India: Ancient Superpower

I wouldn't count out the aryan invasion theory just yet. Unless there's a comprehensive review and translation of the book he used I remain skeptical.

Indeed if it is such a lie then why haven't the Indian ptb actually rewrote their history books?
Afterall this is a country that changes it's city names to be less 'english-sounding' (despite them being called that years prior) and is very nationalist.
That doesn't sound to me like one that would have the invasion theory left in unless it was so.
The Iranians (not a million miles away from India) are considered to be the descendants of the aryans (that's where we get the name Iran from).
The reason the Brits even managed to take over India was because you had too many greedy princes who wanted power and invited them in as allies.
Just like Hengest and Horsa did.
So while this whole bash the brit empire might seem and easy thing to do I think you'll find there's also some looking in the mirror at your own countrymen who sold India down the river a long time ago...

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Indian civilisation deserves its credit as being known amongst the most greatest civilisations of all time. Its contributions to the history of civilisation are so great, that it surprisingly that it does not get given more credit. There is a larger emphasis on Ancient Greece, or Ancient Egypt or Ancient Sumeria in world history. This is interesting, because Indian civilisation was larger than both Ancient Egypt and Sumeria put together and far more technologically and culturally advanced. And its philosophy far more developed and older than Ancient Greece There is even reason to believe that Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt and Ancient Sumeria may have huge influence from the Indians. The fact that India is ignored in world history is perhaps indicative of a eurocentric bias on history.

Unfortunately, there is much distortion of Indian history both by Marxist historians in India and by European scholars which denigrate its history and culture, suppress its achievements and shrink its history. Most notable of these distortions which will be looked at in this thread is

1) Aryan Invasion Theory
2) The dating of Buddha

I am creating this thread both to pay tribute to this great civilisation, which I have studied extensively for 10 years now. As well as to educate about its history which I promise is going to be controversial, outrageous, but definitely interesting.

Here is what you will learn in this thread

1) Asiatic origins of civilisation. Asia, in particular Indian civilisation was the dominant civilisation of the ancient world. It was the most culturally, technologically and scientifically advanced and its domination continued well into the 18th century before it came under colonial rule and was impoverished and its history systematically distorted. We will look at some of those deliberate distortions.

2) Indian civilisation colonised large parts of Europe with its Aryan-Vedic culture. This group is known as the Indo-European people. They share the same gods, myths, languages. Paganism is most likely of Indic-origin.

It is also likely that Indians seeded Egyptian civilisation, and if not seeded, definitely had a huge influence on it. It may have also had colonies in Sumeria and in South East Asia and possibly even in the Americas(the only indication of this is the apparance of a similar script on Easter Island as the Indus one)

The reason for this wide global footprint of the Indian civilisation was because it had achieved great success in seafaring and gained domination of the Indian ocean early in history. Its domination of the world was therefore equivalent of the British empire in the ancient world. However, there is no evidence that this was by conquest. It was most likely a cultural domination.

3) In terms of science, culture and technology India had reached modern-like levels of development in very ancient times. Much of philosophy, mathematics and science was developed in India. It had the words first proper urban civilisation, the first hospitals, the first universities, the first docks, the first underground sewage system, the first planned cities, the first philosophical traditions.

4) We will also look at the very controversial theory that Christianity is of Hindu-Buddhist origins and that Jesus may have travelled to India.

5) We will also look at how Indian civilisation has influenced the modern world and brought about the new-age movement. It looks like India is once again becoming a dominant force in shaping world civilisation.

This thread is a work in progress and I will add progressively to it. I do not want to rush it. So please bookmark it or subscribe to it or something.
I promise this will be a very informative thread.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

China was the dominant force in asia for the last five thousand years by MILES AND MILES AND MILES - absolute joke of a thread.

Part 2) Revising the Indian chronology and dating the Historical Buddha

In the previous post we looked at the deliberate distortions by colonialist scholars with the Aryan Invasion theory. Now we will look at what exactly the Aryan invasion theory chronology does to Indian history and how it contrasts with India’s own chronology and the dating of key personalities like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Chandragupta Mauraya.

The Aryan invasion chronology of Indian history as proposed by British colonialists:

Indus valley civilisation 3000BCE

Start of Vedic phase:

Aryans invaded India 1500BCE
Rig Veda complete by 1200BCE
Philosophical and second urban period of Indian history begins in 1000BCE. The appearance of various republics, city states

In the later Vedic Age, a number of small kingdoms or city states had covered the subcontinent, many mentioned during Vedic, early Buddhist and Jaina literature as far back as 1000 BCE. By 500 BCE, sixteen monarchies and 'republics' known as the Mahajanapadas — Kasi, Kosala, Anga, Magadha, Vajji (or Vriji), Malla, Chedi, Vatsa (or Vamsa), Kuru, Panchala, Machcha (or Matsya), Surasena, Assaka, Avanti, Gandhara, Kamboja — stretched across the Indo-Gangetic plains from modern-day Afghanistan to Bengal and Maharastra. This period was that of the second major urbanisation in India after the Indus Valley Civilization.
Many smaller clans mentioned within early literature seem to have been present across the rest of the subcontinent. Some of these kings were hereditary; other states elected their rulers. The educated speech at that time was Sanskrit, while the dialects of the general population of northern India are referred to as Prakrits. Many of the sixteen kingdoms had coalesced to four major ones by 500/400 BCE, by the time of Siddhartha Gautama. These four were Vatsa, Avanti, Kosala and Magadha

The Buddha's teachings and Jainism had doctrines inclined toward asceticism, and were preached in Prakrit, which helped them gain acceptance amongst the masses. They have profoundly influenced practices that Hinduism and Indian spiritual orders are associated with namely, vegetarianism, prohibition of animal slaughter and ahimsa (non-violence). While the geographic impact of Jainism was limited to India, Buddhist nuns and monks eventually spread the teachings of Buddha to Central Asia, East Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka and South East Asia.

The Invasion of Alexander(Greeks) and Persians of parts of India begins in 400BCE:

In 326 BCE, Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor and the Achaemenid Empire, reaching the north-west frontiers of the Indian subcontinent. There, he defeated King Puru in the Battle of the Hydaspes (near modern-day Jhelum, Pakistan) and conquered much of the Punjab.[29] Alexander's march East put him in confrontation with the Nanda Empire of Magadha and Gangaridai Empire of Bengal. His army, exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing larger Indian armies at the Ganges River, mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas) and refused to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer, Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return

The mighty Maurraya empire begins around 300BCE. This was an incredibly prosperous empire and united much of India under one banner. It was a heavily regulated empire and heavily commercial and technological.

The Maurya Empire (322–185 B.C), ruled by the Mauryan dynasty, was geographically extensive, powerful, and a political military empire in ancient India. The great Maurya empire was established by Chandragupta Maurya and this empire was flourished by Ashoka the Great. At its greatest extent, the Empire stretched to the north along the natural boundaries of the Himalayas, and to the east stretching into what is now Assam. To the west, it reached beyond modern Pakistan, annexing Balochistan and much of what is now Afghanistan, including the modern Herat and Kandahar provinces. The Empire was expanded into India's central and southern regions by the emperors Chandragupta and Bindusara, but it excluded a big portion of unexplored tribal and forested regions near Kalinga which was won by Ashoka the Great.

After the Maurayans follows the Gupta empire in 500AD. This is also known as the golden age of Indian civilisation, because massive developments were made in science, mathematics and political administration in this period.

Source


This is the standard history of India. Notice that the sheer-anchor used to define the beginning of Indian civilisation is the Aryan Invasion in 1500BCE. The period before that called the Indus valley/Harrapa is a mystery. We know they were both literate and numerate, but we have no literature at all from that period. Its as if all traces of them disappeared suddenly.

According to this model we are suppose to believe a polytheistic, pagan, racist, anti-urban, agrian, barbarian and tribal people that commit animal and even human sacrifice, that have bizarre traditions where women are made to copulate with horses all of a sudden become enlightened in a few centuries, democratic, sophisticated, urban, spiritual and monotheistic? How plausible does that sound?

It is not plausible at all and many critics have challenged Muller on his arbitrary dating of the Vedas. This method Muller used was as follows:

Way back in the 19th century, the renowned German scholar Max Muller dated the Vedas to circa 1200 BCE. This he did on a very ad-hoc basis. Having accepted that the Sutra literature could be as old as the sixth century BCE, he assigned a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding periods, namely those of the Araynakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, 600+200+200+200= 1200 BCE was his ready-made date for the Vedas

Muller was challenged by his contemporaries Goldstruck, and Whitney on the ad-hoc basis he arrived at the 1200BCE date. To which Muller responded:

I have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character of the dates, which I have ventured to assign to the first periods of Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates, and that the literary productions of each period which either still exist or which formerly existed could hardly be accounted for within shorter limits of time than those suggested.” But when even this explanation-cum-apology did not satisfy the scholars, Max Muller threw up his hands in sheer desperation. His confession, as follows, is worth noting (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979):
“If now we ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quite clear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua [sic]. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.”

source

If you are all bemused by this? Then, good, because I am just as bemused. If this is how the dating of the most important event in history of India was arrived at then it is quite simply a joke on history. The biggest joke is we let this joke get taught as real history.What would be the consequence if we found out this Aryan invasion never happened? The consequence would be to revise the sheet anchor to when the Aryan culture was present is in India which as Muller himself alluded in his confession “could be 3000BCE” This would mean that the mysterious Indus valley civilisation and Indo-Aryans are the same civilisation. In doing so we have to push back every single date of Indian history to thousands of years ago. Including the date of the Buddha.

The dating of the historical Buddha is the next biggest distortion by European scholars. We are told he was born in 500BCE and this date ironically is constantly being brought down by European scholars, now some given him a date of 400BCE . What I am now about to reveal is going to shock you, especially if you have been told Buddha lived in 500BCE(or around)


Now we will look at India’s own history as it has been recorded by the Indians. There is a myth that India did not record her own history because her people were passive, dreamy did not believe in time etc. This is very far from the truth, India did in fact record her history and in some cases using astronomical dating to exactly pinpoint the year, date and time when events happen. Her history is recorded in her most celebrated epics the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, as well as the “Puranas” which contain ancient India’s genealogies of dynasties that ruled India, stories of the most famous personalities in India and her myths. The details given are sometimes even more clear than the details given in the Jewish and Christian bible or the Islamic Hadiths. And yet colonial scholars deliberately disregarded her history. They claimed her history was “false”, “unreliable”, “mythological” whilst many of those who saying this were maintaining the world began in 4004BCE. Ironic? Definitely. And of course the irony is they DID appeal to her records in order to get all the information on the various dynasties(Mauraya, Nanda, Gupta etc). So it seems like Indian history is reliable when it suits their agenda and unreliable when it doesn’t.

Continued in next post.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Part 2) Revising Indian chronology and dating the historical Buddha Cont.

The Puranas on the whole were dismissed and denigrated as being completely fabricated and of being of very late origin after the common era. Why? The Puranas record Indian history continuously to 10,000 years ago. Not only that, but they record the age of the Earth as 4.32 billion years and the universe as trillions of years contrasting the 4004BCE date that many colonial scholars believed was the beginning of the world. There is no mention of any foreign home of the Aryans or any memory of an invasion. Indian history is completely indigenous according to Indian records. They give entire genealogies of kings going back to Manu the first king and codifier of society(Very similar to Moses in the Jewish tradition) The authors of the Vedas are not described as savages, but as wise sages that lived in prehistory.

This history is in fact not only recorded by Hindu history, but also Buddhist history and even the Greeks historian Meganathese records Indian history going back thousands of years ago to Krishna and beyond.

Just as the Western calendar begins with death of Christ. Indian history begins with the death of Krishna. As many are probably aware on ATS Indian history is divided into the cycles of ages or epochs. We are currently in the Kali Yuga which is dated precisely to 18 February 3102BCE at midnight according to the Julian calender.

Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE [1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that God Krishna died after being mortally wounded by an arrow.

source

Kali Yuga is considered a dark age by the Indians. It is the decline of Indian civilisation and interestingly we do find that the Indus valley does indeed start declining a millennia later from this date. According to the Indian history the biggest event that brought about widespread destruction in India was the Mahabharata war which took place during the times Krishna walked on this planet.

Krishna is not a mythological figure at all in Indian history. He is recorded in various histories in India, even in Buddhist histories who are highly critical of him, but nonetheless claim him to be real. This therefore means the Mahabharata is recorded real history and real events. Indeed the locations described in the Mahabharata are still known in India today. Krishna is the Christ of India. (It is really interesting how similar the word “Christ” is to “Krishna“)

Let us look at the timeline as Indian history records it:

Lord Rama, Ramayana 7600BCE(based on accurate astronomical dating of events described in the Ramayana, describing the astronomical configuration at the birth of Lord Rama. The same astronomical configuration does not repeat again for hundreds of thousands of years)

Lord Krishna, Mahabharata, 3198BCE to 3102BCE(based on traditional dating by Indian astronomers)

Birth of Lord Buddha, 1880BCE

Coronation of Chandragupt Mauraya, Mauraya/Nanda Empire 1530BCE

Chandragupta Gupta, Gupta empire 500BCE


The contrast between the Western/European chronology of Indian history and the chronology of Indian history is absolutely mindblowing. And the fact is Western scholars are aware of India’s records, but they ignore them and do not even mention that this contrast exist. According to the Indian records, the Indus civilisation in 3000BCE was the time of the Mahabharata. The later phase(known as the decline phase) was the times of the Buddha and Mauraya empire.

Why is there such a significant contrast between both of these records?

1) Western history assumes an Aryan invasion separating the Vedic period from the Indus valley period.


2) Western assumes that Chandragupt Mauraya and his son Asoka were contemporaries of Alexander the great. Using this they date the historical Buddha.


1) We have seen that there is no evidence of an Aryan invasion and the dubious credentials and methods of Max Muller who proposed it, who even admitted the Vedas could be as old as 3000BCE in frustration when he was challenged on his ad-hoc methods. This means the Vedic period could well be during the Indus valley period just as Indian records show. Actually Indian record do not know of any dichotomy called Vedic or pre-Vedic. The Vedic age is pre-Indus valley in Indian records The Harrapan is post Vedic.

