• Aryan Refugee Theory (Part I)

    From abu@21:1/5 to abu on Mon Jun 24 23:33:08 2019
    On Friday, November 11, 2005 at 3:28:11 PM UTC+6, abu wrote:
    Aryan Refugee Theory (Part I)

    ["We are all children of Adam, and Adam was made of dust. Best among us
    are those who are best in warding off evil."]

    I am posting Aryan Refugee Theory in four parts.

    Each religious revolution in "Aryan" West Asia sent a group of Aryan
    refugees to India.

    The Zoroastrian Revolution in Iran sent the defeated party to India.
    Failure of the counter-revolution of Gaumata to reintroduce the pre-Zoroastrian paganism in Iran sent the defeated party to India.

    The failure of Mani sent the defeated party to India.

    Outside the followers of Mani, there were many other Sabiun-Nasara
    groups among Sakas, Albanians, Thelos, and possibly Hittite remnants.
    They were persecuted for heresy when they could not hide in the
    mountains. Therefore, they possibly sent some members to India.

    When Manichaeism spread in Central Asia, the defeated party could come
    to India.

    The Christianization of Armenia and its neighborhood probably sent the defeated party to India.

    Islamic invasion of Iran possibly sent a defeated party to India.
    Saffari Revolution of Muslim Ayars in Sistan possibly sent some
    non-Muslims to India. From Qiqan they went to Kankan.

    Each of the older revolutions contributed to what became Hinduism.
    There was no wall between India and its west. So people of unique
    importance duplicated in the border region according to the position
    they are given.

    A saint of the defeated party became the devil of the winning party.
    They were two images of the same person.

    An evil but highly influential priest by the name Zak, leader of the
    Kigs and Kharaps, opposed Zartusht (b.660BCE) in "Balkh" region.
    According to an Iranian story, defeated Zak fled to Tibet, which at
    that time began further west in Afghanistan.

    Since we find only Jakkha (Yaska) in Indian history, and he was from Paraskara desah, and of undated period, it is most likely that this Zak
    is Jakka, and Paraskara is Persia. There is a second possibility that
    Zak is Jakkha's father.

    The second option is less likely but we can keep it open at this stage
    since we do not know the exact time of Jakkha.

    The spirant should not stop the identification. Many Bangladeshi
    pronounce the letter for the palatal voiced unaspirated stop of the
    pundits almost as za, and the semivowel used in Sanskrit words for y as
    a consonant ja.

    In Turan, it appears, Yaykhan was hereditary title of the priests.
    These people were bad, as we see in Dede Korkut. Kafir king Soekli
    refused Prince Kazan's request for his captive mother.

    Soekli replied that he would give her to the son of Yaykhan the priest,
    and when the son of Yaykhan the priest would have a son, they would
    make this son an enemy of Prince Kazan.

    Gaumata (spelled Gaomata in an earlier post) was a magus. In India, a
    Magus was a Bhoja or Magha. Gaumata supported the cause of Bardiya
    (Smerdis), or assumed Bardiya's identity. This Bardiya appears to be
    the historical person behind Baladev (Balarama, Baladeva).

    There are scholars who studying only Hindu traditions concluded that
    Krishna story was superimposed on an older story of Baladev.

    These stories were much diffused before the padrees came to India. Here
    is one example. One suspects that Baladev was also the ultimate
    inspiration of the name Badiuzzamal of the Saiful Mulk story. Abdul
    Hakim (fl.1700?) was a Bengali poet who also wrote on Saiful Mulk.

    In Abdul Hakim's "Lalmoti Saiful Mulk" Saiful Mulk had two wives namely Lalmoti and Rokbanu. These two women compare with Radha (Lala) and
    Rukmini, two important wives of Krishna.

    For further information on Bardiya-Baladev and Chirst-Krishna duality
    search internet. See for example, "Deshi People." See also "The
    Parthian Connection" to be posted soon. A link to historical Bardiya: http://www.livius.org/sj-sn/smerdis/smerdis.html

    Those who claim that Krishna was in 1000BCE, can build their theory on
    the abundance of the name Kara/Kala among (presumably) white Japhetians meeting black (=krishna) people. In fact, Krishna himself fought a
    mighty Kala Jaban (Yavana). Suddenly a king of 3102BiChi fights the Indo-Greeks!

