Re: Indo-European Studies
Virendra Verma (verma@awecim.enet.dec.com)
18 JUL 95 15:03:57
I think we are going tangential on our discussion. Here is some of the
clarifications.
In article <3ueeegINN49g@hpsdlmc1.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes...
>First, what are the indian values which were unknown to the indian people?
Indian values as referred to in the Vedas. Some of the examples of
these values are: the original idea of the caste system (varnashram)
for a healthy social structure, emphasis on karma (work) as opposed
to fatalism, auterity, spiritual development, education, belief
in analyical thinking/science as opposed to mysticism, etc. Budha tried
to reform it, but, it was probably too late. The decline of these
values are the reasons for a divided and waek society.
>If indian people were ignorant of these values, does that imply that either
>the people, or the values, weren't really indian?
Nope. Over a period of time, the value system got degenerated to a level
where it became obsolete and weak. It's like if people in the
west give up research or the use of the technology, the technology will
be lost over a period of time and some of the memories of the
past will be remembered as mystic phenomenon.
> Each succesive wave of
>conquerors has brought a new set of values with themAs the newcomers
>assimilate, their values assimilate as well. Some of them take, others do
>not. Determining which are *really* indian seems like a difficult task.
Broadly speaking, there are two value systems in the world - eastern
and the western. These values can clearly be identified. For example,
division of the society based on profession is the idea of the Vedas
which was developed for the maintenance of a vibrant society in
which an aspirant could progress spiritually. This division was not
based on birth or race but on a sound principle which required one
to explore one's own nature of being. People are different by nature.
They like to do different things. No one is inferior to another
because every one depends directly/indirectly on the profession
of another. The idea of varnashram was formalized so that the system
could function for a longer period of time. Because people forgot
the original idea of varnashram, this social system started decaying.
Another Indian/Vedic idea of karma teaches one that nothing can
be accomplished without work.
>Second, what do you mean with the last statement quoted above, about the
>brahmins collaborating(?) with the arabs?
Brahmins invited Arabs to encourage invasion of India because they
were fearful of the Arabs; for example, they did not know how to
fool these people with false propaganda.
Brahmins are considered to be the reason for 800 years of foreign
rule over India. My theory is that due to lack of Vedic knowledge
and fear of losing power, the Brahmins brought the varnashram to
a birth-based caste system. When they achieved the highest status,
they got fearful of people who were coming from outside for various
reasons.
>The indus valley cultures appear to have been mere
>colonial appendages of mesopotamia, more like a combination trading post
>and off-shore manufacturing site than a true civilization. They had a very
>limited area of influence, confined to the indus valley, and wouldn't be
>expected to put up much of a fight.
Purely a wishful thinking.
>
>The ganges valley is the prize of india. That was the land which attracted
>the cattle-herding aryans. I'm not sure about kashmir; was there a vedic
>presence in kashmir?
Ganges is mentioned only once in the Vedas. Ganges cannot be an
attraction for anything during the Vedic period.
Saraswati has been mentioned about 50 times in the Vedas. Saraswati
valley includes modern Kashmir, part of Pakistan, Rajastan and Gujrat.
>
>It is also interesting to note that india south of the ganges valley
>remained a stone-age backwater for 1500 years after the arrival of the
>aryans. It wasn't until the arrival of the buddhist missionaries of ashoka
>around 200 bc that southern india emerged from the paleolithic, and only
>with the arrival of *roman* trading posts around 50 ad that the wealth of
>the southern coastal kingdoms was established.
Same story as propagated by historians in early 20th century. This
myth served well a socio-political motives of the colonial powers
in the Indian sub-continent. It has no scientific basis.
regards,
-- Virendra Verma
|