2) Now I will look at the Alexander the great's so-called invasion of India. This is yet another distortion by colonial scholars. Alexander the great did not at all succeed in his invasion of India, he got nowhere near India and was repulsed by a minor king called Poros and ended up ceding his own territory to the king after the war.

Jawaharlal Nehru in his book Discovery of India says, " From a military point of view his invasion, was a minor affair. It was more of a raid across the border, and not a very successful raid at that." He met with such stout resistance from a border chieftain that the contemplated advance into the heart of India had to be reconsidered. If a small ruler on the frontier could fight thus, what of the larger and more powerful kingdom further south? Probably this was the main reason why his army refused to march further and insisted on returning."

According to Indian historian Dr. R. C. Majumdar, "The invasion of Alexander has been recorded in minute details by the greek historians who naturally felt elated at the progress of their hero over unknown lands and seas. From the Indian point of view, there was nothing to distinguish his raid in Indian history. It can hardly be called a great military success as the only military achievement to his credit were the conquest of petty tribes and States by installments. He never approached even within a measurable distance of what may be called the citadel of Indian military strength, and the exertions he had to make against Poros, the ruler of a small district between the Jhelum and the Chenab, do not certainly favor the hypothesis that he would have found it an easy task to subdue the mighty Nanda empire."
According to Paul Masson-Oursel and others, "The importance of this Indian campaign of Alexander has been exaggerated. It had no decisive influence on the destinies of India, for its results were short-lived.

H. G. Rawlinson, refers to the invasion, " had no immediate effect, and passed off like countless other invasions, leaving the country almost undisturbed."

Vincent A. Smith " India remained unchanged. She was never Hellenised. She continued to live her life of splendid isolation, and forgot the passing of the Macedonian storm. No Indian author, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, makes even the faintest illusion to Alexander or his deeds."

Source

All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander’s total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.

Alexander’s Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.

In other words Alexander did not at all succeed in his invasion of India, he was defeated and it is also recorded he was very badly injured and shortly died. No wonder his men refused to march any further. This Indian king “Porus” appears to be some minor king and yet he was able to defeat Alexander and cause his army to retreat in fear. It was such a minor battle, that Indians did not even record the battle.

Anyhow we can now see that Western history has introduced distortion after distortion on Indian’s history. Aryan invasion theory, so-called Alexander’s invasion of India and finally we will look at the dating of Buddha and Chandragupta Mauraya

Sir William Jones, the one who originally proposed that common origin of Indo-European people also proposed that Chandragupta Mauraya was the contemporary of Alexander the great. This is based on Greek records from the time which record that Sandrocottus (325 B.C.) was the emperor of India at the time.

Continued in next post.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Part 2) Revising Indian choronology and dating the Historical Buddha Cont.

The reasoning that was used to establish the identity of the Greek Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya by Jones:

Sir William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War according to Indian accounts because of his Christian faith which told him that Creation took place at 9-00 a. m, on 23rd October 4004 BC. He tried to search the Greek and Roman accounts. These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.


Jones picked up one of these three names, namely, Sandrokottas and found that it had a sort of phonetic similarity with the name Chandragupta of the Puranic accounts. According to the Greek accounts, Palibothra was the capital of Sandrokottas. Jones took Palibothra as a Greek pronunciation of Pataliputra, the Indian city and capital of Chandragupta. He, then, declared that Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts is Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranas. Jones died just a year after this declaration and possibly before his death, could not know that Puranas have another Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty.

William Jones did not know that there were 2(TWO) Chandraguptas in the Puranas separated by almost 1000 years. Chandragupta Mauraya and Chandragupta Gupta.

Although this later came into knowledge of European scholars it was completely ignored and it was considered proven that Sandrokottas was Chandragupta Mauraya. Even differing sources such as those by Chinese records which claim that Buddhism came to China before 1000BCE, are ignored in favour of records which show far later dates.

However, to complicate matters further the edicts of King Ashoka were found in places as far as Afghanistan and in India that mentioned the Greek kingdoms by name. Ashoka was the grandson of Chandragupt Mauraya. But Chandragupta Gupta also had a grandson called Asoka. Moreover the grandson of Chandragupta Mauraya created a huge Buddhist empire called Magadha even larger than Mauraya. Greek records say nothing about this empire.

I am going to now demonstrate to you that the Sandrokottas of the Greeks is not Chandragupta Maurya of the Mauraya empire, it is Chandragupta Gupta of the Gupta empire.

Indian historians have recorded two Chandraguptas, one of the Maurya dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta' s son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.

The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra(Mahabharata) war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.
To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.

Source

In addition Greek are completely silent on Buddhism. This was the most prevalent religion at the time of emperor Ashoka and he sent missionaries all over the world to spread it. Why are Greek records silent? The answer is very clear. Ashoka was well before the Greeks came in contact with India. The Greeks were in contact with the Gupta empire. Not the Mauarya/Nanda empire.

In other words all the above evidence shows the Indian records have been correct all along. Buddha did not live in 500BCE, he lived in 1800BCE. There was no Aryan invasion at all. The Aryans were in India all along for thousands upon thousands of years far into prehistory.

The following article makes for good further reading on this issue:
encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org...


Is there archaeological evidence to back this all up? Yes, there is actually a massive amount of archaeological evidence corroborating this and this evidence continues to build up with the excavations of the Indus valley.

Let us look at this evidence:

1. The Rig Veda describes the geography of India and rivers, one river known as the "Saraswati" is described as mighty and flowing, which we know categorically through satellite imagery to have dried up by 4000BCE.
In other words the Indo-Aryans were in India before 4000BCE

Sarasvati River
Main article: Sarasvati river
Many hymns in all ten Books of the Rig Veda (except the 4th) extol or mention a divine and very large river named the Sarasvati,[37] which flows mightily "from the mountains to the [Indian] Ocean”.[33][38][39] Talageri states that "the references to the Sarasvati far outnumber the references to the Indus" and "The Sarasvati is so important in the whole of the Rigveda that it is worshipped as one of the Three Great Goddesses".[40][41]
According to palaeoenvironmental scientists the desiccation of Sarasvati came about as a result of the diversion of at least two rivers that fed it, the Satluj and the Yamuna. "The chain of tectonic events … diverted the Satluj westward (into the Indus) and the Palaeo Yamuna eastward (into the Ganga) … This explains the ‘death’ of such a mighty river (the Sarasvati) … because its main feeders, the Satluj and Palaeo Yamuna were weaned away from it by the Indus and the Gangaa respectively”.[42][43] This ended at c 1750, but it started much earlier, perhaps with the upheavals and the large flood of 1900, or more probably 2100.[44][45] P H Francfort, utilizing images from the French satellite SPOT, finds[46] that the large river Sarasvati is pre-Harappan altogether and started drying up in the middle of the 4th millennium BC; during Harappan times only a complex irrigation-canal network was being used in the southern region of the Indus Valley. With this the date should be pushed back to c 3800 BC.
The Nadistuti hymn (RV 10.75) gives a list of names of rivers where Sarasvati is merely mentioned while Sindhu receives all the praise. This may well indicate that RV 10 could be dated to a period after the first drying up of Sarasvati when the river lost its preeminence.[33] It is agreed that the tenth Book of the Rig Veda is later than the others.[47]
The 414 archeological sites along the bed of Saraswati dwarf the number of sites so far recorded along the entire stretch of the Indus River, which number only about three dozen. About 80 percent of the sites are datable to the fourth or third millennium BCE, suggesting that the river was in its prime during this period.[48] If this date were used for the composition of the hymns about Sarasvati, then the Indo-Aryans would necessarily have been in India in the 4th millennium BC.

