Re: The falsity of the Aryan Invasion Theory

On Jun 1, 7:16 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:25 am, Nirvanam <Viz.Sha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't want to continue a point by point debate over this, however
despite the colossal verbiage presented in those links, which seem to
be part of a slightly propagandistic website, I'll confine my
responses to brief remarks.
To reject the linguistic evidence for Indo-Europeans invading/
migrating to India, you have to reject linguistics as a whole. The
origin of Indo-European languages in India is improbable, and Indo-
European denoted a people as well as a language at one point.
Logically, Indo-Europeans must have introduced their language there.
This is hardly improbable since Indo-Europeans invaded India on
several occasions historically. Arya is cognate with Aryan, whatever
it might mean in Sanskrit. As we know, Old Persian and Sanskrit were
closely related languages. Arian in Iran is not derived from AIT, it
existed and exists completely independently of any references to
India. Aryan is an ancient name for the Iranian people and also
describes a district in Afghanistan. This is not derived from Indian
usage, but it is not unreasonable to think that the 2 usages are
related.

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article 'Arya'

In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is a national name,
i.e. the name of the ethnic group of (respectively) Indians and
Iranians themselves. More precisely, it is a self-referential
adjective that – from the point of view of the North-Indians and
Iranians themselves – effectively means "pertaining to ourselves." It
stands in relationship to the antonymic *anarya, which effectively
refers to "pertaining to the Other". From the external point of view –
i.e. of comparative philology – this most ancient usage of *arya
indicates "pertaining to speakers of North-Indian/Iranian language";
with the Vedic Sanskrit ā́rya- meaning "pertaining to speakers of
North-Indian language", and Iranian airya- (Old Persian ariya, Avestan
airiia) meaning "pertaining to speakers of Iranian language".

I know that wikipedia is not foolproof, but there you are.

And here from 'Iran':

The term Iran (ایران) in modern Persian derives from the Proto-Iranian
term Aryānā, first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition.[24]
Ariya- and Airiia- are also attested as an ethnic designator in
Achaemenid inscriptions.

So the Indians of quasi-mythic Indian history and Iranians both
identify as 'Aryan'...yet no correlation is allowed...

Eusebius,
"Logically, Indo-Europeans must have introduced their language there.
This is hardly improbable since Indo-Europeans invaded India on
several occasions historically."

My response: "must have"...how do you propose that it is logical to
assume so? Inductive logic? or deductive logic? If you do believe it
is logical, then please do justice to it and provide the premises as
well so it can be examined justly instead of me rubbishing it as
"illogical" .

"Indo-Europeans invaded India" - why are you using that term Indo-
European? Why can't you say Europeans invaded. And of course they
did...as per History the very first European invasion was by Alexander
in 327/6 BC. Or if there is any before that but after the so called
Aryan invasion then I am not aware of it. By calling Europeans as Indo-
Europeans what are you trying to infer? That these Europeans were
originally from India? If people come from one place X then enter
another place Y, then it is better to refer to them as Xs. For the
next generation if you call the now X people who have settled in Y as
X-Y, it makes sense.

"Arya is cognate with Aryan, whatever it might mean in Sanskrit"

My response - are you sure you want to be associated in any way,
shape, or form with such an argument? Would you be comfortable with
such an argument if you were given a second chance? I am not even
going further on this.

"To reject the linguistic evidence for Indo-Europeans invading/
migrating to India, you have to reject linguistics as a whole. The
origin of Indo-European languages in India is improbable, and Indo-
European denoted a people as well as a language at one point"

My response: I am not at all rejecting the language aspect for
disproving AIT...in fact I even posted the site where you will find a
much richer argument on the linguistics aspect. On what basis do you
claim that the origin of Indo-European languages in India is
improbable? Because you assume the language is Indo-European i.e. it
has some European connection. Well, aren't we actually debating that
itself in essence ...to first find evidence that Europeans invaded /
migrated (now you started using this) India??????? I even gave you an
example of how circular references (the god and bible thing) is a
logical fallacy. Yet you are using circular reference here.

The next point in your response is on Iran. I have already made it
very clear in simple legible words (at least I think so) that I am not
even discussing Iran here....only the AIT dealing with India.

Eusebius, I am mentioning this again, I find you to be inquisitive and
definitely someone who wants to "know" the truth. With utmost humility
I suggest you go through the evidence against the AIT which has
increased in the last 20 years or so...including NASA satellite
images, more than 2000 new sites uncovered around the now dry
Saraswati river. In fact the Indus civilization in many circles is no
longer referred so...it is either called Saraswati Civilization or the
Indus-Saraswati civilization. Other items include the discovery of
underwater cities near Gujarat coast...Dwaraka. Rig Veda is full of
references to Saraswati river, and according to scientific
calculations the Saraswati river dried up completely around 1900 BC
and the civilization actually left the banks of the Saraswati and
moved to the Ganges plains at least 500-1000 years before the
Saraswati fully dried up. Potteries and other such items excavated
that have been established as used by the Vedic people have been
carbon dated to even before 2500 BC. I mean the main reason (God
created the universe just 6000 years ago and Noah's flood happened in
2500 BC) that the European Indologists came up with the date for the
invasion to be around 1500-1200 BC should make us think twice before
accepting this theory. Oh and you don't even wanna know how they
denigrated the Vedas in their translation. For example, the
Indologists rewrote the "Ashwamedha yajna" (a sacrifice involving the
horse..the horse is not sacrificed) as an act of sexual intercourse
between the Brahmin's wife and the horse!!!!!!!!!!!

Please do not allow your next generation to be taught such blatant
lies. At young ages when they are taught such lies, it may influence
their character.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading