Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Already given. As a follower of Dayananda [edit]
> >
> > No. Not a follower of Dayananda.
>
> I see then: not a follower, just someone who considers
> Dayananda's the last word on the interpretation of the
> Vedas and a must-read for everyone else.
>
> > > you believe in reincarnation
> >
> > Yes I do. If you do not know reincarnation has nothing to do
> > with Dayananda. You may want to follow this thread about rg veda
> > and reincarnation:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64821
>
> No, I already know what you think about reincarnation,
> and well remember your failed attempt to prove to the
> IndiaArchaeology list that it's mentioned in the Vedas,
> for which you may want to re-read _this_ thread:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/messages/6836?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
>

It was not a failed attempt. It is just an understanding issue on your part. You have to read each of the shlokas given in the two messages given below and then convince yourself (or better still try and convince us) why you still can't see re-incarnation in veda when it is quite clear.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64821
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64837

----David wrote:

> However, whether you consider
> yourself a Arya-Samaji or not, you and Dayananda share
> enough irrational ideas to prove my point: you wouldn't
> know science if it hit you in the head.
>

Science and logic go hand in hand. We can take the current discussion as an example.

Assertion is made No re-incarnation in vedas.
Many shlokas from rig veda are provided which refute the assertion.
Instead of discussing the shlokas you still keep repeating ad-nauseum no reincarnation in vedas.

Your stance is devoid of logic and hence un-scientific.
Is it because you have some agenda that does'nt let you see the obvious?

> > > Neither Panini nor any contributor to the Mahabharata
> > > was an historian or scientist of any sort that they
> > > would have last word, or any word for that matter, on
> > > the origin of the Rajputs.
> >
> > Then please explain who should have the last word on
> > the origin of rajputs and why?
>
> I don't think that I should, and I haven't tried to have
> it. I think that legitimate experts on the history of
> India should have the last words, not historically and
> scientifically uniformed dilletantes with transparently
> ethnocentric agendas like yourself, and certainly not
> fundamentalist cult leaders like Svami Dayananda either.

This is funny. And again devoid of logic.

Evidence for existence of rajputs as the foremost kshatriya group:
(From Sanskrit Literature)
a) Mahabharata mentions rajputs as the foremost kshatriyas.
b) Panini mentions rajputs as a group.


"Legitimate experts on the history of India" instead tell us that rajputs came into India from outside in 6th century A.D and that they were foreigners, were made to become hindus etc etc.

Now we know that Hindu caste groups have no influx of genes from foreigners (scientific data), there is practically no evdience for intermarriages between foreigners and Hindus etc.

So does it seem that Sanskrit literature was correct and the "legitimate experts" wrong?

> Have the last word, if you like, Shivraj. I'm done with
> you for the time being.
>

Please do not pass yourself as someone who knows or does science. Becuase you have made it clear that you would not know even if science hit you on the forehead.

-Shivraj