Source

Continued in next post.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Part 2) Revising Indian choronology and dating the Historical Buddha

2. Many of the features of Post-Vedic society are already present in the Indus valley. This includes the Aum symbol, the sacred Banyan tree, the Swastika, Yoga. The most notable of course is the Swastika which is an Indo-European symbol and here we can clearly see it is already a part of the Indus peoplel. In other words more proof Indo-Aryans are indigenous to India.

3. The Urban life, buildings, architecture, ritual structures of the Indus valley are identical with the Post-Vedic Indian society. Even the practice of producing marked with seals is present.

The characteristic features of the Harappan culture are urban life, large buildings, permanently erected fire altars and bricks. There is no word for brick in the Rig Veda and iswttakaa (brick) appears only in post-Rigvedic texts. (Kazanas 2000:13)[33] The Rigvedic altar is a shallow bed dug in the ground and covered with grass (e.g. RV 5.11.2, 7.43.2-3; Parpola 1988: 225). Fixed brick-altars are very common in post-Rigvedic texts.[52]

Source

Even the measurements of the brick are identical with the measurements prescribed in Post vedic texts.

4. The Indus valley are a seafaring people. The Vedic Aryans of the Rig Veda are also a seafaring people and make several references to ships, sea voyages, navigation and oceans. Post-Vedic texts like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas are full of references to deep sea voyages and even mention places around the world by name such as Java(Indonesia) China, Africa.

Let us look at some of those references:

All the universe rests within your nature, in the ocean,
in the heart, in all life. - Rig Veda IV. 58. 11
There are a number of terms in the Rig Veda that mean ocean or sea.

"Samudra" the main term in classical Sanskrit for the ocean, is very common in the Rig Veda and this meaning for it makes sense in all passages. The symbolism of ships is as pervasive in the Vedas as that of the sea, which it tends to reinforce. The saving action of Agni, the sacred fire, is frequently compared to a ship that carries us across the river or sea.

As a ship across the river (or sea), Agni takes us across to safety (I. 97.8). Vedic culture was a maritime culture, the Vedic people lived by the sea for some time before the hymns of the Rig Veda were composed.

The oldest evidence on record is supplied by the Rig Veda, which contains several references to sea voyages undertaken for commercial purposes. One passage (I. 25.7) represents Varuna having a full knowledge of the sea routes, and another (I. 56.2) speaks of merchants, under the influence of greed, going sending ships to foreign countries. A third passage (I. 56.2)mentions merchants whose field of activity known no bounds, w ho go everywhere in pursuit of gain, and frequent every part of the sea. The fourth passage (VII. 88.3 and 4) alludes to a voyage undertaken by Vasishtha and Varuna in a ship skillfully fitted out, and their "undulating happily in the prosperous swing." The fifth, which is the most interesting passage (I. 116. 3), mentions a naval expedition on which Tugra the Rishi king sent his son Bhujyu against some of his enemies in the distant islands; Bhujyu, however, is ship wrecked by a storm, with all his followers, on the ocean, "where there is no support, no rest for the foot or the hand," from which he is rescued by the twin brethren, the Asvins, in their hundred-oared galley. The Panis in the Vedas and later classical literature were the merchant class who were the pioneers and who dared to set their course from unknown lands and succeeded in throwing bridges between many and diverse nations.

Source


There is so much overwhelming evidence here that it should be not necessary for me to belabour this point any further.

Conclusion

I think I can draw this section to a conclusion now - with your permission of course. Both the historical evidence recorded in Indian records(Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas) and the astronomical evidence and the archaeological evidence all converge very clearly to form a consistent, comprehensive account of Indian history.

The Indus valley civilisation was Vedic through and through. In its mature phase 3000BCE the Mahabharata war took place. It was during this age that Krishna lived and he was a Christ like figure for the Indians, hence why they started their Calendar from this death. This was also the decline of Indian civilisation and the beginning of their dark ages, this decline lead to corruption in India and in 1800BCE Buddhism rose as a reaction to this corruption. In 1500BCE the Mauryan empire was able to unite India again under the new religion of Buddhism. This lasted very long and was then succeeded by many more kingdoms. After 500BCE the Gupta empire was established which was a shadow of the Mauraya empire. It was during this time India came in contact with Greeks and Alexander the great. However, Alexander the great was defeated and had to cede territory to the Gupta empire establishing the Indo-Greek kingdoms on the outskirts of India. This account irons out all the inconsistencies in the current Western account which has ridiculously shrank India’s history.

Now we have real positive proof that ancient India was an ancient superpower as far as 3000BCE. This explains its massive influence in the world. In 3000BCE India was the most advanced, developed and technological civilisation of the world. It dwarfed Sumeria and Egypt combined. It was heavily involved in commerce and deep sea voyages around the world. It established colonies all over the world and commanded legendary status in the world. In the next part we will look at these colonies - the most important of them the Egyptians! I know some people are waiting for that especially. This will be very interesting, I promise!

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

I am incredibly exhausted now. I had really underestimated how much time it would take to research, compile and write these posts! The last section took me several hours! I hope you found it interesting, actually I hope you read it . I have tried my best to provide as much evidence as I can and made a special effort to cross-reference my sources. I would rather let the evidence speak for itself than force it all on you. If you are not convinced after reading all the evidence. Then, hey, I tried my best.

I welcome all your criticsms. However, please make sure they are proper criticisms this time

In the next part we will look at what many people are waiting for: India may have seeded Egyptian civilisation.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Project2501

Hi Project2501,

I am assuming you are Muslim? I really have no intention to start a Hinduism/India vs Islam/Arabia contest. I definitely acknowledge the Muslims made significant progress in science and have no wish to denigrate them.

I was responding to Khan to show that the Muslims did acknowledge the sciences they learned from India. Majorion, who is from the Middle East, has himself acknowledged that the Arabs do inded acknowledge the Indians as being the source of their numbers. In fact Arabs were heavily influenced by Indian mathmatics, medicine and science. This is widely known and acknowledged by Islamic scholars themselves. I will show you:

Major British historian, Will Durant on Islam and Science:

The Arabic inheritance of science was overwhelmingly Greek, but Hindu influences ranked next. In 773, at al-Mansur’s behest, translations were made of the Siddhantas—Indian astronomical treatises dating as far back as 425 B.C.; these versions may have been the vehicle through which the “Arabic” numerals and the zero were brought from India into Islam.21 In 813 al-Khwarizmi used the Hindu numerals in his astronomical tables; about 814 he issued a treatise known in its Latin form as Algoritinide numero Indorum”al-Khwarizmi on the Numerals of the Indians”; in time algorithm or algorism came to mean any arithmetical system based on the decimal notation.

www.sullivan-county.com...

influences and translation movement
During this period, a number of Sanskrit and Middle Persian texts were first translated into Arabic. The most notable of the texts was Zij al-Sindhind,[26] based on the Surya Siddhanta and the works of Brahmagupta, and translated by Muhammad al-Fazari and Yaqūb ibn Tāriq in 777. Sources indicate that the text was translated after an Indian astronomer visited the court of Caliph Al-Mansur in 770. The most notable Middle Persian text translated was the Zij al-Shah, a collection of astronomical tables compiled in Sassanid Persia over two centuries.

