but at no point in recorded history did any Indian empire conquer large swathes of Central Asia.
They did it by persuasion and a lot of constant talking and explaining ,



3. If Indo-Aryans somehow succeeded in establishing their dominance over vast swathes of central Asia, why do we lack any evidence of Hinduism or Vedic religion in this area? After all, while it is conceivable that a certain people spreads their religion and culture to a certain area without the inhabitants of that area changing their native language (as I have already pointed out with the case of South India), it is inconceivable that a conquering people is able to impose their language on a wide area without having any other effect on local cultures.
Those people actually speak a form of Sanskrit , it's an Imperialist British Empire cover-up.


(Hope you didnt mind me having some fun,? You made a great post. I look forward to any responses from the OOI people here, and hopefully they will make better sense than I did ..... hopefully . )
 
Likes: Aupmanyav

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
#5
This thread is aimed at those who believe that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) urheimat lies within the Indian subcontinent, and that all of the Indo-European languages which have existed in world history have their ultimate origin in the Indian subcontinent.

To begin, I would like to note that the popular term "Out-of-India Theory" (OIT) is quite misleading, for it gives the impression that all of India existed as one entity in the distant past and that Aryans were indigenous to the entire subcontinent. The more accurate term should be "Out-of-Sapta-Sindhu Theory" (OSST), since there is absolutely no evidence that the people who composed the early Vedic literature like Rig Veda had any significant awareness of places like Tamil Nadu, Orissa, or Assam (which are part of the geographical region known as "India"), much less that they regarded the peoples living in those areas as fellow Aryas. The geographical horizon of the people who composed the early Vedas seems to be restricted to the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and more specifically, to the region known as Sapta-Sindhu or Land of Seven Rivers. Thus, even the people who believe in the so-called "OIT" (really, the OSST) still need to grapple with the fact of Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic expansion throughout India, just not expansion into the northwest (which the proponents of OSST regard as the original Aryan homeland).

We know that virtually all of North India as well as much of Central India and the northern Deccan (Maharashtra) came to be dominated by Indo-Aryan languages. However, South India to this day continues to speak Dravidian languages which are highly distinct from Indo-Aryan languages. Even if you reject the very idea of a "Dravidian language family" as "evil Britisher colonial propaganda," you still must concede that the language of the Vedas is much, much closer to the language of Iranians than to the language of South Indians. I can demonstrate this by a simple comparison of the same passage written in Avestan (Iranian), Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), and Tamil (Dravidian):

Avestan (Iranian):
Ýô ýatha puthrem taurunem
Haomem vañdaêta mashyô
Frâ âbyô tanubyô
Haomô vîsâite baêshazâi

Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan):
yō yathā putram taruṇam
sōmam vandēta martyaḥ
pra ābhyas tanūbhyaḥ
sōmō viśatē bhēṣajāya

Tamil (Dravidian):
oru meṉmaiyāṉa makaṉ
sōma paruttu eṉa muṉṉum
piṉṉumāka pōṉṟa naparkaḷ uṭalkaḷ
sōma kuṇamaṭaiya varukiṟatu yār.


Now, we also know that South Indians received an immense amount of influence from Indo-Aryans over the last 3000 or so years. This influence has resulted in the Hinduization of the South Indian peoples, and the Sanskritization of their languages. However, even after thousands of years of Indo-Aryan influence and acculturation, the language spoken by the typical South Indian is still far more divergent from the language spoken by the typical North Indian than the language of Vedic Aryans is divergent from the language of Iranians. What this demonstrates is that cultural acculturation or influence alone cannot account for the spread of Indo-European languages, and especially not the spread of Indo-Aryan into places like Iran and Central Asia. In order for the languages of the latter to be so close to the languages of the former, we must postulate a direct invasion/migration (there is no meaningful distinction between these two terms in pre-modern history) of people from one area into another, whereby the language of the conquering/migrating party was imposed on the conquered party. There are numerous incidences throughout history of such linguistic expansion following conquest and migration; to name a few prominent examples, the Arabization of Egypt, the Turkification of Anatolia, and the Anglicization of Britain all fall in this category.

Why, then, did the Indo-Aryan languages spread throughout North India but not South India? As we have seen, mere cultural or religious expansion cannot explain this, because South India retains its linguistic divergence in spite being heavily Hinduized. A typical Tamil is no less of a devout Hindu than a typical Bihari, but there is absolutely no doubt that the language of the Bihari is far closer to the language of the Vedic Aryans than the language of the Tamil. The answer to this question of ethno-linguistic expansion (as opposed to cultural or religious expansion) seems to lie in the spread and domination of Indo-Aryan clans. We know that Indo-Aryan clans like the Haihayas and Bhojas established themselves as the ruling elites in central India and Maharashtra, and similar clans became masters of the Indo-Gangetic plain, but no such clans are recorded to have established themselves in South India during its formative period. This is probably why the former regions became speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, while the latter region continued to speak the distinct Dravidian languages.

