I am very tired of arguing with people about Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Let’s learn about why it makes no sense slash is obviously false.
According to Wikipedia, the date of the so-called Aryan Invasion (movement of people from the Central Asian steppes into the Indian subcontinent) is around 1500 BCE.
No evidence (no advanced architecture, no science) exists in the region the Aryans allegedly originated to prove they actually originated there. This theory has no basis in fact and represents a concerted effort to shorten the historical record, presumably to cover up just how much decay has happened in such a short time.
Based on Aryan Invasion Theory, the magic aryans forgot to create much in their homeland but readily created civilisation in a foreign land whilst also violently oppressing the natives? If it sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is.
If the quackademics are to be believed, the aryans invading India brought horsecraft with them. However, the historical reconstructionists seem to have overlooked the fact that the Mahabharat war, took place in 3139 BCE and refers frequently to horse chariots. It is well-established that the Mahabharat occurred in the Indian subcontinent (in fact Bharat is a name for India). The Bhagavad Gita, a recounting of the war also demonstrates that the author(s) had an advanced understanding of religion and warcraft.
Clearly there’s a problem in there somewhere.
“Scholars” often cite the “proto-indo-european” language as a percursor to Sanskrit even though there is no evidence whatsoever of such a language existing. People also want to deny that Sanskrit is the oldest written language, but what evidence do they have of an older language existing? According to Google, the oldest written language is Sumerian and that dates back to 3000 BCE. Yet the Bhagavad Gita was written in Sanskrit and is about a war that took place 139 years before this. Moreover, Bhagavad Gita is one of the more recent Sanskritic texts. The evidence supporting aryan invasion seems to be growing weaker by the minute. It appears this PIE language has been pulled out of thin air to offer support for the AIT. Yet another case of the logical fallacy of begging the question.
It’s pretty clear that an advanced civilisation existed in India in the distant past. The Bhagavad Gita is dated at 3139 BCE and is considered a relatively recent text by the relevant authorities. Wikipedia asserts that Sanskrit is no more than 3500 years old, which would place its origin no earlier than 1500 BCE. Clearly Wikipedia is not too concerned with credibility.
This all just seems to be an attempt to support the hypothesis that civilisation is only about 5000 years old. This is a very strange idea, and certainly much evidence exists that can establish civilisation far before 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago is actually fairly recent. Below is a video from the History Channel. Around 19:00, the Aryan Invasion Theory is discussed.
“The AIT should have died too [in light of new evidence], but since it was taught as established fact for most of the 20th century, it dies hard”.
Not even the History Channel supports the AIT. Very curious how the same people dead set on historical revisionism also refuse to look at the evidence for AIT.
The Single Origin of Religion Hypothesis
Let’s say we wanted to determine what happened in the past but we also knew that the published historical record had an ideological bias. Where would we start? We can reasonably assume that civilisation and religion arose simultaneously if we accept that all systems of human governance are computationally equivalent to theocratic dictatorships and that civilisation is defined as the epoch where humans began to be subject to (theocratic) governance. We can also reasonably assume that there was only one original civilisation, so as to meet the Occam’s razor standard, and adapt the theory to accommodate new evidence.
We cannot exclusively cite genetic studies, because these only indicate the degree of overlap, not the origin of particular markers. Keeping that in mind, we can look at extant mappings of genetic migration on large scale studies, often called the “Out of Africa” theory.
Though ultimate origins are not relevant here, we can use science (proper science) to reach the answers people seek. We can also learn lessons from the idea of natural selection / evolution, a subject I have briefly discussed here.
Out of Arya Hypothesis
In this section, I will briefly explain my position and provide substantiating evidence.
We affirm that the Vedas were revealed to man by God in continental India and are the progenitors of all Indic religions. They were passed on by oral and eventually written tradition and are summarised today as 4 Vedas (Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Arthava Veda). We affirm that two main sources of knowledge transmission exist: revealed and recalled. Revealed knowledge is considered more authoritative than recalled knowledge, because the latter has more subjective bias. Since different humans recall things differently, debate is the means by which errors of interpretation are resolved. Throughout history, these teachings and associated holy books were propagated within and beyond the borders of India by various teachers. Most religions descend from these although some traditions may be able to be established to have arisen independently. I will explain and defend my position below.
Following the original revelation & propagation of Vedic teachings, various pundits started their own personality cults based on their interpretations of revealed or remembered texts. One such example is the cult of Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, an Indian king whose interpretation of scriptural tradition found an audience deep in the Asian continent.