Fragments of text during this period indicate that Arabs adopted the sine function (inherited from Indian trigonometry) instead of the chords of arc used in Hellenistic mathematics.[24] Another Indian influence was an approximate formula used for timekeeping by Muslim astronomers.[27]

In the early eleventh century, al-Biruni had met several Indian scholars who believed in a heliocentric system. In his Indica, he discusses the theories on the Earth's rotation supported by Brahmagupta and other Indian astronomers, while in his Canon Masudicus, al-Biruni writes that Aryabhata's followers assigned the first movement from east to west to the Earth and a second movement from west to east to the fixed stars. Al-Biruni also wrote that al-Sijzi also believed the Earth was moving and invented an astrolabe called the "Zuraqi" based on this idea:[42]

en.wikipedia.org...

Again the developments of Islamic scientists were considerable, but Islamic science was based on Greek, Persian and Hindu sciences. That is because the Arabs had no scientific tradition as a precursor. It was through translation of mostly Greek and Hindu texts that science took of in Islam. And yes they certainly made very novel contributions in the field.

"The word Hindu originated, not as the name of a religion, but as a geographical marker. Hindu derives from the Sanskrit word for river, sindhu, from which the Indus River received its name. Sometime in the first millennium B.C., the Persians, who were then South Asia’s closest neighbors, mispronounced sindhu, and designated the land around the Indus River as hindu. Over a thousand years later, in A.D. 712, the Muslims invaded the Indus Valley. To distinguish themselves, they called all non-Muslims hindus" Not even the name of Hindu was created by the "hindus" themselves.

Yes, this is true. The Hindus never called themselves Hindu. This was a foreign name for them. Indians have always called themselves Bharatiya and India was called Bharat. It is still officially known as Bharat today. In the past it was also known as Aryavarta.

Another interesting proverb here is that. "The genesis of Hinduism is nearly as elusive as its contemporary definition. Unlike Islam, which began with Muhammad, or Judaism, which began with Moses, Hinduism has no founder, nor any traditional time or place of origin; it emerges from the jungle as a continually evolving religious system."

This is only partly true. Hinduism traces its origins to the Vedic sages who in their states of meditation had received profound spiritual truths and then founded the Aryan religion. The Vedic sages were not one, but hundreds across different times. Hinduism therefore really has no personal origin, but rather an impersonal origin. It is a cosmological religion, hence why it has no single human founder. Although to a large extent Krishna is the human face of Hinduism, but even Krishna is considered one avatar of many.

Even the chakra system appears to be stolen by the hindus. Is it from the egyptian Hieroglyph of seven body parts in one via Osiris known as the "Eye of Horus"? in which you learn to operate all seven body parts through the pineal gland which is the throne of the mind? The pinecone of life? Or the "Lataif-e-sitta" the Islamic psychospiritual "organs" or, sometimes, faculties of sensory and suprasensory perception. Once again through the throne of the pineal.

This is very interesting indeed. Thanks for that. Yes, I strongly suspect the Egyptian religion and Hinduism are very closely related. The Chakra system is definitely very ancient. However, the earliest documentation of it is found in Hinduism in the Upanishads. However, most of the major discourses on Chakras with their respective names that we know today are from much later times in the Tantra traditions in the later middle ages.

And as far as Muslims being destructive. Prehaps you should look at how destructive the hindus are today & have been in the past via their caste system which is not a system of equality at all. "Caste-related violence in India" is absolutely horrifying

Well, there is no doubt about it. The Muslims were very brutal and killed millions of Hindus in cold-blood, destroyed temples, universities, places of learning. The Hindus do not have any history like this, it is relatively peaceful. The caste system oppression does not at all compare to the brutality of the Muslims. The caste system is indeed a lesser saliant feature of Hinduism, but its "evilness" is very exaggerated. It was no more oppressive than other early social systems in ancient socieites. There is even evidence to show that there was a fair bit of social mobility in the caste system and it was not entirely birth based. To better understand the caste system you need to understand it in terms of the socio-historical context.

I would advise you not to point fingers, because then I will have to point fingers at Islam and its history of genocide and conversion by the sword and that would make for a very hostile and uncomfortable discussion.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

I also believe that India was one of the first, great civilizations on earth, but I still don't believe there was an Aryan invasion. After reading the Rig Vedas, it seemed the author was referring to sky gods.

Shri Indra was the favourite national god of the Vedic Indians, with about 250 hymns dedicated to him in the Rigveda, more than those devoted to any other god and almost one fourth of the total number of hymns of the Rigveda.

Shri Indra is the god of thunder, being similar in many ways to the Teutonic Thor (Old Norse Þorr; Old English Þunor; German Donner), or Greek Zeus/Roman Jupiter. Like Thor, he is described in the Rigveda as red- or tawny-beared (RV 10.23,4), though the extant sculpture and carvings seem to invariably show him as beardless. His characteristic weapon is the cudgel vajra ('thunder-bolt'), just as Thor's is the famous hammer Mjöllnir. Shri Indra is the pre-eminent drinker of the divine soma (the madhu or 'mead' of the gods), the imbibing of which exhilerates him and aids him in his heroic actions.

The Indians referred to themselves as 'Aryan' or noble ones. I've also read that the Iranians referred to themselves as 'Arian' also. One who is noble or of higher spirituality.

I truly have my doubts about the Aryan invasion and wish I had more time to study the Rig Veda. I don't think any foreign power could crack a mountain into, unless they had supersonic weapons. I think there is evidence of green glass. One author even claimed the RigVeda is a code for Orion. Who knows. Was there a war from Orion, lol?

They certainly loved their Soma. I have read that Soma was originally a plant that could produce visions or experiences, but the knowledge of which plant has been lost.

Never the less, I would much rather have two or three sources of information rather than settling for one author's opinions.

China was the dominant force in asia for the last five thousand years by MILES AND MILES AND MILES - absolute joke of a thread.

Can you explain then why it was dominated by Buddhism?

Hu Shih, (1891-1962), Chinese philosopher in Republican China. He was ambassador to the U.S. (1938-42) and chancellor of Peking University (1946-48). He said:

"India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."

Do you know that Sholin boxing was introduced to China by India, by an Indian monk called Bodhidharma?

The famous Shao-lin style of boxing is also attributed to Indian influence. Bodhidharma, (8th century AD) who believed in a sound mind in a sound body, taught the monks in the Shao-lin temple this style of boxing for self-defense for rejuvenating the body after exacting meditation and mental concentration.

Chuan Fa, the Buddhist martial arts, preserved many Ksatreya techniques in their original forms. The monks to practiced Chuan Fa were often the sole preservers of the Ksatreya art of Avasavidya, called in Chinese Huo Ming or Hua Fa.