    In Krishna fighting Kala Javan, or Keshav and HrsiKesh (Krishna)
    fighting Keshi we may see a common sectarian tendency in old religious stories of undated and doubtful origin. The version of a competing
    group is discrediting the version of another group.

    Yet we see these names kept two names of Jesus. While Keshta (a Bengali
    form of Krishna) shows the Christ connection, (su)kesha interpreted as
    master (isha) of happiness (delight, aahlaad) shows the Jesus (Isa) connection.

    [I did not invent the interpretation of (su)kesha as master (isha) of happiness. A reference with the proper sibilants and aspirants can be
    found in Professor Bimanbehari Majumdar's "Krsna in History and
    Legend," Univ. of Calcutta, 1969. I only connected master with Isa.]

    If any of the Hindu books containing Hindu Krishna story was composed
    in India even before c.250BCE (forget 600BCE), we would have an
    inscription by Asoka the Great in that language.

    The fact is Asoka did not know their language, and they too could not
    read what Asoka wrote when half-Rajput Sultan Feroz Shah Tuglok, asked
    them to read one of the inscriptions discovered in his time.

    At present except that Besnagar inscription of Heliodorus mentioning Vaasudev, has been dated towards the end of the second century BCE, or
    at the beginning of the first century BCE, by some noted scholars, no
    other supposed proof of Hindu Krishna actually predates Parthian Jesus, though it may predates Greco-Roman Jesus.

    The allegation that Christian considerations affected the dating of the Indo-Parthian rulers is available in scholarly literature. However, it
    is not clearly understood that Indo-Parthian Jesus story could be older
    than the Greco-Roman story of Jesus.

    Faulty chronology is the main reason that people are overlooking
    powerful multiple-image theory of Jesus as evident in Bar Pantiri and carpenter, and in Hindu literature, in achutya (infallible=Krishna) and sutaja (son of a carpenter=Karna) to give some examples. For Karna
    between Christ and Krishna see "Sarathi, Chhutar and Bar Pantitri

    Yet this chronology does not have much basis. It reached present time
    by repeating an error that everything is all right when it was not. Now
    some sober historians care damn for its basis.

    I shall not make any comment about the time of Besnagar inscription
    now. The inscription is beyond my reach. One can see in the literature
    how the time of Antialkidas has been guessed. This type of guessing is
    most likely to hide error. In view of Alvar Ellegard's "Jesus--One
    Hundred Years before Christ," it is not much what we need.

    The main reason for my not making a comment on the Besnagar inscription
    is that my study of the real significance of vs sound in India among
    various immigrants with (ultimately) Ossetian connection is not yet

    I believe that Isadev (Jesudev) inspired the belief of Jesus-Krishna as Vasudev and Vaasudev. However, the vs sound has more significance and
    older elements could be mixed up.

    So far, we discussed about only one type of refugees, that is, the
    religious refugees. Other type of refugees also came to India. As
    population pressure increased from the west and from the
    Turko-Mongoloid worlds, weaker parties came to India.

    Vedic Saka invasion took place in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. During this time, there was strong Bani Sem presence in the
    Indus valley. Among them were Bani Aram, Pannis, and the so-called
    Dravidian group of Brahuis.

    Pannis appears to be a mixed Dehi-Cananites legacy in the east mostly connected with trade (panya=commodity). The Assyrians drove out
    Arameans from Hindan (in Iraq). Bani Aram caused the name Sind to come
    into existence in this part of the world.

    Earlier name of Sind was Meluhha, which is clearly a Malay-Molucca
    legacy in view of the extension of the Malay world from Malawi-Malagasy
    to Nusantara.

    However at that time difference among various Malay-Munda-Mon tribes
    was much less than what we perceive now. We see that some Munda tribes
    such as Suwars (Sabar) and Indo-Mongoloid Sharkis show possible Sind connection. Sind was also called Souvira. We can compare Santal Manjhi
    with Mohenjo.

    This word Meluhha has been identified with Pali milakkha. Those who
    hated the people of Meluhha as mleccha, today claim the credit for
    Indus Valley Civilization!

    It is due to the persistent efforts of few non-Indian scholars, today
    the common sense identification of Meluhha with mleccha is accepted
    among scholars. Many people are still chanting old garbage.

    I wonder how many people, scholars and idiots, read this article?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)