Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

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

> Dear List,
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>
> > Lack of evidence of such intermixing in the Hindu genes just re-
> > affirms what is already known that there were no marriage ties
> > between the Hindus and the foreigners. Now you have digged for many
> > days for large scale mixing of Hindu and foreign populations and
> > you have not been able to unearth much. Don't you think there is a
> > reason for it?
> >
> > You have not provided any evidence. You have to show what was the
> > religion of these groups before their conversion to Hinduism, who
> > was converted by whom and how. There is a very specific reason why
> > I am asking you this question. Reason is in Hinduism prior to the
> > medieval times there was no "recipe" to make you a Hindu. You were
> > either born a Hindu or not. You could not "convert" to Hinduism.
>
>
> Before I drop this discussion with Shivraj, leaving him feel content with the thought to have "won" it, I want to share with you all some further pieces of evidence and circumstantial arguments for the hinduisation of the Indo-Greeks (Yavanas), Indo-Scythians (Sakas) and White Hephthalites (Hunas) and their consequent intermarrying with Hindu caste people in the early centuries of the current era.
>
> In the course of this discussion Shivraj has, of course, carefully avoided to address the most cogent issue I have raised, that is, the fact that ancient Brahmanical texts (e.g., some doctrinal sections of the Mahabharata, the Laws of Manu, etc.) classify the foreign Yavanas, Sakas, Pahlavas etc. as a peculiar sub-class of sudras who, in acknowledgment to their political and military supremacy, were nevertheless labeled by the brahmanas as "degraded" (vratya) kshatriyas. <....snipped the repetition of your arguments for the nth time....>
>

Francesco you are not following (deliberately?) some fundamental points in this debate:

a) Yavans of Sanskrit Literature *were not* Greeks. Please read these sanskrit texts with this in mind. Reference: [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64890%5d

b) Hinduism had no formula to convert anyone to hinduism. The reason why you are not able to find any evidence for such conversions is because it just did not happen. What you repeated ad-nauseum is just the assumption of historians (Infact in the very first post on this forum I had requested you for a list of evidence and not a list of historians because I have read the same historians many a times and have not found any data that backs up their claims. This is why you are having such difficulty in digging up primary sources that back up your claims).

c) Genetic Data is confirming points a) and b). Hence textual evidence from Sanskrit literature is backed up by modern Genetic science.

Since you are dis-regarding both the textual evidence (because you want to just read it only one way which lets you see your assumptions/POV in it) and the scientific data now you owe it to us Francesco and please do tell what agenda: political, religious or otherwise of yours is letting you remain opaque?

Regards,
Shivraj