There was also significant migration westward, which gave such cults as Zoroastrianism and the old Egyptian scroll religion.
Let’s have a look at the similarities between the Vedic religion and Egyptian scroll religions.
- Belief in reincarnation, vast teachings about the nature of death.
- Anthropomorphic Gods
- Scientific Social hierarchy
- Spiritual Practice
- Creation Myths
- Cosmic Order
- Temples / Pyramids
The physical proximity and similarity of architecture suggests a common origin. Since the Indian civilisation has been thoroughly established as the oldest, the only possible explanation is that there was an Indian influence upon the creation of the Egyptian scroll religion.
Understanding the link between the Zoroastrian cult and it’s Indic percursor is a bit more challenging because many Zoroastrians have been westernised, and reincarnation is considered “taboo” in Western society, probably because preaching reincarnation often resulted in the death penalty in the super terrific happy dark ages of Christian Europe. Moreover the fire ritual underpinning the Zoroastrian faith is very similar to the Vedic practice of Agni Hotra. Let’s have a look at the images below:
Perhaps the most compelling arguments about the common origin of these religions is that the main God of Zoroastrianism, “Ahura Mazda” is derived from the Sanskrit “Asura Meddha” and represents an “Asura” (compare with Devata) in the Vedic religion.
Although we can clearly identify some common themes, the languages spoken by each group are admittedly quite different. The difference in language can be understood by the fact that there was a mixing of cultures in that region. It is pretty clear that not all people came from India nor did they possess the same level of religious knowledge, so it stands to reason that Indian colonists in Egypt would have adapted their teachings (which, remember, were mostly oral and not necessarily readily accessible by people who did not speak their language) for the natives there. Thus the Egyptian script can be thought of as an amalgam of the existing oral (perhaps written) language the natives spoke elevated to include some aspects of the tradition the Indian colonists felt the natives would be able to propagate.
Sadly, the Egyptians were not able to keep a successful agriculture going in the region, which led to the desert selection process and drove a wedge between the genetics and outlooks of the people in the desert region and those in India (who continued a mainly agrarian lifestyle). This can be understood generally as a divergence between r and K selected populations. When unhindered, r-selected populations cause desertification (imagine rabbits breeding without a natural predator). K-selected populations strive for a balance with nature that will allow long-term survival.
Recent to Modern India
The effect of Entropy on religion is the same as everything else: it causes decay. However, through debate, great reformers like Adi Shankara and Swami Dayananda encouraged people to go back to the original source of their religious and cultural ideas (the Vedas) and so we can see that India, the original source of the eternal tradition, has also been the most successful at maintaining the original religion. This is especially impressive if we study the history of recent military conquest in India & constant anti-Indian propaganda in the mainstream media.
A Curious Case: Samurai of Japan
We may cite the case of the Samurai of Japan as a case where the Indic influence is not sufficient to conclude a common origin. Though we can see that Buddhism did indeed spread to Japan some 1500 years ago, we can point to numerous divergences between the Samurai and Indic traditions, which may suggest different origins. This is fertile ground for future study. We can seek to answer the question of whether the Samurai tradition originated from India or whether natives of the region developed it all on their own. Based on the scarcity of evidence and white noise of false narratives, it will take a special type of objective-minded scientist to examine all the evidence and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Much evidence suggests that African tribes had deeply entrenched religious practices. These also differ sufficiently much from the original Vedic religion that a separate origin is a reasonable assumption although the subject requires further investigation.
What About Europe?
Europe is a relatively young civilisation. Having been under the occupation of a censorious central government & Christian theocracy for as long as it has, it is difficult to trace specifics about the original religions practiced there. It is a subject of much debate and speculation in the modern day, and I encourage people to study the phenomenon within a broader global context so as to be able to realistically situate your views. In the grand scheme of things, Western civilisation is just not that old and so the information we can obtain from its tradition is highly limited and often, ideologically biased, apparently in favour of young earth creationism.
As I have disproven AIT and provided an alternative hypothesis, the only recourse a rival debater has (if indeed he has the stomach to undertake such a debate) is to proffer a different hypothesis that better explains the evidence. Good luck with that but I think you probably have better ways to spend your time.
Everyone wants to be special. But the only way to be special is to accept the truth and learn from the past. Even the greatest sages of all time had to perform acts in their present lives to be considered great, they never would have been noteworthy if all they did was leech off their ancestors’ accomplishments. Everyone wants to be of noble birth but natural theocracy exists regardless of one’s subjective opinion. The only choice that makes sense is to return to the original source of wisdom and to stop larping as aryans.