Jawaharlal Nehru has commented:

"Sanskrit scholarship must have been fairly widespread in China. It is interesting to find that some Chinese scholars tried to introduce Sanskrit phonetics into the Chinese language. A well-known example of this is that of the monk Shon Wen, who lived at the time of the Tang dynasty. He tried to develop an alphabetical system along these lines in Chinese."

It is strongly suspected the word "China" is actually of Sanskrit origin:

Both Sir L. Wooley and British historian Arnold Toynbee speak of an earlier ready-made culture coming to China. They were right. That was the Vedic Hindu culture from India with its Sanskrit language and sacred scripts. The contemporary astronomical expertise of the Chinese, as evidenced by their records of eclipses; the philosophy of the Chinese their statecraft, all point to a Vedic origin. That is why from the earliest times we find Chinese travelers visiting India very often to renew their educational and spiritual links.

See more here: www.hinduwisdom.info...

As I said to Project, lets not turn this into a contest of who is the best civilisation. That's rather childish. I am using this thread not to show Indian superiority over everybody else, but to show how powerful this civilisation was in ancient times and the extent of its influence. India was an ancient superpower. I am more than convinced.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Anamnesis
reply to post by infinite

 

There's an article in this months Archeology Today magazine which claims that modern humans may have arrived in India much earlier than previously thought, as early as 74,000 years ago. They are finding stone tools and evidence of cattle herding underneath the Toba ash layer. That eruption occured about 74,000 yrs ago.

Toba - Wiki

Just goes to show that we have much to discover about the ancients.

One of the things I find fascinating about Inida is the Hindu religion, there seems to be no seperation between what we call Science and Religion. In other words Science and religion to the Hindus (my estimation... please forgive if it is not accurate) is the same thing. There is evidence that the ancient Indian's knew of the expanding Universe and Sub-Atomic particles as well.

All very cool and interesting stuff... India is one of my favorite topics and Indian food is one of my favorites as well... lol....

I study both science and religion together, because they each tell their particular side of the diamond. Science attempts to explain what we are observing, and religion attempts to explain how it came to be and why it's all here in the first place. Both are completely valid and complimentary activities of the mind/heart, and anyone who doesn't see that is really missing so much in life...IMHO

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

China was the dominant force in asia for the last five thousand years by MILES AND MILES AND MILES - absolute joke of a thread.

Can you explain then why it was dominated by Buddhism?

Hu Shih, (1891-1962), Chinese philosopher in Republican China. He was ambassador to the U.S. (1938-42) and chancellor of Peking University (1946-48). He said:

"India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."

Do you know that Sholin boxing was introduced to China by India, by an Indian monk called Bodhidharma?

The famous Shao-lin style of boxing is also attributed to Indian influence. Bodhidharma, (8th century AD) who believed in a sound mind in a sound body, taught the monks in the Shao-lin temple this style of boxing for self-defense for rejuvenating the body after exacting meditation and mental concentration.

Chuan Fa, the Buddhist martial arts, preserved many Ksatreya techniques in their original forms. The monks to practiced Chuan Fa were often the sole preservers of the Ksatreya art of Avasavidya, called in Chinese Huo Ming or Hua Fa.

Jawaharlal Nehru has commented:

"Sanskrit scholarship must have been fairly widespread in China. It is interesting to find that some Chinese scholars tried to introduce Sanskrit phonetics into the Chinese language. A well-known example of this is that of the monk Shon Wen, who lived at the time of the Tang dynasty. He tried to develop an alphabetical system along these lines in Chinese."

It is strongly suspected the word "China" is actually of Sanskrit origin:

Both Sir L. Wooley and British historian Arnold Toynbee speak of an earlier ready-made culture coming to China. They were right. That was the Vedic Hindu culture from India with its Sanskrit language and sacred scripts. The contemporary astronomical expertise of the Chinese, as evidenced by their records of eclipses; the philosophy of the Chinese their statecraft, all point to a Vedic origin. That is why from the earliest times we find Chinese travelers visiting India very often to renew their educational and spiritual links.

See more here: www.hinduwisdom.info...

As I said to Project, lets not turn this into a contest of who is the best civilisation. That's rather childish. I am using this thread not to show Indian superiority over everybody else, but to show how powerful this civilisation was in ancient times and the extent of its influence. India was an ancient superpower. I am more than convinced.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

What - are you even serious ?

I'm glad that you have taken a myopic view of history to fulfil your narcissistic views on India - that's great - but the reality stands as absolute historical fact.

China is not Buddhist by the way - it is made up of almost 100 hundred different religions, nationalities and languages, it is a disparate combination of Tao, Confusionism, Shinto (from Japan), Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and many,many more.

Further to relate the possibility that a monk may, or may NOT have introduced Shaolin Boxing (very, very dubious) as a statement to somehow substantiate the historical fact of Chinas undisputed historical dominance of the entire region for well over 8000 years is just utterly laughable.

It is admirable that you have an interest in India, and there are perhaps civilisations in Indian which do not get their just deserves. However to dismiss the origins of civilisation - which are MESOPOTAMIA and EUPHRATES which are in the middle east and have NOTHING to do with Ancient Greece or India only emphasises your total lack of knowledge of world history - you are being myopic and attempting to re-write world history due to parochial personal inclinations - that much is abundantly obvious.


Further the empires of the Ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Egyptian also have verified, absolute contributions to modern civilisation which far, far, far outweigh ANY contribution attributable to India.

Seriously - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Finally if you are talking about civilisations which pre-dates India the the Australian Aboriginals were in a well formed society, with almost every conceivable contribution made by India - WELL AND TRULY established 50,000 yes FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE INDIA !!!

One more time - Australian Aboriginal civilisation is between 60-90,000 years old. The oldest on earth by millenia - at LEAST 50,000 years older than India.

End of Argument.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Here is something just to whet the appetite on the civilisation of India, and its achivements in various areas.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will mention a few notables ones from ancient India, which are impressive because of how advanced they are for their timeframe. Although bear in mind, the dates for many these inventions/discoveries etc rely on the sheer anchor of dating of Buddha, which I will later bring into question.

