Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

--- 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

Other members of Cybalist might want to read the thread
too, as an example of the futility of trying to debate
anything with Shivraj Singh, and to see how the topics
he's bringing up only now on Cybalist have been covered
again and again before on the IndiaArchaeology list, to
no useful end.

> The debate on vedic Gods is the context where Dayananda was
> quoted. If you were to quote as an example David Duke does
> that make you Ku Klux Klan? Asking you to read Dayananda to
> clarify a point in a debate is *citing a reference*.

You've mentioned him several times before, and in more
than one context, but if you're claiming now that you
are no follower of his, then I'll take you at your word
and no longer claim so. 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.

> > 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.

> > The relevance is to the question of whether you're even
> > worth taking the trouble to debate. I doubt that many
> > people would care to waste their precious time debating
> > a fundamentalist, much less a puppet for such ideology.
>
> I have never been a sockpuppet on wikipedia. Left that
> forum many years back. No one is asking you to debate with
> us. We promise to not miss you! But we are happy to answer
> any and all of your questions.

Why do I trust the staff of Wikipedia, whom I don't even
know, more than yourself, I wonder?

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

David