Thus, in order to explain the distribution of Indo-European languages throughout Eurasia, the proponents of OSST would have to believe that Indo-Aryans, in the course of their expansion outside of Sapta-Sindhu, enjoyed at least as much influence and dominance as Indo-Aryans in the Gangetic plain, and decidedly more influence and domination than they enjoyed in South India (since South India, unlike Iran or Central Asia, was never host to any Indo-European language). Or, to put it in another way, the proponents of OSST have no choice but to believe that the Indo-Aryan expansion out of Sapta-Sindhu involved conquest and domination, since even a very high degree of religious influence and cultural acculturation - by itself - is insufficient to change the linguistic landscape, as proven by the historical case of South India. Given these facts, my questions to the proponents of the OSST are as follows:

1. What exactly were the motivations of the Indo-Aryans to leave Sapta-Sindhu and invade and dominate regions in central Asia, which are extremely desolate and offer absolutely nothing for someone based in the Indus valley? The only logical avenue of expansion would be east into the lush plains of North India. Based on archaeological evidence, it seems that there was indeed an eastwards migration from the Indus Valley into the Gangetic plains during the 2nd millennium BCE, probably caused by increasingly arid conditions in the northwest, but I can see no impetus for an expansion out of the Indus valley into central Asia.

2. How exactly were the Indo-Aryans able to achieve dominance over such vast regions to their north and west? Keep in mind that the peoples of the Central Asian steppe were fierce horsemen and conquered large swathes of India numerous times throughout history (as seen with the Sakas, Kushanas, Hunas, Turks, Mughals, etc.), but at no point in recorded history did any Indian empire conquer large swathes of Central Asia.

3. If Indo-Aryans somehow succeeded in establishing their dominance over vast swathes of central Asia, why do we lack any evidence of Hinduism or Vedic religion in this area? After all, while it is conceivable that a certain people spreads their religion and culture to a certain area without the inhabitants of that area changing their native language (as I have already pointed out with the case of South India), it is inconceivable that a conquering people is able to impose their language on a wide area without having any other effect on local cultures.
Before we get to the specific questions, there is a fundamental flaw in citing passages in three different languages (Vedic, Avestan and Tamil). First of all, the Avestan language for all practical purposes is a sacred language like Vedic Actually, it is not even a sibling language of Vedic as certain experts point out. It is actually distorted Vedic if you will.

Citing passages in Vedic and distorted Vedic, and then citing passage in Tamil makes zero sense. Tamil is not a sacred language and has gone through so many transformations when compared to Vedic. Why don't you instead translate the passage in some European language, and let's see how close that is to Vedic.
 
Likes: hansolo

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,519
USA
#6
"Aryans came out of India" is a manufactured fable that is being peddled as history by Hindu nationalists. The best way to describe this is as crackpot history of India. It can give comfort to those Indians with an incurable inferiority complex. I am really interested in knowing who really started this fantasy. I have read that its origins might lie with Hindu nationalist Indians like mystic Aurobindo Ghose.
 
Likes: specul8

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
#7
"Aryans came out of India" is a manufactured fable that is being peddled as history by Hindu nationalists. The best way to describe this is as crackpot history of India. It can give comfort to those Indians with an incurable inferiority complex. I am really interested in knowing who really started this fantasy. I have read that its origins might lie with Hindu nationalist Indians like mystic Aurobindo Ghose.
Can you write something of substance?
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,412
USA
#9
The substance that you missed is that OIT was not created by historians, but fabricated by Hindu mystics to make them feel good.
Substance is to provide explanation to questions that the OP has asked, on either side of the debate, not to make such silly comments.

By the way, theories such as OIT/AIT can be proposed by anybody. Historians do not prove or disprove theories, evidences do. Aurobindo Ghosh knew more of Vedas, Vedanta and more than your favorite Western babblers did/do.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,519
USA
#10
Substance is to provide explanation to questions that the OP has asked, on either side of the debate, not to make such silly comments.

By the way, theories such as OIT/AIT can be proposed by anybody. Historians do not prove or disprove theories, evidences do. Aurobindo Ghosh knew more of Vedas, Vedanta and more than your favorite Western babblers did/do.
I see, so what is the substance in your post?
OP never stated who started OIT, that I did.
 
Likes: specul8

Similar History Discussions