Corrosion-resistant iron: The first corrosion-resistant iron was used to erect the Iron pillar of Delhi, which has withstood corrosion for over 1,600 years.[29]

Crucible steel: Perhaps as early as 300 BCE—although certainly by 200 CE—high quality steel was being produced in southern India also by what Europeans would later call the crucible technique.[33] In this system, high-purity wrought iron, charcoal, and glass were mixed in a crucible and heated until the iron melted and absorbed the carbon.[33] The first crucible steel was the wootz steel that originated in India before the beginning of the common era.[34] Archaeological evidence suggests that this manufacturing process was already in existence in South India well before the Christian era.[35][36]

Dentistry, dental drill, and dental surgery: The Indus Valley Civilization has yielded evidence of dentistry being practiced as far back as 7000 BCE.[37] This earliest form of dentistry involved curing tooth related disorders with bow drills operated, perhaps, by skilled bead craftsmen.[38] The reconstruction of this ancient form of dentistry showed that the methods used were reliable and effective.[39]

Dock (maritime): The world's first dock at Lothal (2400 BCE) was located away from the main current to avoid deposition of silt.[57] Modern oceanographers have observed that the Harappans must have possessed great knowledge relating to tides in order to build such a dock on the ever-shifting course of the Sabarmati, as well as exemplary hydrography and maritime engineering.[57] This was the earliest known dock found in the world, equipped to berth and service ships.[57]

Hospital: Brahmanic hospitals were established in what is now Sri Lanka as early as 431 BCE.[64] The Indian emperor Ashoka (ruled from 273 BCE to 232 BCE) himself established a chain of hospitals throughout the Mauryan empire (322–185 BCE) by 230 BCE.[64] One of the edicts of Ashoka (272—231 BCE) reads: "Everywhere King Piyadasi (Asoka) erected two kinds of hospitals, hospitals for people and hospitals for animals. Where there were no healing herbs for people and animals, he ordered that they be bought and planted."[65]

Oven: The earliest ovens were excavated at Balakot, a site of the Indus Valley Civilization. The ovens date back to the civilization's mature phase (c. 2500-1900 BCE).[60]

Plastic surgery: Plastic surgery was being carried out in India by 2000 BCE.[99] The system of punishment by deforming a miscreant's body may have led to an increase in demand for this practice.[99] The surgeon Sushruta contributed mainly to the field of Plastic and Cataract surgery.[100] The medical works of both Sushruta and Charak were translated into Arabic language during the Abbasid Caliphate (750 CE).[101] These translated Arabic works made their way into Europe via intermidiateries.[101] In Italy the Branca family of Sicily and Gaspare Tagliacozzi of Bologna became familiar with the techniques of Sushruta.[101]

Private bathroom and Toilet: By 2800 BCE, private bathrooms, located on the ground floor, were found in nearly all the houses of the Indus Valley Civilization.[107] The pottery pipes in walls allowed drainage of water and there was, in some case, provision of a crib for sitting.[107] The Indus Valley Civilization had some of the most advanced private lavatories in the world.[107] "Western-style" toilets were made from bricks using toilet seats made of wood on top.[107] The waste was then transmitted to drainage systems.[107]

Sewage collection and disposal systems: Large-scale sanitary sewer systems were in place in the Indus Valley by 2700 BCE.[107] The drains were 7–10 feet wide and 2 feet (0.61 m) below ground level.[107] The sewage was then led into cesspools, built at the intersection of two drains, which had stairs leading to them for periodic cleaning.[107] Plumbing using earthenware plumbing pipes with broad flanges for easy joining with asphalt to stop leaks was in place by 2700 BCE.[107]

Binary numbers: The modern system of binary numerals appears in the works of German polymath Gottfried Leibnitz during the 17th century. However, the first description of binary numbers is found in the chandaḥ-śāstra treatise of the Indian mathematician Pingala.[165][166]
Binomial coefficients: The Indian mathematician Pingala, by 300 BCE, had also managed to work with Binomial coefficients.[167][168]

Fibonacci numbers: In mathematics, the Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers named after Leonardo of Pisa, known as Fibonacci.[189] Fibonacci's 1202 book Liber Abaci introduced the sequence to Western European mathematics, although the sequence had been previously described in Indian mathematics.[189] The so-called Fibonacci numbers were also known to the Indian mathematician Pingala by 300 BCE.[168]

Pythagorean theorem, statement of: Baudhayana (c. 8th century BCE) composed the Baudhayana Sulba Sutra, the best-known Sulba Sutra, which contains examples of simple Pythagorean triples, such as: (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (8,15,17), (7,24,25), and (12,35,37)[201] as well as a statement of the Pythagorean theorem for the sides of a square: "The rope which is stretched across the diagonal of a square produces an area double the size of the original square."[201]

Atomism: The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to India in the 6th century BCE.[228][229] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs).[230][231] The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systematized his views.

Formal language and formal grammar: The 4th century BCE Indian scholar Pāṇini is regarded as the forerunner to these modern linguistic fields.[240]

I think we can get a fairly good idea by looking at the above just how incredible the contributions by Indian civilisation is to civilisation. It is surprising, however, how this is not acknowledged in world history. The most interesting fact is how advanced the Indian civilisation is in 3000BCE. It easily outdoes the Sumerians and Egyptians by miles!

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Further China has an established recorded - that's right recorded - not just anecdotal, speculative archaeological hypothetical inferences - from 3000 BC - thats right a recorded history of their CIVILISATION. Yet you are attempting to undermine this archaeological hypothetical INFERENCES - how incredibly ridiculous.
Further it is an established FACT where the vast majority of metallurgical revolutions came from - NOT INDIA - and these are without DOUBT the phases which influenced modern humanity the most.

Again - you make these visceral, allusive references such as a piece of rope establishing Pythagorean theorems - Pythagoras wasn't writing abstract hypothetical - he established entire branches of mathematics which still hold true today - explored in the most detailed, complete and scientific manner including the exact circumference of the earth.

Again - anything you have pointed out comes from periods ranging in the 500 bc range - they are flimsy at the very, very best compared to an established civilisation with a continuous recorded history (the Greeks and Chinese).

Sorry but you may have researched INdia - but you know NOTHING of any where else -

Let me repeat this for you - Australian Aboriginals have a proven historical civilisation between 50 and 90- thousand years ........that makes India look like it is yet to evolve from the primordial soup in comparison.

cheers.

What - are you even serious ?

Yes, I am definitely serious. I am not doing this for kicks you know

I'm glad that you have taken a myopic view of history to fulfil your narcissistic views on India - that's great - but the reality stands as absolute historical fact.

I only go where the evidence takes me. If the evidence took me to China as the ancient superpower, then I would go China. I suggest you read all the evidence I have provided in this thread so far because it all supports the thesis of this thread:

China is not Buddhist by the way - it is made up of almost 100 hundred different religions, nationalities and languages, it is a disparate combination of Tao, Confusionism, Shinto (from Japan), Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and many,many more.

I am not talking of China today, which officially is an atheist country today. I am talking of China in ancient times which was indeed dominated by Buddhism and Buddhism became the shaper of Chinese society.
I am not going to debate this point with you, because it so widely known and visible that Buddhism dominated China. It would be like debating the "sky is blue" with you.

It is admirable that you have an interest in India, and there are perhaps civilisations in Indian which do not get their just deserves. However to dismiss the origins of civilisation - which are MESOPOTAMIA and EUPHRATES which are in the middle east and have NOTHING to do with Ancient Greece or India only emphasises your total lack of knowledge of world history - you are being myopic and attempting to re-write world history due to parochial personal inclinations - that much is abundantly obvious.

Mesopotamia is not the origins of civilisation. I know this for a fact. The Indus valley civilisation was the largest and most advanced civilisation of the ancient world. How can you deny that? It had planned cities, indoor plumbing, underground sewage system, almost every home had a private bathroom and toilet, a drinking well, a courtyard. It was even more advanced than cities in 18-19th century. Mesopotamia was highly primitive in comparison.

It is evident the Indus society is highly sophisticated, urban, artisan and even republican. And now I have shown that it is post-vedic and it was duing the period when Indias greatest empire arose and scientic and philosophical traditions emerged - it is more than evident it was vastly superior to Mesopotamia. I have even reason to believe the Indians had colonies in ancient Sumer. I want to look at this in my next series of postings.

Further the empires of the Ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Egyptian also have verified, absolute contributions to modern civilisation which far, far, far outweigh ANY contribution attributable to India.

The evidence shows otherwise.

Finally if you are talking about civilisations which pre-dates India the the Australian Aboriginals were in a well formed society, with almost every conceivable contribution made by India - WELL AND TRULY established 50,000 yes FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE INDIA !!!

That is not true. The Australian Aboriginals were a primitive and tribal culture and lived in the forest. I still love them though.

End of Argument.

Proof by assertion is a fallacy. Next time be prepared to back up your claims.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by audas


It is ironic how you call the list of Indian achivements as speculative and hypothetical, and have not actually given Chinese achivement in the same timeframe that can rival them.

They are not hypothetical, they actually exist and are widely acknowledged.

Pythagorean theorem, statement of: Baudhayana (c. 8th century BCE) composed the Baudhayana Sulba Sutra, the best-known Sulba Sutra, which contains examples of simple Pythagorean triples, such as: (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (8,15,17), (7,24,25), and (12,35,37)[201] as well as a statement of the Pythagorean theorem for the sides of a square: "The rope which is stretched across the diagonal of a square produces an area double the size of the original square."[201]

This is a description of Pythagorean theorem. Are you willfuly being blind?

Further it is an established FACT where the vast majority of metallurgical revolutions came from - NOT INDIA - and these are without DOUBT the phases which influenced modern humanity the most.

No, actually they did. Indian metallugy was the most advanced of ancient times. They were mining all kinds of metals from their ores on a semi-industrial scale and exporting them to the world.

Evidence of the earliest production of high carbon steel in the Indian Subcontinent was found in Samanalawewa area in Sri Lanka.[24] Wootz steel was produced in India by about 300 BC.[25] Along with their original methods of forging steel, the Chinese had also adopted the production methods of creating Wootz steel, an idea imported from India to China by the 5th century AD.[26] This early steel-making method in Sri Lanka employed the unique use of a wind furnace, blown by the monsoon winds and produced almost pure steel.[27] Also known as Damascus steel, wootz is famous for its durability and ability to hold an edge.

They were producing very high quality steel, in fact their version of steel is still considered the highest quality in the world.

Other metals that require advanced techological process like zinc were also being produced in India before the common era:

Zinc mines at Zawar, near Udaipur in India, have been active since the Mauryan period in the late 1st millennium BC. The smelting of metallic zinc here however appears to have begun around the 12th century AD.[53][54] One estimate is that this location produced an estimated million tonnes of metallic zinc and zinc oxide from the 12th to 16th centuries.[13] Another estimate gives a total production of 60,000 tons of metallic zinc over this period.[53] The Rasaratna Samuccaya, written in approximately the 14th century AD, mentions two types of zinc-containing ores; one used for metal extraction and another used for medicinal purposes.[54]

Zinc was distinctly recognized as a metal under the designation of Fasada in the medical Lexicon ascribed to the Hindu king Madanapala and written about the year 1374.[55] Smelting and extraction of impure zinc by reducing calamine with wool and other organic substances was accomplished in the 13th century in India.[4][56] The Chinese did not learn of the technique until the 17th century.[56

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't understand your insecurity in acknowleding to the Indians what rightfuly was discovered by them?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Indigo_Child, I haven't read all of your thread yet, but I can definitely see that you've gone to a great deal of research. You could probably write a book! Thanks for the information.

OOooOOooOOooOOooh!
Lots and lots of 'off topic post' editing going on here...makes me wonder what I missed...
I'm actually a rather large fan of Indian culture and have read some of the great Indian epics, as well as spent a good deal of time studying various versions of Hinduism.
If you are a believer that stories like the Ramayana and Mahabharata are indeed based on some kind of fact (or truth, depending on how you look at it), which, is truly romantic in my opinion, then yes, India was a world power of almost unparalleled force.
Dasaratha, Rama's father, ruled his kingdom for 60,000 years and Rama ruled for 10,000 years.
Ravana, the demon king (and a character very close to my own heart) was about a million years old when Rama finally defeated him.
Looking even further back you have the Asuras, who are referred to 'the dark, olden gods' who pre-date Shiva, Indra and the rest of that pantheon.
I have a copy of the translated Vaminka Shastra and it does indeed describe, in great detail, the tools, techniques, types and applications of many different styles of flying machines that, supposedly, are many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years old.
To believe that the current human civilization is the pinnacle of what has been accomplished is extremely egocentric and some people fail to understand that humans, in our current level of evolution, have been around a lot longer than orthodox academia has led us to believe. So, yes, it is entirely possible for ancient India to have been highly advanced, much like so many of the other civilizations, both legendary and otherwise, that have come and gone during this planet's time in the universe. Remember, no matter how advanced a culture is, or how many wonderous things they've built, time erases all traces eventually.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Gotta edit this post because I was thinking of something else...and here I was thinking I was so smart.
Shame on me.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Matthew Dark]

The history of the world is the recorded memory of the experience, around the world, of Homo sapiens. Ancient human history[1] begins with the invention, independently at several sites on Earth, of writing, which created the infrastructure for lasting, accurately transmitted memories and thus for the diffusion and growth of knowledge.[2][3] Nevertheless, an appreciation of the roots of civilization requires at least cursory consideration to humanity's prehistory. Human history is marked both by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps—paradigm shifts, revolutions—that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. One such epoch was the advent of the Agricultural Revolution.[4][5] Between 8,500 and 7,000 BCE, in the Fertile Crescent (a region in the Near East, incorporating the Levant and Mesopotamia), humans began the systematic husbandry of plants and animals — agriculture.[6] It spread to neighboring regions, and also developed independently elsewhere, until most Homo sapiens lived sedentary lives as farmers in permanent settlements[7] centered about life-sustaining bodies of water. These communities coalesced over time into increasingly larger units, in parallel with the evolution of ever more efficient means of transport. The relative security and increased productivity provided by farming allowed these communities to expand. Surplus food made possible an increasing division of labor, the rise of a leisured upper class, and the development of cities and thus of civilization. The growing complexity of human societies necessitated systems of accounting; and from this evolved, beginning in the Bronze Age, writing.[8] The independent invention of writing at several sites on Earth allows a number of regions to claim to be cradles of civilization. Civilizations developed perforce on the banks of rivers. By 3,000 BCE they had arisen in the Middle East's Mesopotamia (the "land between the Rivers" Euphrates and Tigris),[9] on the banks of Egypt's River Nile,[10][11][12] in India's Indus River valley,[13][14][15] and along the great rivers of China. The history of the Old World is commonly divided into Antiquity (in the ancient Near East,[16][17][18] the Mediterranean basin of classical antiquity, ancient China,[19] and ancient India, up to about the 6th century); the Middle Ages,[20][21] from the 6th through the 15th centuries; the Early Modern period,[22] including the European Renaissance, from the 16th century to about 1750; and the Modern period, from the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, beginning about 1750, to the present.

en.wikipedia.org...